Free speech?
I mean seriously, has he been bribing politicians in order to circumvent democratic principles?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Where does Jesse Jackson fit in?
Free speech?
I mean seriously, has he been bribing politicians in order to circumvent democratic principles?[/quote]
No, I mean him being rich and having scads of influence both on the federal and state/local governments… Well, that and the extortion of private corporations like Toyota.
Bad money drives out the good. Establishing a system wherein the government has ‘influence’ on the economy can only lead to eventual chaos. Productive men will not work for long or to the best of their capacity if they have to take orders from those who produce nothing. Only a slave-mentality would work under those conditions and slaves don’t build huge businesses.
Every system that has tried to control or regulate the economy has fallen. Depending on the starting point, how free the country was before determines how much looting it can stand. Since Americans are a very moral people and we come from a strong capitalist base, it will take a long time to ruin this country. But, you can see signs of this coming ruin everywhere.
Someday, people will realize that others are NOT here to carry their burdens. Only then will we have the chance at a truly free society – complete and total LF capitalism.
Proposed Amendment to an ancient but erroneous document: 'Congress shall make no law or regulation or intent to in any way regulate, alter, or hinder, the economic life of the people of the United States."
HH
Do you realize what this little phrase is actually in reference to?
You realize you are spouting a bunch of incoherent facts in order to back up your feeling that taxation and use of that money for any social purpose is a bad thing.
Too bad for you, you live in a democracy… and your viewpoint appears to be in the minority.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Read what I wrote again: I said laissez-faire has been adopted by fascist regimes. Which is exactly what the article you so kindly linked to says.
[/quote]
I asked you to explain your postion because I had a feeling you could not…
I suggest you go back and read what you wrote. You didn’t write, “has been adopted;” rather, you wrote, ““Laissez-faire Capitalism”, an ideology that only FASCIST regimes have adopted.”
I can only imagine that was an attempt on your part to create an inseparable link between fascism and laissez-faire capitalism in the minds of people otherwise ignorant of the truth.
The truth is, and I think you know it, that totalitarian regimes, however you choose to describe them- whether fascist, monarchial, paternalistic, or communist- are, by their very nature, adverse to any system that completely seperates itself from government control. They may allow a certain segment of society some measure of economic freedom, but that, in and of itself, does not define a laissez-faire economic system.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Seems odd that you want to create this guilt-by-association between fascism and laissez-faire economics with a five year stretch of this policy in Italy (which I suspect you had no idea about until I posted that link), even though, if you read Mussolini’s “Fascist Manifesto”, which was written around 1919, it was clear the Italian dictator had no attachment to the policy. And, in light of the most famous fascist of all - Hitler - no laissez-faire advocacy could be found - yet you still want the stigma to stick.[/quote]
Of course I knew about Mussolini’s five year stretch. Much like I know about Pinochet:
"
Pinochet launched an era of economic deregulation and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on wealth and profits.
"
(from Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia )
By the way, considering the track record of politicians (especially fascist), the fact that you are saying “fascist regimes didn’t implement laissez-faire because they SAY they don’t in it” is odd. Republicans say they believe in smaller government, but when did Bush reduce the Government? Much like GB I said he wouldn’t increase taxes and he did (especially when his party line is actually reducing them).
The fact that the fascist manifesto said something doesn’t mean that was what happened in reality. Remember that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That is a curious view, in that several industrialized countries that once had a laissez-faire type approach did not morph into corporatist states, unless you consider the New Deal a step into a corporatist direction.[/quote]
You are right: something very close to full Laissez-faire philosophy (called a proactive pro-business policy) was dominant throughout the late 19th and early 20th century in the wealthier countries of Europe and North America and it didn’t morph into corporatism. It was stopped by the Bolsheviks and WWI in 1917/18 in Europe, and the Great Depression in the US.
So, are you saying that global war or a communist revolution are the other possible outcomes of laissez-faire? I won’t argue if you do.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
The truth is, and I think you know it, that totalitarian regimes, however you choose to describe them- whether fascist, monarchial, paternalistic, or communist- are, by their very nature, adverse to any system that completely seperates itself from government control. They may allow a certain segment of society some measure of economic freedom, but that, in and of itself, does not define a laissez-faire economic system.[/quote]
Apparently you’re still confusing full-fledged libertarianism with laissez-faire.
Laissez-faire is generally understood to be SIMPLY “a doctrine opposing economic interventionism by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace and property rights”.
Mussolini did that for a while. Pinochet did too. Also Salazar. And Engelbert Dollfuss.
The fact that they denied it is political rhetoric, because they wanted to distance themselves from other philosophies. Much like Republicans promise smaller government and don’t deliver.
And even if you don’t buy that, and insist in the theoretical premise that fascism precludes laissez-faire, the greater point that you cannot deny is that every time a country adopted laissez-faire, things eventually went VERY badly – either in war or in a totalitarian regime.
[quote]hspder wrote:
By the way, considering the track record of politicians (especially fascist), the fact that you are saying “fascist regimes didn’t implement laissez-faire because they SAY they don’t in it” is odd. [/quote]
Except that is not what I said or I am saying. I provided empirical evidence that fascists like something much different from the laissez-faire that they - and only they! - were supposed to practice, according to you. My point about Mussolini’s manifesto was not to say politicians should be judged only by their rhetoric - my point was to show that it was clear Mussolini would not be on board with de Stefani’s policies for very long. Which he proved - action met up with words.
My point is made not by what Mussolini said, but rather what he did - upon consolidation of his dictatorship, Mussolini got rid of laissez-faire policies and forced the laissez-faire advocate de Stefani to resign.
Go review the history I just refreshed you on - Mussolini got rid of laissez-faire policies. You seem to be a fan of empiricism - why are you suddenly immune to it now? I am not using the Manifesto to try and prove my point - I used historical evidence. What I was suggesting is that Mussolini’s Manifesto might have been a good predictor that the man, when finally in power, would not be interested in laissez-faire policies. And what do you know?
Fabulous, so you have now refuted your own statement that laissez-faire policies were the exclusive province of fascist! states.
Fact is, you dislike laissez-faire economics. Fine. But many different political ideologies have adhered to LF economics in the past. You chose to ignore that, in full hopes to satisfy your own ideological preferences by slurring it with the taint of ‘fascism!’. And it was weak, ignorant of history, and silly.
Your musings remind me Orwell’s lamentation of the abuses of the word ‘fascism’ to mean ‘something I don’t like’.
Thunderbolt23:
I made one mistake: I let you bait me into yet another non-ideological discussion. I should have taken my own advice rather than try to argue with you. If we continue this avenue, we’ll be arguing 'till the cows come home about everything BUT ideology.
I have to admit that you possess extremely good rhetoric skills – something I’ve long said Republicans are far better at than Democrats, and I’ll have to admit you stand with the best of the best in that department.
The amazing thing (quite fortunate, in fact) is that you brought up Orwell, one of my favorite writers of all time:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Your musings remind me Orwell’s lamentation of the abuses of the word ‘fascism’ to mean ‘something I don’t like’.[/quote]
Are you criticizing or supporting Orwell? I ask because the latter would be very strange, considering the source of my association of laissez-faire and fascism was precisely his writings. Namely, from Corporatism - Wikipedia
“Many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism is the natural result of free market capitalism.”
So you’re using the words of somebody that made my exact assertion to disagree with my assertion?
Yes, Orwell lamented about people mislabeling all kinds of things as fascism, rather than focusing on true fascism. I do too. But he believed as strongly as I do that free market capitalism inevitably breeds fascism.
So thank you for bringing him up!
[quote]hspder wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
The truth is, and I think you know it, that totalitarian regimes, however you choose to describe them- whether fascist, monarchial, paternalistic, or communist- are, by their very nature, adverse to any system that completely seperates itself from government control. They may allow a certain segment of society some measure of economic freedom, but that, in and of itself, does not define a laissez-faire economic system.
Apparently you’re still confusing full-fledged libertarianism with laissez-faire.[/quote]
Full fledged libertarianism entails much more than economics- so, no, I am not confusing the two.
[quote]
Laissez-faire is generally understood to be SIMPLY “a doctrine opposing economic interventionism by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace and property rights”.[/quote]
Well, since you are so fond of Wikipedia, I’ll reference the sentence found just prior to the one you quoted: “[laissez-faire capitalism] became used as a synonym for strict free market economics during the early and mid-19th century.”
That is how I assumed you were using the phrase; that is, as a synynom for strict free market economics. Please, by all means, correct me if I am wrong.
[quote]
Mussolini did that for a while. Pinochet did too. Also Salazar. And Engelbert Dollfuss.[/quote]
Once again, you claimed the only governments to implement laissez-faire capitalism were fascist- as if to denigrate free market economics, the brand championed by the likes of Milton Friedman, by association.
You have yet to do anything but point to a couple of fascist regimes that adopted some free market policies. However, as has been pointed out, Mousolini put a stop to the free market trend in Italy as soon as he could.
Furthermore, your Pinochet example is laughable because although he was a fascist, the free market policies he implemented outlived his fascist rule and created much economic prosperity. Those same economic policies have continued under a democratically elected government since 1990. So where is the correlation, hspder?
Name one and show causation. Name an instance where taking economic control out of the hands of government lead to an increase in government control over the individual.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Name one and show causation. Name an instance where taking economic control out of the hands of government lead to an increase in government control over the individual.[/quote]
I already did. Several times. If at this point you can’t understand the chain of events and see the causation, and how laissez-faire and corporatism are linked, there’s nothing I can say to convince you. I’m pretty sure that even if it were possible to present some mathematical proof of causation (which is obviously impossible in this case), you or thunder would find some way to use rhetoric to put it into question, by attacking some axiom I’d inevitably have to use.
Basically: I am not going to repeat myself, because, clearly, you’ll believe what you want to believe anyway.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Are you criticizing or supporting Orwell? I ask because the latter would be very strange, considering the source of my association of laissez-faire and fascism was precisely his writings. Namely, from Corporatism - Wikipedia
“Many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism is the natural result of free market capitalism.”
So you’re using the words of somebody that made my exact assertion to disagree with my assertion?[/quote]
Well, with all due respect, you have missed the argument.
I have never advocated laissez-faire capitalism, and I have never suggested that it didn’t lead to something worse. We weren’t debating that.
In fact, if you are interested in ideology, my belief is that unalloyed laissez-faire capitalism leads to several possible awful conclusions - the worst of which that those dissatisfied with the punishing effects of being a loser in the capitalist system get drunk on radicalism and vote in something far worse than laissez-faire capitalism (like communism). Therefore, in order to save and preserve capitalism - the best economic system available - it must be moderated from its excesses. That’s my personal view.
And for the record, I am not absolutely convinced there is a wit’s difference between a revolutionary Communism and a fascist state - especially since the most notorious fascists developed out of socialist movements.
Well, I don’t - I think there are a number of ways such a system could develop and the historical record refutes your narrow determinism. We have seen laissez-faire develop into Communist revolution, a liberal, burgeoning welfare state, and corporatism. The US, as an example, has had a serious stretch of laissez-faire with no fascist state to follow, nor was there even a legitimate fascist movement anywhere in the US.
As for channeling Orwell, I admire him - and I agree with some things he wrote and not others. But just because I referenced Orwell doesn’t mean I have to subscribe to everything he advocated, nor does it mean that my argument has been invalidated. My use of Orwell was to point out the sloppy use of the label ‘fascism!’ in lieu of reasoned arguments.
Just as an aside, if you want a prophetic if embarrassing examination of what passes for current Leftist attitudes regarding foreign policy, read (or reread, as I suspect you may have already read it) Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism.
Further, there is a disconnect in ‘corporatism’ and ‘fascism’.
Corporatism means that business controls the government.
Fascism means that government controls business.
There is a world of difference between the two.
First of all, I’m glad we’re back on track. Thank you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, there is a disconnect in ‘corporatism’ and ‘fascism’.
Corporatism means that business controls the government.
Fascism means that government controls business.
There is a world of difference between the two.[/quote]
COMMUNISM means government controls business. Fascism – and corporatism – means that business controls the government.
There is wide agreement among economists that fascism is associated with economic corporatism. I’ve provided some links that say exactly that (the wikipedia links), and there are many more.
"
Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
"
"
There is a very old argument about who controlled who in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state
"
“Salazar’s regime was a Fascist regime, […] The economic system, known as corporatism […]”
And from Mussolini himself:
"
The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council ofr Fascism on April 21, 1927)?(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic]
[…]
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient.
[…]
(p.135)
"
Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
vroom wrote:
Bad money drives out the good.
Do you realize what this little phrase is actually in reference to?
You realize you are spouting a bunch of incoherent facts in order to back up your feeling that taxation and use of that money for any social purpose is a bad thing.
Too bad for you, you live in a democracy… and your viewpoint appears to be in the minority.
Minority? Possibly. Although the party closest to espousing the true ideals of free market capitalism has been in power of all 3 branches of government for 6 years now. Although the Republicans aren’t true "LF Capitalists, especially in this current, ‘Compassionate’ version, I believe it is at the core of their belief system.
[/quote]
Laisseaz Faire capitalism receives a better welcome in GA, vroom wouldn’t know that. He’s a fucking idiot who thinks he’s intellectually superior to his ineffectual subordinates here on T-Nation. Spare him, he’s a Canadian who thinks he should discourse about the most powerful naton on the planet, bcause he lives within a couple 100 miles of the MAINLAND.
Just a couple of quick thoughts. I’m not much for theories about this stuff, as I am immersed in it day to day, and have a pretty good feel for how it works, at least on my tiny level…
Labor can’t exist without capitalism. Where you gonna work without some kind of capital to get the business going?
Sometimes the capital is nothing more than the balls to take a risk, and the determination to succeed.
Wealth is created by work second and by thought first. Every income stream I have started as an idea.
Employees in this country are treated like shit. Large corporations no longer have any loyalty to the US, or the people of the US, and by extention, neither does the gov’t, as it is bought and paid for by the corps. (WOW you can get a 25.00 DVD player! Too bad you make 7.50 / hour!)
While I am the farthest thing from a socialist, I have lived in a third world country, and believe me, you don’t want the US not to have a robust social safety net. It’s not pretty. I have no sympathy for adults with full use of their minds and bodies who ask for handouts. But where the elderly, children and infirm are concerned, we need to do better.
Sorry for the partial hijack…
Nice post. I remember when I was a man of the right. I thought unions were just a bunch of people trying to get paid more by doing less work. This is just one line of propaganda from the right that I was nieve to believe in.
It’s almost impossible not to bring in the politics but I’d say to the people of the left to watch their leaders. The democratic party works for the same bosses of the right-wing. Don’t let them lie to you any longer. I wish all left-wingers would move outside the democratic party and begin to vote 3rd party so that we may have a chance to see our ideals put to work.
Nice!
I can tell you are the true intellectual superior around these parts…
Modok,
I was referring to HeadHunter, who was once again claiming that the world must fall because of taxes and his newfound belief in Rand.
I don’t see either the Republicans or the Democrats looking at repealing taxes and cancelling all social programs.
As for free market capitalism, as a student of economics, there are some things that don’t work well in a market setting. In these cases, governments have traditionally intervened.
For example, and this is historic, but some large infrastructure projects, like pipelines, highways, damns and so forth occur because of government will, not market forces.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe neoliberalism is the concept or ideology concerning freedom of markets, to an astounding degree, such that nothing should interfere with commerce and transactions.
I think going too far in the extreme in this direction is just as bad as going to far with leftist views, towards perhaps communism. All ideologies and doctrines can have negative aspects when taken to some extremes.
However, I will agree, democracy and capitalism certainly appear to be the best ideas that people have stumbled upon so far.
[quote]brushga wrote:
MODOK wrote:
vroom wrote:
Bad money drives out the good.
Do you realize what this little phrase is actually in reference to?
You realize you are spouting a bunch of incoherent facts in order to back up your feeling that taxation and use of that money for any social purpose is a bad thing.
Too bad for you, you live in a democracy… and your viewpoint appears to be in the minority.
Minority? Possibly. Although the party closest to espousing the true ideals of free market capitalism has been in power of all 3 branches of government for 6 years now. Although the Republicans aren’t true "LF Capitalists, especially in this current, ‘Compassionate’ version, I believe it is at the core of their belief system.
Laisseaz Faire capitalism receives a better welcome in GA, vroom wouldn’t know that. He’s a fucking idiot who thinks he’s intellectually superior to his ineffectual subordinates here on T-Nation. Spare him, he’s a Canadian who thinks he should discourse about the most powerful naton on the planet, bcause he lives within a couple 100 miles of the MAINLAND.[/quote]
And compared to fellas like you, he seems like a fucking genius. So keep posting and making your points so eloquently (that means “fancy worded”).
And Zeppelin I agree. I’m not a big fan of Democrats. I was a libertarian until I understood how much the corporations run things. I’m not sure whether I’ll vote Green or Democrat next time…I’d really like to vote socialist, but if the guy got more than a thousand votes, they’d have him killed.