 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
"Fascism is a form of leftism, just more free that traditional socialism."
It's more of a nationalist, socialist, workers party...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Well, Ned, if you use your own individual set of weights and measures, don't be surprised when your projects don't come out right.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 03-05-2005 at 23:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Never mind the nagging trend that people on the left of the economic axis tend to be lessauthoritarian on social issues.
This can be observed even in our own 'Poly. Just unearth a Political Compass thread, and you'll see the correlation between economic rightwingerness and social authoritarianism. |
True that. There is a different axis related to personal liberty. On this axis, the more control over personal liberty the more one moves to the right. This is the exact inverse of the economic liberty axis.
There is yet another axis that relates to political freedom. Here the ultimate political freedom appears to be anarchy and as one imposes more control one moves to toward totalitarianism.
Both fascism and communism tend to be totalitarian. Even so,authoritarian governments are not necessarily left or right on the economic political axis, although it is hard to imagine how a free market could exist in a totalitarian state.
Back to the economic political axis: I would place a completely free market, free from all regulation, at the extreme right of the political spectrum, and a completely controlled market toward the left of the political spectrum. Fascism clearly controls many aspects of an economy that we do not see in free-market economies. This includes regulation of profits and wages, and control of major company boards by government-appointed directors. In France, this is known of socialism. In Germany is known as fascism. But in truth they are the same thing. The only substantial difference between Nazi Germany and socialist France is the level of political democracy. But as we can see the degree of political democracy is not necessarily coincident with the degree to which business is controlled by the government.
We also see similarities between fascism and socialism in government programs designed to help people. Nazi Germany for example introduced universal health care, autobahns and the Volkswagen, and provided vacations for the working man that they had never experienced before. Certainly, Nazi Germany had all the hallmarks of a quasi-socialist state, a yet we called it fascist.
I think that fascism and socialism or very close to each other even though they say that they are not the same thing at all. This is why I call fascism a form of leftist government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
News flash -- capitalism is a form of economic coercion, exploitation, and control. And this is the same with communism.
Any economic system relies on some form of coercion, exploitation, and control. The only fundamental variations, is how discrete are the means of the people who are at the top of the system. |
Mr. Fun, you think of capitalism is private control over people while I think of capitalism as a result of free markets. Regardless, you would agree as we impose more government controls on a free market to reduce the abuse of power by the wealthy, one moves to the left, not to the right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it hadn't been for Perot, we'd probably have whoever President Quayle's VP was as Prez now. |
Oh bullshit. I'm surprised you'd repeat this oft-told lie of the right.
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm
"Analysis: Perot's vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bushís victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer."
Exit polls confirmed that Perot's voters were evenly split on the question of who they would vote for otherwise, Clinton or Bush Sr. All Perot did was ensure that Clinton wouldn't get a majority of the popular vote.
Clinton's electoral strategy was what won him that election, and he would have done it with or without Perot. Did we forget that Bush Sr. had 30% approval ratings in 1992?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2005 22:59
You guys are all great. 
|