 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Exactly, because being on the left means freedom for those who have been oppressed. That's why we don't equate small government with freedom. |
Finally we have someone who actually seems to agree with my original post. As one imposes more and more controls on the economy to reduce the natural abuses of a free market system, one moves to the "left." One also move "up" on the authoritarian axis. The social axis also moves "left" as net freedoms of the individual are increased.
Now none of this speaks of primacy of the state, family, etc., or about racism (err nationalism). I can argue that as one moves to the left and imposes more control over the economy, one de-emphasizes individuality. So individuality is part of the same access as economic freedom.
The primacy of the state concept is wedded in the authoritarian access. No one can doubt that communism, in all its actuall forms, does not transform into authoritarian states.
Finally, family is allegedly emphasized in fascism and de-emphasized in socialism. However, this is because the family imposes an independent power block to an authoritarian state.
Nationalism is a form of racism, and seems to be inherent in most peoples regardless of other politics. Take a look, for example, at what is going on in Communist China vis-a-vis Japan.
In sum, I submit that fascism in practice and socialism in practice are very similar. They both are highly interventionist into the economy for the betterment of the common folk even though their rhetoric may be "different." Both de-emphasize individuality in favor of the state, etc., etc.
The bottom line, as one imposes more and more controls on the economy for the benefit of the whole, one moves left, not right. Fascism in not to the right of a free market economy, it is to the left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
Spiffor, yes there are differences. But consider the starting point:
Extreme right wing economics is the completely free market (max individualism).
As one imposes more controls, one moves left!
Now, if you say that the controls are their to benefit a few, a class, such as in fuedalism, and not the whole, then I would simply like to point out both Nazism and Communism are one-party states where the party members, particularly in Communism, are in control and actually are an aristocracy.
But still, both forms impose controls on the economy that limit individual freedoms and for this reason all, aristocracy, fascism and communism are to the left of a free market economy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
That's pretty much what Imran said. Again, two countries can have identical economic and social structures and one be labelled left wing and the other right wing depending primarily on their attitudes on nationalism, etc.? That is what you are saying. |
Fascist regimes do not have identical economic structures to communist regimes, Ned. They just don't. Fascists are economic pragmatists who will happily enter into cosy relationships with private companies, as Che pointed out. They're also quite prepared to use certain socialist policies.
Fascists don't think that people are defined by their economic circumstances, unlike communists and capitalists. For fascists, nation and/or race is the all-important factor. You, as a capitalist, have difficulty understanding such a view, which is why you're making such a big deal over this, and acting as if nationalism is some insignificant detail. To you, if their economies are the same, then the two countries are, for all intents and purposes, the same. To a fascist, this is simply not the case. They would view the economic arrangements as irrelevent and concentrate purely on nationality and race.
So, yes, a fascist state and a communist state can have the similar economic arrangements, although it is exceedingly unlikely. But they have completely different reasons for having them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Fascist regimes do not have identical economic structures to communist regimes, Ned. They just don't. Fascists are economic pragmatists who will happily enter into cosy relationships with private companies, as Che pointed out. They're also quite prepared to use certain socialist policies.
Fascists don't think that people are defined by their economic circumstances, unlike communists and capitalists. For fascists, nation and/or race is the all-important factor. You, as a capitalist, have difficulty understanding such a view, which is why you're making such a big deal over this, and acting as if nationalism is some insignificant detail. To you, if their economies are the same, then the two countries are, for all intents and purposes, the same. To a fascist, this is simply not the case. They would view the economic arrangements as irrelevent and concentrate purely on nationality and race.
So, yes, a fascist state and a communist state can have the similar economic arrangements, although it is exceedingly unlikely. But they have completely different reasons for having them. |
We are reduced then to what Imran said: fascism is about nationalism and is not about specifics of economic or social structures.
Accepting this principle, then, most, if not all, prior communist regimes are fascist because they all have been nationalist to one extent or another. Think of Ho Chi Minh, for example. He was a nationalist. Everyone says so.
Surely Stalin was a nationalist. He transformed WWII into the great patriotic war.
Ditto Mao. Look at China today. They are united in their hatred of the Japanese. They are very aware of being Chinese, and not just commies.
I just don't buy it.
I think Kid and I are both more right in that when you begin restraining capitilism for the benefit of the common man, you are moving LEFT. The fascist states we knew did almost the same thing as the modern European socialist states in terms of their control of the economy for the common good -- I say almost, because fascism eliminated union power just as do communist states, by directly controling wages.
Now Spiffor wants to focus on individual liberty and ignore economic liberty. These are somewhat independent, in my view. One can have very conservative social values, for example, in communist states. Look at China, for example.
Mr. Fun wants to focus on the relationship of the common man to business. I do too. As one regulates business, and provides a safety net, one moves to the left because he is enhancing the economic liberty of the common man. But Nazi Germany certainly did this and thus was a leftist goverment, not a rightist government.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
|
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
We are reduced then to what Imran said: fascism is about nationalism and is not about specifics of economic or social structures.
Accepting this principle, then, most, if not all, prior communist regimes are fascist because they all have been nationalist to one extent or another. Think of Ho Chi Minh, for example. He was a nationalist. Everyone says so.
Surely Stalin was a nationalist. He transformed WWII into the great patriotic war. |
Again, you're acting as if economic structures are important. To a fascist, they're not. You are acting as if nationalism is some trifling detail, mere icing on the cake, over the real, economically-driven 'similarities'.
Your comment about social structures reveals ignorance about both fascism and communism.
Fascists are fanatically pro-family, and support exceptionally strong gender roles. For them, women exist almost purely to give birth and raise children. Communists tend to dislike the family, and are far more likely to have women working in traditionally male roles.
Fascists have a pragmatic approach to religion, much like their relationship with the economy. They may embrace it (especially if it's a national religion), tolerate it, subvert it or destroy it. Communists dislike religion and will always try to limit its influence as much as possible.
As for nationalism, for fascists it's the foundation for one's humanity, whilst for communists it's a useful political tool. Most, if not all, communist regimes have been internationalist to some extent or other. Doesn't that counter-balance their nationalism?
quote:
I think Kid and I are both more right in that when you begin restraining capitilism for the benefit of the common man, you are moving LEFT. The fascist states we knew did almost the same thing as the modern European socialist states in terms of their control of the economy for the common good -- I say almost, because fascism eliminated union power just as do communist states, by directly controling wages.
Now Spiffor wants to focus on individual liberty and ignore economic liberty. These are somewhat independent, in my view. One can have very conservative social values, for example, in communist states. Look at China, for example.
Mr. Fun wants to focus on the relationship of the common man to business. I do too. As one regulates business, and provides a safety net, one moves to the left because he is enhancing the economic liberty of the common man. But Nazi Germany certainly did this and thus was a leftist goverment, not a rightist government. |
Your definition of left and right is an absurd rhetorical device designed to discredit European countries. It has nothing to do with the conventional meaning of left and right. Such word games might work on bottom-rung American conservatives, but they won't work on Europeans, since we actually live here, and the 'similarities' you have identified count for nothing.
It's rather like insisting that a serial killer and a philanthropist with a heart of gold are the 'same' since they both happen to wear practical, sensible clothes.
A couple of final points, which, like the rest of this reply, are unlikely to penetrate the thick murk that shrouds the Nedaverse. Firstly, fascists are quite willing to form cosy relationships with big business. You haven't addressed this at all, and will probably continue to harp on exclusively about their use of socialist policies.
Secondly, all EU members have capitalist economies. A few slivers of socialism don't alter that fact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The common people always get fooked. The only difference is which set of pigs get to feed at the trough. |
Amen.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2005 19:47
|