while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .[/quote]
Correction Bush cut taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. Everyone who paid taxes got a 5% tax cut EVERYONE!
So true that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. (Shaking head)[/quote]
Yeah it was a great plan , (EYE ROLL)
[/quote]
Great or not, it was a 5% tax cut FOR EVERY TAX PAYER IN THE US!
And by the way when is it bad for people to keep more of the money that THEY HAVE EARNED?
SHESSSSSSH!!!
And stop using my eye roll that is a patented trade mark ;)[/quote]
See how easy it is to confuse you , we were talking about the Democrats that balanced their budget and the Republicans that HAVE NEVER balanced their budget EYE ROLL , SIGH
while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .[/quote]
We can’t grow our way out.
[/quote]
When the economy picks up there will be a lot less money going out . There is no way out of this funk with out the economy growing us out
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he’d have “more flexibility” after the November election, during a conversation that appeared to focus on the touchy issue of missile defense.’
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
‘President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he’d have “more flexibility” after the November election, during a conversation that appeared to focus on the touchy issue of missile defense.’
[quote]
I am still not entirely sure that “echatological” is not the right word to use[/quote]
It is actually.
But, on the other hand, it’s the only part of your original post i would really agree with. [/quote]
Let us say we put aside left vs right for a moment, would you agree that even theoretically fascism and socialism share a lot of the same features and that in practice the look even more similar?[/quote]
No I don’t see that at all. Socialism is an economic system. There are many forms of it. Socialism for Marx was the first step on the way to a classless society ok, he didn’t see it as a finished system. In the soviet union there was state socialism with the state bureaucracy, trying to manage the economic system, and to a certain extend they did but it was also a perversion of the ideal of a classless society. Capitalism has also been called state capitalism. All these remarks depend on looking at the actual working of these systems in history and the forces that effect them. What I know about fascism is all right wing.( I know you wanted to over look this) The three systems of fascism were the Italian, Japanese and the German. The notion of the Master Race came out of Hitler’s German and its blaming the Jews for all the problems the Germany was facing. AGAIN READ HISTORY SINCE THESE MATTERS DON’T LEND THEMSELVES TO SIMPLE ANALYSIS. Fascism always seeks a strong leader, where as in socialism an economic system, one man simply is inadequate to understanding how to plan the economy for the benefit of all. There its possible to have citizen control over the work place or a democratic means of decision making.
Look for the book by Bertam Gross, entitled Friendly Fascism, the new face of power in america.
One more thing you might want to look into and that is a comparison of totalitarianism and fascism. Also what I was thinking about in regard to socialism, is more worker involvement in decision making and it the process of work in the work place, link this to a more robust education for citizenship and at least another political party besides the the two parties we have in America both of which favor capitalism or Monopoly capitalism, or a system where only the super rich control most of the decision making that gets done. We do have only a representative democracy, and it takes ton’s of money and support for the most part to enter into politics.
what do you think?
while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .[/quote]
Correction Bush cut taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. Everyone who paid taxes got a 5% tax cut EVERYONE!
So true that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. (Shaking head)[/quote]
Yeah it was a great plan , (EYE ROLL)
[/quote]
Great or not, it was a 5% tax cut FOR EVERY TAX PAYER IN THE US!
And by the way when is it bad for people to keep more of the money that THEY HAVE EARNED?
SHESSSSSSH!!!
And stop using my eye roll that is a patented trade mark ;)[/quote]
See how easy it is to confuse you , we were talking about the Democrats that balanced their budget and the Republicans that HAVE NEVER balanced their budget EYE ROLL , SIGH
[/quote]
Weeeelllll…
That is not quite true, is it not?
I seem to remember a steamroller called “Contract for America” that helped Clinton §balance his budget" despite of himself.
Well first of all still think that your definition of “right wing” is meaningless. To say that fascism needs a Duce whereas socialism does not ignores all he strong men in the history of socialism.
I wont bother to point them out, you know them.
I also think that looking at what actually happened might hold the key and I see Nazi Germany and the SU both having a leader cult, militarism, ethno-nationalism and a 4 respectively 5 year plan.
In real life, they kind of look the same to me.
Then, it is entirely possible to have a company controlled by the workers.
Start one.
I think Kamui makes more sense when he claims that fascism and socialism are not on the same taxonomic level, though I ask myself if there really is a contradiction when fascism leans heavily on a syndicalist approach.
He might have unwittingly (?) proclaimed that fascism is a socialist ideology, but that socialism is a broader ideology than that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he’d have “more flexibility” after the November election, during a conversation that appeared to focus on the touchy issue of missile defense.’
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Let’s discuss what we face if he retains the presidency.
My first thought is with him not having to face the electorate again we can expect an avalanche of executive orders, end runs around Congress.[/quote]
You’ll get sold and sold to the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians.
Continuation of what Clinton did, the consolidation of the Rockefeller and Carnegie Sovietisation strategies and - oh yes! Majority isalmic-UN rule
for all! Yay! no sovereignty ever again for you free-born types, no sirree.
SEIU thugs in the streets and the hospitals, bad deals all around.
We in Australia face much of this too, as do all the democracies, so you won’t be alone!
Two books recommended:
the Post-American Presidency by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.
Democracy Denied; how Obama Bypasses Congress… by Phil Kerpen. kitmantv.blogspot.com (highly recommended) horowtizfreedomcenter.org 9highly recommended)
[quote]
I think Kamui makes more sense when he claims that fascism and socialism are not on the same taxonomic level, though I ask myself if there really is a contradiction when fascism leans heavily on a syndicalist approach.
He might have unwittingly (?) proclaimed that fascism is a socialist ideology, but that socialism is a broader ideology than that. [/quote]
Not really.
I proclaimed that socialism was a tree that produced many rotten fruits, and that fascism is a rotten fruit produced by another tree specie.
Granted, the tree specie doesn’t make a big difference when you are forced to eat a rotten fruit.
But it does matter if you are a gardener.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Trayvon™…‘whose problems at school ranged from getting spotted defacing lockers to getting caught with a marijuana baggie and women’s jewelry.’
Zimmerman ‘suffered broken nose and injury to the back of the head.’ Trayvon™ 6’3" is said to have knocked Zimmerman down and then began to ‘bang his head on the ground.’
Trayvon™’s mother files to trademark her dead son’s name.
“Pussy Ass Cracker” T-shirts with Zimmerman’s picture go on sale in Florida.[/quote]
Unfortunately there is so much more to this story and the pieces being shoved through the media aren’t helping.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Trayvon™…‘whose problems at school ranged from getting spotted defacing lockers to getting caught with a marijuana baggie and women’s jewelry.’
Zimmerman ‘suffered broken nose and injury to the back of the head.’ Trayvon™ 6’3" is said to have knocked Zimmerman down and then began to ‘bang his head on the ground.’
Trayvon™’s mother files to trademark her dead son’s name.
“Pussy Ass Cracker” T-shirts with Zimmerman’s picture go on sale in Florida.[/quote]
We’ve been discussing this in GAL for a while and we’re on our 3rd thread.
Well first of all still think that your definition of “right wing” is meaningless. To say that fascism needs a Duce whereas socialism does not ignores all he strong men in the history of socialism.
I wont bother to point them out, you know them.
I also think that looking at what actually happened might hold the key and I see Nazi Germany and the SU both having a leader cult, militarism, ethno-nationalism and a 4 respectively 5 year plan.
In real life, they kind of look the same to me.
Then, it is entirely possible to have a company controlled by the workers.
Start one.
I think Kamui makes more sense when he claims that fascism and socialism are not on the same taxonomic level, though I ask myself if there really is a contradiction when fascism leans heavily on a syndicalist approach.
He might have unwittingly (?) proclaimed that fascism is a socialist ideology, but that socialism is a broader ideology than that. [/quote]
About the soviet union and Nazi Germany yes Stalin and Hitler were strong men. The Nazi’s were fascist, Stalin was a perversion of socialism ok. Stalin’s regime was a totalitarian regime, and he ruled with an iron fist. From a Marxist point of view socialism is just a point on the way to a classless worker controlled society. For many historical reasons that process never got carried out except for a very very short time in the Paris communes, but we can just note that. Socialism is basically the nationalization of the means of production and as such is an economic system. Did the soviets have a form of socialism? I think so but they also have the control by the “communist” party, which was not a form of control of workers.
On an historical note, it was the Soviet Union who’s effort in opposing Nazi German that was a tremendous help to the western powers. I think it would help you to read history about the rise of fascism and socialism. If the soviets had leaders like Trotsky who was killed by Stalin’s tugs perhaps a different version of socialism would have resulted which had more worker control over the means of production and creating more wealth to be shared.
Also keep in mind that socialism has a bad connotation here because powerful people don’t see it in there interest ok…
Then there is ideology which has an effect on people and the way they think of socialism but i would just add a socialism that has more democratic control more sharing of the societal wealth , better education, great health care for all, in short a society based on meeting human needs.
[quote]'nuffsaid wrote:
You’ll get sold and sold to the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians.
Continuation of what Clinton did, the consolidation of the Rockefeller and Carnegie strategies… [/quote]
I think this goes all the way back to Nixon(at least), and has infected every administration since!
Well first of all still think that your definition of “right wing” is meaningless. To say that fascism needs a Duce whereas socialism does not ignores all he strong men in the history of socialism.
I wont bother to point them out, you know them.
I also think that looking at what actually happened might hold the key and I see Nazi Germany and the SU both having a leader cult, militarism, ethno-nationalism and a 4 respectively 5 year plan.
In real life, they kind of look the same to me.
Then, it is entirely possible to have a company controlled by the workers.
Start one.
I think Kamui makes more sense when he claims that fascism and socialism are not on the same taxonomic level, though I ask myself if there really is a contradiction when fascism leans heavily on a syndicalist approach.
He might have unwittingly (?) proclaimed that fascism is a socialist ideology, but that socialism is a broader ideology than that. [/quote]
About the soviet union and Nazi Germany yes Stalin and Hitler were strong men. The Nazi’s were fascist, Stalin was a perversion of socialism ok. Stalin’s regime was a totalitarian regime, and he ruled with an iron fist. From a Marxist point of view socialism is just a point on the way to a classless worker controlled society. For many historical reasons that process never got carried out except for a very very short time in the Paris communes, but we can just note that. Socialism is basically the nationalization of the means of production and as such is an economic system. Did the soviets have a form of socialism? I think so but they also have the control by the “communist” party, which was not a form of control of workers.
On an historical note, it was the Soviet Union who’s effort in opposing Nazi German that was a tremendous help to the western powers. I think it would help you to read history about the rise of fascism and socialism. If the soviets had leaders like Trotsky who was killed by Stalin’s tugs perhaps a different version of socialism would have resulted which had more worker control over the means of production and creating more wealth to be shared.
Also keep in mind that socialism has a bad connotation here because powerful people don’t see it in there interest ok…
Then there is ideology which has an effect on people and the way they think of socialism but i would just add a socialism that has more democratic control more sharing of the societal wealth , better education, great health care for all, in short a society based on meeting human needs.
[/quote]
Yeah well, if Stalin had not killed Trotsky, and if the Khmer Rouge had not killed whomever and if Mao had not killed who knows who and if Kim Yong whatever had not killed whatshisname…
I dunno, just about the worst bastards always end up in power.
Seems like a flaw in the system to me.
Well, its not really different in democracies, but as long as those bastards have no direct control of the means of production at the very least there is no mass starvation.
Well first of all still think that your definition of “right wing” is meaningless. To say that fascism needs a Duce whereas socialism does not ignores all he strong men in the history of socialism.
I wont bother to point them out, you know them.
I also think that looking at what actually happened might hold the key and I see Nazi Germany and the SU both having a leader cult, militarism, ethno-nationalism and a 4 respectively 5 year plan.
In real life, they kind of look the same to me.
Then, it is entirely possible to have a company controlled by the workers.
Start one.
I think Kamui makes more sense when he claims that fascism and socialism are not on the same taxonomic level, though I ask myself if there really is a contradiction when fascism leans heavily on a syndicalist approach.
He might have unwittingly (?) proclaimed that fascism is a socialist ideology, but that socialism is a broader ideology than that. [/quote]
About the soviet union and Nazi Germany yes Stalin and Hitler were strong men. The Nazi’s were fascist, Stalin was a perversion of socialism ok. Stalin’s regime was a totalitarian regime, and he ruled with an iron fist. From a Marxist point of view socialism is just a point on the way to a classless worker controlled society. For many historical reasons that process never got carried out except for a very very short time in the Paris communes, but we can just note that. Socialism is basically the nationalization of the means of production and as such is an economic system. Did the soviets have a form of socialism? I think so but they also have the control by the “communist” party, which was not a form of control of workers.
On an historical note, it was the Soviet Union who’s effort in opposing Nazi German that was a tremendous help to the western powers. I think it would help you to read history about the rise of fascism and socialism. If the soviets had leaders like Trotsky who was killed by Stalin’s tugs perhaps a different version of socialism would have resulted which had more worker control over the means of production and creating more wealth to be shared.
Also keep in mind that socialism has a bad connotation here because powerful people don’t see it in there interest ok…
Then there is ideology which has an effect on people and the way they think of socialism but i would just add a socialism that has more democratic control more sharing of the societal wealth , better education, great health care for all, in short a society based on meeting human needs.
[/quote]
Yeah well, if Stalin had not killed Trotsky, and if the Khmer Rouge had not killed whomever and if Mao had not killed who knows who and if Kim Yong whatever had not killed whatshisname…
I dunno, just about the worst bastards always end up in power.
Seems like a flaw in the system to me.
Well, its not really different in democracies, but as long as those bastards have no direct control of the means of production at the very least there is no mass starvation. [/quote]
Politics is all about maintaining power and control. I think we should want a system that helps everyone to have a good material life and and a good quality of life. We need to constantly fight to try to improve conditions that help those especially who are without the means of participating in the system. Capitalism left to itself produces a great deal of destruction , the concentration of wealth and often a disregard for what is best for all. What is best for all is a health planet and we do know that many on the right are denying this is the case, but many CEO’s know they are slowly committing suicide but aren’t able to do anything since their goal is to make profits for the share holders. I suspect that are many in business who understand the stupidity of this.
As for democratic socialist countries we have to look to the Scandinavian countries.
If Obama wins I suspect not much will change he is at best a middle of the road leaning to the right politician.
FTW - I’ve discussed this a lot. You can’t talk about Nazism as a “movement” without looking at its history. After WWI Germany was subject to Communist/Marxist/Anarchist revolutionary uprisings.
Apart from the obvious reasons - Lenin(unleashed by the German General Staff on the Russians), the Russian revolution, defeat in the war, mass unemployment - they were also faced with some two million demobilised soldiers - the Versailles treaty restricted the German Army to 50,000 men and the army decided to retain the General Staff and no one else - they wanted to keep a nucleus around which they could rebuild the Army via conscription.
So with mass unemployment, 2 million demobilised soldiers and Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents the Weimar Republic created Freikorps groups from disbanded soldiers to put down the Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents. They put down the German Revolution and killed Rosa Luxemburg.
One particular disbanded Corporal was employed by the Army as an intelligence operative to monitor some of these groups. He found a tiny Socialist Party called the German Workers Party. It had a handful of members. He took over - infused it with his own ideology - German nationalism/volkism, Vienese anti-Semitism and used his oratory skills to build it into a political force.
He brought with him Freikorps nationalists. The Party remained a Nationalist Socialist party until the Night of the Long Knives when the SA was snuffed and a deal with General Staff old schoolers, armaments and corporate cronies(e.g. Krupp) and frightened Weimar “social Democrats” was solidified.
All industry became largely nationalised for all intents and purposes due to the rearmament for war and the wartime economy. Private industry was entirely directed by the state towards rearmament and war. It was a socialist economy - corporate/military alliance after the Night of the Long Knives notwithstanding.
Nazism was and for all intents and purposes remained a socialist movement in as much as these terms can be used meaningfully.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
FTW - I’ve discussed this a lot. You can’t talk about Nazism as a “movement” without looking at its history. After WWI Germany was subject to Communist/Marxist/Anarchist revolutionary uprisings.
Apart from the obvious reasons - Lenin(unleashed by the German General Staff on the Russians), the Russian revolution, defeat in the war, mass unemployment - they were also faced with some two million demobilised soldiers - the Versailles treaty restricted the German Army to 50,000 men and the army decided to retain the General Staff and no one else - they wanted to keep a nucleus around which they could rebuild the Army via conscription.
So with mass unemployment, 2 million demobilised soldiers and Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents the Weimar Republic created Freikorps groups from disbanded soldiers to put down the Communist/Marxist/Anarchist insurgents. They put down the German Revolution and killed Rosa Luxemburg.
One particular disbanded Corporal was employed by the Army as an intelligence operative to monitor some of these groups. He found a tiny Socialist Party called the German Workers Party. It had a handful of members. He took over - infused it with his own ideology - German nationalism/volkism, Vienese anti-Semitism and used his oratory skills to build it into a political force.
He brought with him Freikorps nationalists. The Party remained a Nationalist Socialist party until the Night of the Long Knives when the SA was snuffed and a deal with General Staff old schoolers, armaments and corporate cronies(e.g. Krupp) and frightened Weimar “social Democrats” was solidified.
All industry became largely nationalised for all intents and purposes due to the rearmament for war and the wartime economy. Private industry was entirely directed by the state towards rearmament and war. It was a socialist economy - corporate/military alliance after the Night of the Long Knives notwithstanding.
Nazism was and for all intents and purposes remained a socialist movement in as much as these terms can be used meaningfully.[/quote]
There were attempted right-wing takeovers as well - the Kapp putsch is one of the top of my head.
