Bush,conservatives, and Fascism

[palerider]

In 2006 the federal government spent 92 billion on subsidies and tax breaks for such needy recipients as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, GE, and Dow Chemical. I don't know about you, but that's my definition of "corporate welfare".

If you levy a tax on a busines, exactly who do you think pays that tax?

 

[palerider]

Stalin and Hitler were both socially Authoritarian, But economically Stalin was a pure Socialist, while Hitler's economic policies were more a blend of both State and Private Sector. A more Keynesian Theory towards the economy.

In nazi germany one could not own, or manage a business or industry if one were not a "party" man. If you were not a member in good standing of the party, then you would loose your business. Further, being a "party" man also meant that you would not be likely to hire non party individuals and by that means, pressure could be placed on the citizenry to join the party. Under the nazis, your name could be on the deed, but you were required to do business as directed by bureaucrats appointed to you by the government. Explain how that is different than state ownership in a way that would make one right and one left.

If I let you keep your name on a thing but tell you exactly what you may or may not do with that thing, I, in reality, own both the thing and you if you are willing to operate under that set of rules in order to at least maintain the illusion of being in charge.

I find that most of what you are saying is that conservativism is on the right, and any other social or economic political philosphy is on the left.

Not all, but socialist ideologies simply are not, and can not be accurately portrayed as conservativism.

 

[palerider]

An iron fist and a grasping hand? If we had a smaller government, they would have less to pay for, and more to spend helping the people.

I can't speak for the UK, but here, the great bulk of our government consists of agencies and bureaucrats who are supposedly there to help the poor. So many, in fact, that barely 25 cents from each dollar actually gets to the people who are supposed to be helped. My bet would be that in the UK, the bureaucracy is equally bloated and inefficent. Government is what it is and inefficient is at the top of the list of things that it is.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

In nazi germany one could not own, or manage a business or industry if one were not a "party" man. If you were not a member in good standing of the party, then you would loose your business. Further, being a "party" man also meant that you would not be likely to hire non party individuals and by that means, pressure could be placed on the citizenry to join the party. Under the nazis, your name could be on the deed, but you were required to do business as directed by bureaucrats appointed to you by the government. Explain how that is different than state ownership in a way that would make one right and one left.

If I let you keep your name on a thing but tell you exactly what you may or may not do with that thing, I, in reality, own both the thing and you if you are willing to operate under that set of rules in order to at least maintain the illusion of being in charge.

You could "own" though, couldn't you. What you are describing, in my humble opinion, is the authoritarian aspect of Nazi germany. I originally said Stalin was a far left Authoritarian, while Hitler was a slightly "right leaning" Authoritarian. I stand by that statement. In a 4 quadrant political map Stalin would be in the upper left corner (Authoritarian Socialist), while Hitler would be in the upper center and slightly to the right (Fascist).

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Not all, but socialist ideologies simply are not, and can not be accurately portrayed as conservativism.

"Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

"Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State."

- Mussolini

 

[top gun]

It was a gain. I'd hardly call it a "huge" gain since every time I pick up a newspaper one headline or another is shouting, "Democrats have insufficient numbers to pass anti-war legislation!"

Kind of like this one: http://www.yahoo.com/s/681894

We would appear to have different opinions on the word "huge."

Well I'm pretty sure the actual number of seats picked up speak for themselves. That's a lot of seats in just one election cycle.

The Dems are still blocked by Republicans and a presidential veto to pass anti-war legislation. If it were a simple majority it would have been done long ago. The Dems need 60 votes to invoke cloture and cut off debate, thereby ending a filibuster. Then they need 67 to override a presidential veto.

2/3 of 100 is a big numbers to get to. My guess is the Dems will get the presidency and the numbers in Congress in the same election. So for now the Republicans block and irritate people into that direction.

I wish the troops didn't have to wait... but it is what it is.

 

[palerider]

You could "own" though, couldn't you. What you are describing, in my humble opinion, is the authoritarian aspect of Nazi germany. I originally said Stalin was a far left Authoritarian, while Hitler was a slightly "right leaning" Authoritarian. I stand by that statement. In a 4 quadrant political map Stalin would be in the upper left corner (Authoritarian Socialist), while Hitler would be in the upper center and slightly to the right (Fascist).

Very naive. In correspondence to Herman Rauschning regarding his particular brand of socialism, hitler said:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state...Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

If, as the owner of a shoe factory, or a financial institution you did not conduct your busines in exactly the manner dictated to you by nazi bureaucrats assigned to oversee your business, you would find yourself in a cattle car to nowhere, and a new "owner" would be assigned to your factory.

Describe for me exactly what value there is to having one's name on a deed of ownership if the state dictates exactly what will be done with the property and how and what it will produce and reserves the right to remove your name from the deed of ownership if you deviate from their orders and replace your name with another of their choosing. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The nazi party demanded the great bulk of any profits that "your" company made as well.

"Ownership" means nothing if the owner has no freedom to decide exactly what to do with that which he owns. If I give you a horse, but reserve the right to tell you when you may and may not ride the horse, or who you may let ride it, and what and when it is to be fed, and where you must keep it, do you really believe that you own the horse?

hitler was a socialist and there is nothing "right" about socialism.

 

[palerider]

"Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State."

- Mussolini

Fascism addressed the "problem" of ownership by reserving the right to separate you from "your" property if you didn't do as the state directed and place a new and more cooperative "owner's" name on the deed to the property. Fascism was, and remains socialism.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Fascism addressed the "problem" of ownership by reserving the right to separate you from "your" property if you didn't do as the state directed and place a new and more cooperative "owner's" name on the deed to the property. Fascism was, and remains socialism.

Fascism was, and remains a Totalitarian/Authoritarian philosophy, that economically greatly differs from Socialism.

I disagree with you.

 

[Coyote]

I hear that term bandied about a lot but no one says what they mean by it. Tell me, what exactly, is "corporate welfare" and how does it amount to an expansion of government?

Corporate welfare is subsidizing business's. In terms of expanding the government you have increased regulation that favors business' and decreased regulation that favor's the individual consumer. Neither "conservatives" nor "liberals" seem to really want less government - just less of a certain type of government.

A classical liberal and a modern conservative are the same thing and to know what they want, refer to your constitution. Few liberals would be happy living under a government that was actually constrained by the constitution.

Is a classical liberal then a libertarian?

 

[palerider]

Fascism was, and remains a Totalitarian/Authoritarian philosophy, that economically greatly differs from Socialism.

I disagree with you.

Well disagree all you like, but your disagreement means nothing unless you can substantiate it.

Fascist governments left a person's name on the deeds to property but reserved the right to tell them exactly what use the property would be put to. For example, if you owned a shoe factory that made ladies shoes, the government could compell you to make combat boots, or back packs, or parachutes, or bullets. If you argued that you only made ladies shoes, your name would no longer be located on the deed to said property, you would promptly dissappear and a new name would appear.

Now explain how that "differs greatly" from socialism which simply took the property, decided what the property would be used for, and decided who would run the property. I have looked closely but can find no difference between the two beyond a person's name written in pencil on the deed. In either case, the state controlled the means of production. How is one socialism and one not and how does one lean left and one lean right if in essence they are the same?

 

[palerider]

Corporate welfare is subsidizing business's. In terms of expanding the government you have increased regulation that favors business' and decreased regulation that favor's the individual consumer. Neither "conservatives" nor "liberals" seem to really want less government - just less of a certain type of government.

In order to believe in corporate welfare, one must first be living under the illusion that all corporate income actually belongs to the state and any that does not go back to the state constitutes welfare. It is like suggesting that being allowed to deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage is middle class welfare. The concept simply doesn't fly when confronted with the facts.

The term "corporate welfare" is a ruse whose disgusting purpose is to earase any moral distinciton between what one earns and what one sucks from the government teat.

Is a classical liberal then a libertarian?

No. On purely economic matters conservatives and libertarians would track pretty closely, but on social matters, libertarians more closely mirror liberals. Libertarian philosophy, like liberal philosophy has a paradox at it's core so that if it is allowed to progress along towards its logical end, it will inevetably become the very thing that it claimed, in the beginning to be against.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Well disagree all you like, but your disagreement means nothing unless you can substantiate it.

Now explain how that "differs greatly" from socialism which simply took the property, decided what the property would be used for, and decided who would run the property. I have looked closely but can find no difference between the two beyond a person's name written in pencil on the deed. In either case, the state controlled the means of production. How is one socialism and one not and how does one lean left and one lean right if in essence they are the same?

The corporate aspects of Fascism are what make it differ so greatly from what Socialism really is. In Fascism, the corporations exist as a private or partially-private (government-subsidized) entity, under a director who owes his allegiance to the party. in socialism, the corporation exists under direct ownership of the state, under a director, a party affiliate, installed directly by the state.

Even if you want to call it semantics, the goal of socialism is redistribution while the goal of fascism is centralization of power.

 

[palerider]

The corporate aspects of Fascism are what make it differ so greatly from what Socialism really is. In Fascism, the corporations exist as a private or partially-private (government-subsidized) entity, under a director who owes his allegiance to the party. in socialism, the corporation exists under direct ownership of the state, under a director, a party affiliate, installed directly by the state.

Even if you want to call it semantics, the goal of socialism is redistribution while the goal of fascism is centralization of power.

Tell me, how exactly do you redistribute the resources of a nation without first centralizing power? Can you honestly say that the power in the governments of lenin, or stalin, or mao, or pol pot or any of the other great leftist dictators was not centrailized? Describe to me how the means of production existing under the direct ownership of the state, and directed and controlled by the state dosn't constitute a centralization of power.

Your bias is blocking your intelligence. You clearly don't like fascism, but are failing at every effort to demonstrate that it is right wing ideology at work. Face it, fascism is socialism and no amount of mental masturbation is going to make it anything else.

And once again, feel free to disagree until the cows come home, but unless you can substantiate that dissagreement, it does't mean a thing.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Tell me, how exactly do you redistribute the resources of a nation without first centralizing power? Can you honestly say that the power in the governments of lenin, or stalin, or mao, or pol pot or any of the other great leftist dictators was not centrailized? Describe to me how the means of production existing under the direct ownership of the state, and directed and controlled by the state dosn't constitute a centralization of power.

Your bias is blocking your intelligence. You clearly don't like fascism, but are failing at every effort to demonstrate that it is right wing ideology at work. Face it, fascism is socialism and no amount of mental masturbation is going to make it anything else.

And once again, feel free to disagree until the cows come home, but unless you can substantiate that dissagreement, it does't mean a thing.

Again, refer back to the first page of this thread...

I never suggested Fascism was "right wing thinking" or associated it with traditional conservative philosophy.

My arguments have been:

1. A standard Left/Right political spectrum is inadequate in describing many varying social and economic political philosophies. But it's simplicity and generalization give you comfort

2. Hitler was Right of Stalin. and in a 4 quadrant political spectrum that i prefer, Hitler would be slightly right of center economically.

You know elitism was an aspect of Fascism too. You demonstrate it very well on these boards.