Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been calling for an end to our form of capitalism for decades and I have never run away from my statements. The irony is that my form of Liberalism calls for an open capitalist market for everyone from the bottom to the top with opportunity for everyone. I have no tolerance for economic exclusivity and/or monopoly. I believe that someone living on his family's investments without doing any work himself is just as much on welfare as a poor mother with three kids. Both are receiving income they do not work for. The difference is the source of the money and the fact the scion of the wealthy costs the society much more to maintain.
LOL. Perhaps you'd like to provide citations and historical references to enumerate those differences rather than just saying "it's so"?
From yahoo ask:
"Like socialism and communism, fascism uses a central authority to maintain control"
So, they could not be more different, eh?
Alright, I'll try but it will probably fall on deaf ears.
First of all, your quote above confuses the economic system with the political system which supports it. They aren't the same thing.
Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
In other words, ownership of the means of production by The People via the government. The government owns the factories, owns the mines, owns everything. In the extreme case of Communism, there is no private property at all. However, in most avowedly Socialist countries, it only goes so far as the government ownership of basic industries, public transportation and utilities. Private property isn't restricted beyond those few things.
Does that sound like our government under the Democrats, or under the Republican's?
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini
Under Fascism, private property is not curtailed. The means of production remain in private hands, but they take their marching orders from government. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby the government and industry are entertwined for the profit of both. The government functionaries who oversee the economy come from that economy and, likewise, the government has it's people managing industry. The hallmark of such a system is a revolving door between government and corporations. The industrialist's get wealthy off the back of the government and the government gets the tools it needs to expand itself at a price which can be afforded. That's the system of Nazi Germany.
Does that sound like our government under the Democrats, or under the Republican's?
As for the difference between Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism, I'll let Ron Paul speak to that with his brilliant address on the floor of House in 2003, entitled, "We've been Neo-Conned."
Alright, I'll try but it will probably fall on deaf ears.
First of all, your quote above confuses the economic system with the political system which supports it. They aren't the same thing.
Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
In other words, ownership of the means of production by The People via the government. The government owns the factories, owns the mines, owns everything. In the extreme case of Communism, there is no private property at all. However, in most avowedly Socialist countries, it only goes so far as the government ownership of basic industries, public transportation and utilities. Private property isn't restricted beyond those few things.
Does that sound like our government under the Democrats, or under the Republican's?
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini
Under Fascism, private property is not curtailed. The means of production remain in private hands, but they take their marching orders from government. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby the government and industry are entertwined for the profit of both. The government functionaries who oversee the economy come from that economy and, likewise, the government has it's people managing industry. The hallmark of such a system is a revolving door between government and corporations. The industrialist's get wealthy off the back of the government and the government gets the tools it needs to expand itself at a price which can be afforded. That's the system of Nazi Germany.
Does that sound like our government under the Democrats, or under the Republican's?
As for the difference between Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism, I'll let Ron Paul speak to that with his brilliant address on the floor of House in 2003, entitled, "We've been Neo-Conned."
Yes, but your original assertion was that "they could not be more different". Since many characteristics of socialism and fascism are intertwined, it would disagree with your (emotionally charged) assessment.
Fascism is still based on the idea of government owned businesses. They are merely owned by proxy through corporate interests. It is more similar to socialism than is realized.
Also, a common motto in socialist countries is that "everyone is equal -- some are just more equal than others". Some in this case refers to friends and family of military commanders and commissars/bureaucrats.
Yes, but your original assertion was that "they could not be more different". Since many characteristics of socialism and fascism are intertwined, it would disagree with your (emotionally charged) assessment.
Fascism is still based on the idea of government owned businesses. They are merely owned by proxy through corporate interests. It is more similar to socialism than is realized.
Also, a common motto in socialist countries is that "everyone is equal -- some are just more equal than others". Some in this case refers to friends and family of military commanders and commissars/bureaucrats.
Go read some history on what the Nazi's really did to "true communists and socialists." They hate them as much as the Jews, and treated them the same (some say worse).
That is why the campaign into Russia was so damn bloody on the civilian front; it was nearly an extermination via scorched earth policy.
Monetizing the debt, seems to be underway as we speak, as a last ditch effort to save the economy.
Has that ever worked?
Didn't Socialism rise from this very exact situation in 1930's Germany??
Sometimes I swear that bringing inflation and destroying the US dollar has been Øbama's goal, the insane deficit did not do it, so now he is simply printing money. I guess this is one way to get to $5 a gallon gasoline.
Go read some history on what the Nazi's really did to "true communists and socialists." They hate them as much as the Jews, and treated them the same (some say worse).
That is why the campaign into Russia was so damn bloody on the civilian front; it was nearly an extermination via scorched earth policy.
That is complete BS. The Nazi's fought side by side with the Communists. They shared the same goals in every apsect of their ideology. Hitler turned on Stalin over greed and power. They both originally planned to split the continent of Europe and share power over the continent.
BTW genius, killing civilians was common place in WWII, it had nothing to do with exterminating anyone.
Sometimes I swear that bringing inflation and destroying the US dollar has been Øbama's goal, the insane deficit did not do it, so now he is simply printing money. I guess this is one way to get to $5 a gallon gasoline.
What do you mean "sometimes" you think that way? That IS what is happening and all these people who call themselves intelligent are far from it because they just simply refuse to believe this is the case and scoff at you when you suggest it. The joke is on ANYONE who refuses to believe this. They will find out the really hard way and will not be prepared for it because they think they know it all.
That is complete BS. The Nazi's fought side by side with the Communists. They shared the same goals in every apsect of their ideology. Hitler turned on Stalin over greed and power. They both originally planned to split the continent of Europe and share power over the continent.
BTW genius, killing civilians was common place in WWII, it had nothing to do with exterminating anyone.
^ this
Hitler needed scapegoats to focus his people on. Communists for political reasons and Jews for his own personal ones.
Monetizing the debt, seems to be underway as we speak, as a last ditch effort to save the economy.
Has that ever worked?
Didn't Socialism rise from this very exact situation in 1930's Germany??
OK if we monetize the debt but do it carefuly we can have a 200% inflation of GDP and that would get the total debt to GDP ratio down to about 150% of GDP from about 350%. This would create a sustainable debt load and fix the housing bubble among other things. It can work but you have to do it intentionally and with a lot of forethought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
