The original fascism and socialism thread - no trolls

[Galt]

Corporate -> Production
State -> State...

So fascism is in fact state ownership of the means of production. Now where have I heard that before...?

"Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State" - K. Marx

[Galt]

A corporation is a limited private company, ie the shareholders get off scot free if the company goes under owing money.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp

Definition of 'Corporation'
A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes.

The most important aspect of a corporation is limited liability. That is, shareholders have the right to participate in the profits, through dividends and/or the appreciation of stock, but are not held personally liable for the company's debts.

Corporation does not equal "production". I suggest a dictionary and a guide to economics for 3 year olds.

Which is why I didn't use an equal sign. Like, duh?

[beats me]

Is this an expert thread or a serious thread, or both, or neither?

[mikemc]

so "izquotes.com" is good, and Merriam Webster is not?

Fascism is like another italian invention: pizza. Just as you can have it with or without mushrooms, you can have fascism with or without capitalism.

It is "top down authoritarian rule" like a corporation is run. Hence your quote re: "corporatism", some PR by Il Douchie, that is, it's like a company. The individuals are incorporated into the whole and ruled in a way that forces them to move as one body to serve corporate goals set by a dictatorial CEO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

The notion is that there is a natural oligarchy, a minority, that knows what's best for everybody (especially when it comes to what's best for them) and a mindless majority who can never be other than that. But, as was said earlier, whehter it is socialist of not depends on which method is used to manage and distribute resources that is chosen by the oligarchy.

If an oligarchy says "if you have two coats, give away one, OR ELSE" it is a fascist implementation of socialism which would please the fellow on the right of the illustration.

If, instead, the people as a whole are imbued with a sense of social duty, respect and love for fellow man because the law of "do unto others" is indeed the one law from which all other law derives and by this they are moved to share their extra coat with one who does not have one, then that is the sort of socialism espoused by the fellow on the left in the illustration.

Now, where the extra coat came from in both cases is a mystery, but I'm pretty sure it didn't come from the five year plan BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PERMIT EXTRA COATS.

[umpteenth edit sorry] also this is funny so I'm SHARING it:

[glenn303]

Seems people still get confused. I will attempt to make things easy...



clue, the socialist is on the left

So by posting this picture are you trying to tell us that Socialism and Fascism don't really exist?

[re:dream]

--- edited - sorry, don't want to derail Funken's thread; I will take my slightly OT question out & start another thread. As you were.

[Galt]

Also, can I just add here, fascism can only ever become powerful when socialist forces are weakened. In Germany socialism was still highly popular, but the two main socialist parties, the SPD (Social Democratic Party) and KPD (Communists) were crippled by hopeless leaders.

Says you.

[mikemc]

When people get passionate about politics it is my reaction to get them riled up. Because the dialog is good, and because I don't really have any of that passion anymore.

The reason for that is because I live in a modern country where politics is to the point where it doesn't really seem to help the majority of people anymore.

Here is the outline of the typical successful life that a typical person in a modern country can reasonably expect to live out:

They are born into a family with two parents, usually both parents work and earn wages, but sometimes it's one or one works a little less than the other.

You get to the age where you attend preschool, and you might spend a significant amount of time in daycare for your years in grade school. You have enough to eat, there is entertainment and activities. You get sick from time to time, but rarely extremely ill. You go through to high school then college/university, based on a particular interest as well as aptitudes you have. Life gets more serious, and there may be some significant difficulty, because it may be you don't do as well as you'd like and you've taken on debt. You weather this and get to as point where you need to start working to support yourself. You do this, and then you pay for your own room and board, maybe sharing a place with one or several "room mates" that allows you to live in a better condition.

You work for a few decades and get better at what you do, you change jobs because you want to, get laid off due to mergers and business failures: you have several employers. You become too old to work a full week, then you work less, then you get very sick for a long time and you die, or you die suddenly.

You may have married along the way and had children, which drain your finances and energy faster, but you have some social programs and savings that ensure you don't starve, and some late life government medical and if you have some children who care that helps you afford a lingering death, which occurs 7-8 decades after you were born.

A lot of politics went into helping make sure more and more people would live that outline. Basically, the most politics will do going forward is to help "outliers", with disabilities or other very real and unfortunate circumstances be able to live that narrative. Which is good, and maybe during the outline life they contribute to charity or get involved to help those in that situation.

But really, that's all you can reasonably expect, it is not guaranteed and requires your effort, sometimes painful effort. Also, you may somehow raise a lot of capital to start a business. Which is not out of the question, it depends on how motivated you are and a lot of other things, but it is an option and as a result you will live materially better, but the general outline is the same.

Political efforts become less in aid of the majority, and more to aid the outliers. Which is ok, that's great, everyone should be able to have a good life.

So I'm worried about bills, and unexpected expenses, and my kids doing well if I have kids. But I'm not constantly worried about my ethnic alignment, my safety, my ability to communicate... mostly I'm worried about normal day to day crap.

So there is a great deal of complacency in the modern world, and a general belief that people who are spending their energy in other countries on things like ethnic and religious conflicts are endlessly tiresome and pointlessly wasteful. So is the person living the outline of typical success the modern proletarian, or the modern bourgeoisie?

During the outline life, what really sucks is when you do what the company you work for wants you to do, you get good reviews and even so you get laid off.

You get unemployment, but it is half your pay. This makes your life difficult and you want the world's population dead and the planet cast into the Sun because it's pointless. But that's what video games are for! So you play those while you look for your next job, older and wiser, inching ever closer to death.

[beats me]

But that's what video games are for! So you play those while you look for your next job, older and wiser, inching ever closer to death.

My PS4 was DOA. In keeping with your narrative it is truly the only thing that is stressing me out at the moment.

I’m living proof it’s possible to live in the moment.

[leisuremuffin]

that's nice for you that you live that kind of life and live it among people where it is completely normal.

if you take a look around you might find that it is not so guaranteed for everyone. even here in the US.

right now we can live in our own lives, without compassion and empathy for others. right now we can live in the short term, without concern for the future. but right now doesn't last forever.

[Galt]

that's nice for you that you live that kind of life and live it among people where it is completely normal.

if you take a look around you might find that it is not so guaranteed for everyone. even here in the US.

right now we can live in our own lives, without compassion and empathy for others. right now we can live in the short term, without concern for the future. but right now doesn't last forever.

"In the long run, we're all dead"

- John M. Keynes, a.k.a Helicopter Ben, a.k.a Sir Barry Obama KBE

[beats me]

that's nice for you that you live that kind of life and live it among people where it is completely normal.

if you take a look around you might find that it is not so guaranteed for everyone. even here in the US.

right now we can live in our own lives, without compassion and empathy for others. right now we can live in the short term, without concern for the future. but right now doesn't last forever.

I have sympathy and empathy for people but it can be kind of hard to put things in perspective living where I live. Right down the street from me is where all the young tech rich hang out paying airport prices for drinks. I live a comfortable life but I’m also 41 years old and live in an apartment with a roommate because that’s my best option. To those people I am a failure on some level and they would be horrified to think they would be living in my situation 20 years from now. Ironically the way things are heading they will probably live in a worse situation 20 years from now.

Regardless I think we all struggle with our existence and what might seem extremely trivial in the global picture is still very real to the individual and it’s hard to step back and go “Wow, I’m a stupid asshole”.

[Galt]

Now listen here Troll, by all means challenge me, and I will thrash you soundly, but give me something to work with. Posts like this are useless. A child of two could articulate him/herself better.

I challenge you a lot already. I'd challenge you more, but this forum is inundated enough as it is with random, off-topic, Marxist quotes, and you still haven't answered the question of how you intend to intelligently allocate resources once the workers of the world unite to elect you Benevolent Dictator Supreme.

Incidentally, my "useless" post was an imitation of your posting style, so I guess you do realise how superfluous you are. You're like a Katy Perry video—bad enough to be entertaining, but ultimately forgettable.

What Marxists need to understand is that, today, nobody cares about them any more. Those who did care are long dead, often at the hands of Marxists.

[mikemc]

All very interesting but was it meant for a thread on fascism?

I see what you did there, but not so fast! According to the title, it's a thread on fascism AND socialism.

Unless the socialism isn't really there, like they named that country The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but it really wasn't socilaist?

Here's what I really think about politics, isms, etc.. People were/are tribal for the vast majority of their time as sentient political beings. Families consolidated as tribe for practical reasons. Tribes were consolidated for well known practical reasons, to form town/city/nation type amalgams for reasons both practical and kind of impractical.

Various tribes had various structures, some patriarchies, some matriarchies, but in their essence they were an extra-familial group of people who trusted one another and who they truly wanted to help out one another mutually. Often there is a ruling family, or several ruling families, but not always: often it was a series of interlocking clans who had leaders, either male or female. Some tribes were very very authoritarian, in a way few would submit to. The Zulu, for example, would need to prove themselves worthy and loyal to the king before they king would allow them to marry: this ensured reproduction of loyal subjects.

So people are tribal in their essence, and mostly they want to be part of a tribe. Tribes are relatively socialist, many things in the tribe were shared, but definitely not all things. There has always been private property. but you can also pull up stakes and create your own tribe if you just don't agree.

Nations go to great lengths to be a hyper-extended tribe for the people in the nation. If they really are that way then the people are happy, if they are only trying to seem to be that way then people are unhappy and will at some point "have enough" and revolt.

So what I don't like about capitalism is that it tends to ensure that oligarchies are created that eschew the notion of being part of the larger tribe and which strive to serve their own ends.

At the same time, a person who gets a little bit better off than his nearest kindred is often pulled down by them if they aren't careful.

All of us want not to be limited by external constraints. We want to do as much as we can of the things that make us truly happy. But we want the tribe to help us out when we're down, and we like to help the tribe when we're up and it's down, so there is some discipline involved in keeping the tribe going. But we also want to be channeled into those things that are good for us and for all, and where we can excel and enjoy.

As a result, no one system is in effect all the time, it is socialist at times, and it is fascist at times. That's the reality-- when it goes too far to one side or the other it goes bad, sometimes horribly bad.

The reason that a backwards country can't be socialist is because to be socialist on a national scale you have to have a country "pre-built", so there is all that great stuff to share. How is it built? Many of the countries that have tried it were all built by capitalist forces, often under a dictatorial regime.

Not sure how to change it other than to mix one up and mix the other one down from time to time.

[re:dream]

The reason that a backwards country can't be socialist is because to be socialist on a national scale you have to have a country "pre-built", so there is all that great stuff to share. How is it built? Many of the countries that have tried it were all built by capitalist forces, often under a dictatorial regime.

Interestingly, only 'backwards' countries have ever had (or attempted to have) socialist revolutions.

Marx thought that socialism would be most likely to arise in the most highly developed capitalist countries. But ironically, the most 'advanced' capitalist countries seem today least likely to have revolutions - or even deep systemic transformations - of any kind. And the places where 'socialist' revolutions have been proclaimed or attempted are the backwaters of the world.