I like Capitalism, but if i had to choose between Socialism and Fascism, i pick Fascism (fence, deported)

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by Yooperkat

You can't choose.

It is capitalism. For the betterment of society.

I wonder if they understand what the word capital means?

[Winter_Sucks]

Let's see, if I had to choose between living in fascist Germany or socialist Norway, I would choose Norway.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Control of the state and power. The sounds just like all of us wight-wingers...

Pretty much since the rise of fascism has always arisen as a right-wing reaction to threats from the left. This was the case in pre-war Italy where Mussolini's Black Shirts violently attack socialist and communist, trade unions, and acted as strike breakers for their corporate patrons. The same pattern was emulated in fascist Spain, Germany and more recently in countries like Chile, and other south and central American nations. And unlike their socialist and communist nemesis in not one single country under fascist control was were corporate interest threatened or challenged other than in the false rhetoric espoused to gain the support of frustrated and deluded members of the working classes. Yes, BigJon, fascism is most certainly a right-wing movement and an anathema to liberal society just as much as its left wing cousin communism.

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by WalkTheLine

How is that any different than what it would be like under socialism?

Well going by the U.S. posters on these boards, that should by extension mean Norway, Sweden, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, and the U.K. among a host of others, should all be killing their citizens and repressing freedoms! Aren't all those countries Socialist according to the folks on here. After all, they provide universal health care and don't have a 2nd Amendment.

You go ahead though; go for that fascism thingy and let us all know how that works out for ya. I forgot, your access to the internet and these boards would no longer be acceptable. Just tie a message onto that carrier pidgeon, if you haven't had to eat it for lundh that is.

[noela]

Sometimes I think that true believers in democracy, individual rights and so forth are few and far between. For some self-proclaimed pro-freedom people to see fascism as a lesser evil and to even suggest that it's not so bad is quite frankly astonishing.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

I wonder if they understand what the word capital means?

The capitolists co-opted the dang capitalists.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by noela

Sometimes I think that true believers in democracy, individual rights and so forth are few and far between. For some self-proclaimed pro-freedom people to see fascism as a lesser evil and to even suggest that it's not so bad is quite frankly astonishing.

Not when you think about it because fascism always arises from those who claim that a fascist state is the only way to save "freedom". It is a natural progression for the right when their interest are threatened.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Pretty much since the rise of fascism has always arisen as a right-wing reaction to threats from the left.

The Nazis stepped up their harassment of their political opponents, and the March 5 election was held in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Polling 44 percent of the votes, the Nazis won 288 seats in the Reichstag. With the support of their conservative nationalist allies, who held 52 seats, the Nazis controlled a majority of the 647 member Reichstag. The Nazi majority was even more substantial, since none of the 81 Communist deputies were allowed to take their seats.

On the surface that would look to be accurate. In reality the entire government was left-wing...

It was the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933, which in a legal way conferred dictatorial powers on Adolf Hitler. Only 94 Social Democratic votes were cast against it. The date for its abrogation (see Article 5) was never kept. Indeed, the Enabling Act is the last measure which the Reichstag passed under the republican and democratic Constitution of the Republic. It spelled its end and the beginning of National Socialist dictatorship.

Hitler's Rise to Power

That means 132 Social Democrats voted with the Nazis. So to tally the count.

132 Social Democrats.
52 Conservative Nationalist.
288 Nazis.

For a total of 472 pro-Nazi officials. National Socialism, Nazism, was born.

None of those members were for economic freedom and Hitler only gave lip service to the few capitalist that remained and protected them as long as they were for the state, and power.

Nazi regimentation extended to the economic sphere, although the property and profits of the capitalists were protected. In practical terms, the word "socialist" in the name of the Nazi Party did not refer to the nationalization of the means of production but rather to requiring the economy to serve the interests of the state.
Hitler succeeded in reducing unemployment by initiating public works projects, including the construction of superhighways (autobahns), and establishing the Labor Service to provide jobs for young workers who could not find employment in the private sector. In 1936, the Four Year Plan was launched with the purpose of promoting economic self-sufficiency and of mobilizing the economy for war.

Hitler's Rise to Power

In other words, Nazism, was an abomination of a bunch of mixed ideologies with one gaol in mind for its dear fuhrer. The destruction of Jews and control of the state and power and the eventual domination of the entire planet. That message should sound eerily familiar because in the name of "power to the people" the same thing occurred in every single socialist state from Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union of Socialist Republics to Mao's Peoples Republic of China (PRC).

The same goal occurred every single time no matter the leader. Control of the state and power.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

This was the case in pre-war Italy where Mussolini's Black Shirts violently attack socialist and communist, trade unions, and acted as strike breakers for their corporate patrons.

Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

Internet History Sourcebooks

The way I see this, and correct me if you see it another way, is that there will always be people who have control of corporations and to dismiss this is delusional. Therefore, if the dictator is to control the state and power he must also control the means of production by allowing those that know how to have the power of the means of production to do their thing because it doesn't matter one bit if the dictator still controls the whole game.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

The same pattern was emulated in fascist Spain, Germany and more recently in countries like Chile, and other south and central American nations. And unlike their socialist and communist nemesis in not one single country under fascist control was were corporate interest threatened or challenged other than in the false rhetoric espoused to gain the support of frustrated and deluded members of the working classes.

They've all used the frustrated working class for their own political and economic gain, that we agree. The point to which I disagree is that the left espouses state power, of which all of those ideologies use, while the right espouses power to the people or what used to be known as classic liberalism, which follows capitalist theory and free markets, allow free interchanges between agreeing parties. If they don't agree, they don't have an exchange.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Yes, BigJon, fascism is most certainly a right-wing movement and an anathema to liberal society just as much as its left wing cousin communism.

(Thanks for getting my name right.) This is where I disagree. A liberal society should have free markets, free enterprises and freedoms to do as they please. The entire Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Collectivism all have one thing in common. The control, and power, is in the hands of the state and is delegated to its people (however limited). The right-wing ideology would be what we today call classic-liberalism. The operand being classic. Today's liberalism is the antithesis of classic-liberalism which means the definition of being liberated has done a 180 which means it's reverted right back to its age old collectivist ideology. In other words progress isn't progressiveness, it's individualism.

[geeoro]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Really? The populace doesn't regret it. The people in charge of running things are smacking themselves in the head harder and harder by the minute.

What are you babbling on about???????????????
I was born and brought up in a Socialistic Country and NO the people do not regret it and NO they do not want greed and corruption that the word capitalist now means. Capitalism and Socialism working together is the only way that either can succeed........ ask the many entrepreneurs in the UK

[BigJon3475]

I guess I could see a larger argument that goes under proclamations that individualism is actually reverting back to an even further back time in history before hominids. Something more instinctual.