[Torus34]

Over the past few years I've spent considerable time learning about fascism [Ed.: That's small 'f', to distinguish from Italian fascism, capital 'F'.] Going back to the second decade of the century just past, there have been a number of fascistic movements in various countries, some successful and most, happily, not.

Some of the characteristics of fascistic movements and the milieus extant in the nations where they sprung up can be identified in the present United States.

I'd be pleased to discuss this with others. I do ask that vituperative rants about this or that political party in the US or, for that matter, this or that politician, be eschewed.

Regards to all.

[Julian658]

Over the past few years I've spent considerable time learning about fascism [Ed.: That's small 'f', to distinguish from Italian fascism, capital 'F'.] Going back to the second decade of the century just past, there have been a number of fascistic movements in various countries, some successful and most, happily, not.

Some of the characteristics of fascistic movements and the milieus extant in the nations where they sprung up can be identified in the present United States.

I'd be pleased to discuss this with others. I do ask that vituperative rants about this or that political party in the US or, for that matter, this or that politician, be eschewed.

Regards to all.

Fascism is much closer to socialism that what you see in America.

What we have in the USA is nationalism and a reaction to identity politics. The left puts emphasis on race identity politics (all colors except white) and constantly preaches al evils in the world are due to white people. What did you expect?

[Torus34]

Fascism is much closer to socialism that what you see in America.

What we have in the USA is nationalism and a reaction to identity politics. The left puts emphasis on race identity politics (all colors except white) and constantly preaches al evils in the world are due to white people. What did you expect?

Hi!

Using the two most well-known examples of successful fascism -- those which succeeded in taking over the governance of existing democracies, there was an intense appeal to nationalism. In fact, in one it went so far as 'purifying' the national character through the removal of those who were 'outsiders'.

'Identity politics' carries pejorative baggage in the United States of America. That some groups, identifiable by racial, ethnic or religious characteristics, may have interests specific to their group is not in itself something bad or, for that matter, good. It simply is a fact.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Julian658]

Hi!

Using the two most well-known examples of successful fascism -- those which succeeded in taking over the governance of existing democracies, there was an intense appeal to nationalism. In fact, in one it went so far as 'purifying' the national character through the removal of those who were 'outsiders'.

For all practical purposes NAZIsm has been squashed to a much greater degree than socialism. There are a few NAZIs in the world, however the number of socialists is enormous. All universities teach the evils of fascism including Mussolini who started as a socialist. At the same time time universities are now devoted to social justice (indoctrination rather than teaching). Most young people of this era know about the evils of NAZIsm, but know nothing about the atrocities of socialism in the 20th century.

'Identity politics' carries pejorative baggage in the United States of America. That some groups, identifiable by racial, ethnic or religious characteristics, may have interests specific to their group is not in itself something bad or, for that matter, good. It simply is a fact.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

We evolved in tribes and hence tribalism is the mother of all "isms" including nationalism. it is easy to get along in the good times, however, in times of stress and lack of resources people become tribal. The left needs to stop preaching race ID politics because they right will reply with ID politics too. Luckily there is an established barrier the right wingers are not supposed to cross. In Western nations white nationalism is considered a big NO NO. and it is universally condemned. However, with regards to the left there is no barrier. The more left the better----------there is no established NO GO ZONE like in the right.

Race ID politics is an abomination because people are not defined by skin color or ethnicity.



BTW, this is the Merriam-Webster definition of fascism:

A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Yes, fascism puts emphasis on nationality and ethnicity.

However, if you take the bold words out and replace them you end up with the definition of socialism.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts the proletariat and the collective above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/communism ... so-similar

[B0ycey]

For all practical purposes NAZIsm has been squashed to a much greater degree than socialism. There are a few NAZIs in the world, however the number of socialists is enormous.

Funny. I'm still seeing Nazism during white supremacy rallies. It has got to the point of people hiding their messages in numbers within tattoos and what not but there is still support for Nazism and they are still brave enough to wave the swastika when amongst like minded morons.

As for Socialism, what is your criteria here? I only ask as I support the Nordic model and America seems to class that as Socialism. But even so, what about teaching people of the ills of capitalism as America and the West has been involved in pretty much all the major wars in the 21st century and China and Russia have not.

What you seem to do is forget that both Capitalism and Socialism are economic models and not political ideologies and as such I cannot blame a free market for what a government does the same way you can't blame national ownership on what the government does either. You can be both Socialist and Democratic for example. Which is different to Fascism that requires a Totalitarian Nationaliatic one party state.

[Julian658]

Funny. I'm still seeing Nazism during white supremacy rallies. It has got to the point of people hiding their messages in numbers within tattoos and what not but there is still support for Nazism and they are still brave enough to wave the swastika when amongst like minded morons.

Oh sure, they are there. But, the key is that they are a bunch of morons and not really organized. If you are a bird watcher you probably see more birds than I do.

As for Socialism, what is your criteria here? I only ask as I support the Nordic model and America seems to class that as Socialism. But even so, what about teaching people of the ills of capitalism as America and the West has been involved in pretty much all the major wars in the 21st century and China and Russia have not.

You are a great example of my previous post. You are one of those that sees socialism in a romantic manner. I don't blame you, socialism is very compelling and attractive. HOWEVER, IT HAS FAILED EVERY TIME. The Nordic model offers a great social net is solidly based on capitalism. Just look it up. It is easier to do business in Denmark than in the USA. Sweden came back to the center and they have privatize services including education. They even have school vouchers.

Capitalism is highly imperfect. However, thanks to capitalism we are living in the most prosperous time in world history. The problem with you guys is that you compare capitalism with an utopia that does not exist. Despite all the horrors of capitalism it is the place where most poor people from the world want to immigrate.

What you seem to do is forget that both Capitalism and Socialism are economic models and not political ideologies and as such I cannot blame a free market for what a government does the same way you can't blame national ownership on what the government does either. You can be both Socialist and Democratic for example. Which is different to Fascism that requires a Totalitarian Nationaliatic one party state.

Your definition of socialism is generous. You are talking about a capitalist system that has a great social net. That is based on capitalism and not socialism which by definition has to be authoritarian. Socialism cannot exist without an authoritarian government.

[B0ycey]

Oh sure, they are there. But, the key is that they are a bunch of morons and not really organized. If you are a bird watcher you probably see more birds than I do.

So how many "Revolutionist Socialists" do you know that are organised? We have our fair share on PoFo who talk tough about revolution but I don't see any of them doing anything about that outside their bedrooms. Total keyboard warriors.

Most of your so-called Socialists are reformers. That is they will try and work within the political system to enact change. I don't see that as a bad thing considering nationalising specific areas in the economy would actually be better for America than what you have now. Look at the Nordic model. Is that Socialism for you? That is really what most Socialists are calling for. They are not the random avatar on PoFo spouting yarns about Stalin, but people fighting for change and actually doing something about that. You know, the guys and girls who are behind Sanders.

You are a great example of my previous post. You are one of those that sees socialism in a romantic manner. I don't blame you, socialism is very compelling and attractive. HOWEVER, IT HAS FAILED EVERY TIME.

Did if fail in China? Or for that matter Russia or Cuba if you compare them to what they were. Russia wasn't a superpower in 1917. It was a complete shit show. I think you are looking for historic faux Socialists who are by definition fascists and labelling that as Socialism because they hid behind a veil. That, and America basically embargoes everyone who even dares to entertain Socialism in their economy which then fucks up their economy.

The Nordic model offers a great social net is solidly based on capitalism. Just look it up. It is easier to do business in Denmark than in the USA. Sweden came back to the center and they have privatize services including education. They even have school vouchers.

Back to the question I asked you before then. How are you defining Socialism? I only ask because the Nordic model is what Socialists are asking for. Of course, Scandinavia is a hybrid economy so those people who are labelled as Socialists (by themselves and Americans) aren't really Socialists at all. But when you have Republicans call Sanders and Biden a fucking Socialists, I don't even know what definition the Right want to use these days. To me a Socialist in America is anyone on the Left of Trump.

Capitalism is highly imperfect. However, thanks to capitalism we are living in the most prosperous time in world history. The problem with you guys is that you compare capitalism with an utopia that does not exist. Despite all the horrors of capitalism it is the place where most poor people from the world want to immigrate.

Sure. But does that mean we should keep the status quo when it begins to fail because it got us where we are today? Can you imagine the Feudalist saying that or even the Hunter gatherers? Socialism can and should be the next step in our economic thinking. But I agree it can only work in a democracy.

Your definition of socialism is generous. You are talking about a capitalist system that has a great social net. That is based on capitalism and not socialism which by definition has to be authoritarian. Socialism cannot exist without an authoritarian government.

Actually it is the opposite. You definition IS DISINGENEROUS. The only criteria for Socialism is state ownership. Capitalism can be authoritarian the same way Socialism can be democratic. They are economic models and NOT POLITICAL MODELS.

[late]

Actually it is the opposite. You definition IS DISENGENUOUS. The only criteria for Socialism is state ownership. Capitalism can be authoritarian the same way Socialism can be democratic. They are economic models and NOT POLITICAL MODELS.

They always try to have it both ways, don't they.

There's a reason countries like Denmark always rank near the top of Happiness surveys. What they do works.

If we get any worse, we'll fall out of the top 20, we're typically 18th or 19th now. If Republicans keep their knee on the throat of the country, it won't take long.

[wat0n]

The criterion for socialism is that the state owns the means of production. No Nordic country falls into that definition.

If merely having state owned enterprises qualifies as being socialist, then the US is socialist (the USPS is owned by the Federal Government, states and cities often own quite a bit of enterprises).

[Torus34]

For all practical purposes NAZIsm has been squashed to a much greater degree than socialism. There are a few NAZIs in the world, however the number of socialists is enormous. All universities teach the evils of fascism including Mussolini who started as a socialist. At the same time time universities are now devoted to social justice (indoctrination rather than teaching). Most young people of this era know about the evils of NAZIsm, but know nothing about the atrocities of socialism in the 20th century.



We evolved in tribes and hence tribalism is the mother of all "isms" including nationalism. it is easy to get along in the good times, however, in times of stress and lack of resources people become tribal. The left needs to stop preaching race ID politics because they right will reply with ID politics too. Luckily there is an established barrier the right wingers are not supposed to cross. In Western nations white nationalism is considered a big NO NO. and it is universally condemned. However, with regards to the left there is no barrier. The more left the better----------there is no established NO GO ZONE like in the right.

Race ID politics is an abomination because people are not defined by skin color or ethnicity.



BTW, this is the Merriam-Webster definition of fascism:

A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Yes, fascism puts emphasis on nationality and ethnicity.

However, if you take the bold words out and replace them you end up with the definition of socialism.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts the proletariat and the collective above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/communism ... so-similar

Hi!

Thank you for your extensive response.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Julian658]

So how many "Revolutionist Socialists" do you know that are organised?

I don't know. I hope they are also a bunch of losers, no different than the white nationalists. You see, for me these two groups are just two sides of the same coin. I do know Antifa attacked the federal court house in Portland for many months. It may still be going on, but that is not news anymore. Hollywood is wildly on the left as well as the soft sciences academia in universities. They are churning SJWs at a very high rate

We have our fair share on PoFo who talk tough about revolution but I don't see any of them doing anything about that outside their bedrooms. Total keyboard warriors.

Hopefully it stays that way. Their ideas are very scary!

Most of your so-called Socialists are reformers. That is they will try and work within the political system to enact change. I don't see that as a bad thing considering nationalising specific areas in the economy would actually be better for America than what you have now. Look at the Nordic model. Is that Socialism for you? That is really what most Socialists are calling for. They are not the random avatar on PoFo spouting yarns about Stalin, but people fighting for change and actually doing something about that. You know, the guys and girls who are behind Sanders.

The Nordic nations are as capitalist as America. They just have a much better social net, they are small, and relatively homogeneous. But, don't kid yourself. They thrive because they are capitalists. Socialists do not create wealth. Capitalists create the wealth to pay for the social programs.

Did if fail in China?

Final was an abysmal failure until they adopted capitalist practices. China's success is due to capitalism. The problem is that they remain a fascist state. Why do lefties love China? I will never know.

Or for that matter Russia or Cuba if you compare them to what they were.

If I was poor and in the gutter I would be a socialist. That system would clearly elevate my socioeconomic status. However, if you are middle class and above you are screwed.

Russia wasn't a superpower in 1917. It was a complete shit show. I think you are looking for historic faux Socialists who are by definition fascists and labelling that as Socialism because they hid behind a veil. That, and America basically embargoes everyone who even dares to entertain Socialism in their economy which then fucks up their economy.

Russia did the best it could. Stalin wanted state sponsored capitalism and it fizzled out. It could not compete with the West.

Back to the question I asked you before then. How are you defining Socialism?

Ask yourself that question. You are confusing social programs paid for by capitalism for true socialism.

Sure. But does that mean we should keep the status quo when it begins to fail because it got us where we are today? Can you imagine the Feudalist saying that or even the Hunter gatherers? Socialism can and should be the next step in our economic thinking. But I agree it can only work in a democracy.

OK. That is the only statement you have made that makes a bit of sense. How would you fix capitalism?



Actually it is the opposite. You definition IS DISINGENEROUS. The only criteria for Socialism is state ownership. Capitalism can be authoritarian the same way Socialism can be democratic. They are economic models and NOT POLITICAL MODELS.[/quote]

[Saeko]

OK. That is the only statement you have made that makes a bit of sense. How would you fix capitalism?

The same way you fix cancer, @Julian658.

With radiation. Lots of radiation.

[Julian658]

Hi!

Thank you for your extensive response.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

You are welcome!
I apologize for destroying your argument. I did not mean to leave you speechless. But, that is OK!
Carry on!

[Patrickov]

For all practical purposes NAZIsm has been squashed to a much greater degree than socialism. There are a few NAZIs in the world, however the number of socialists is enormous. All universities teach the evils of fascism including Mussolini who started as a socialist. At the same time time universities are now devoted to social justice (indoctrination rather than teaching). Most young people of this era know about the evils of NAZIsm, but know nothing about the atrocities of socialism in the 20th century.

They are evil for slightly different reasons.

Fascism and Nazism both emphasise race superiority and justifies persecution of other ethnic minorities.

Socialism / communism do not aim for that. Instead, they call for class struggle and change of production ownership.

To many, Fascism and Nazism have less agreeable ideology because there are so few Italians or Germans. Meanwhile, Socialism / communism, at least on paper, aim to make everybody live free and well. The problem of socialism / communism is their (often) lack of check and balance and the ease of abuse by adventurists like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, etc. IMHO the ideology's popularity in backward societies (even to this day) doesn't help.

One point we should note is that some of the modern socialist dictators are more like Nazis, e.g. Xi Jinping. It seems that any dictatorships fueled by nationalism, regardless of the ideology they claim to uphold, inevitably turn into Nazism at some point.

No sure who are the Jews in Xi's case (Most claim to be Uighurs but Tibetians also count), while Hongkongers are the Weiße Rose.

[Julian658]

They are evil for slightly different reasons.

Fascism and Nazism both emphasise race superiority and justifies persecution of other ethnic minorities.

Socialism / communism do not aim for that. Instead, they call for class struggle and change of production ownership.

To many, Fascism and Nazism have less agreeable ideology because there are so few Italians or Germans. Meanwhile, Socialism / communism, at least on paper, aim to make everybody live free and well. The problem of socialism / communism is their (often) lack of check and balance and the ease of abuse by adventurists like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, etc. IMHO the ideology's popularity in backward societies (even to this day) doesn't help.

One point we should note is that some of the modern socialist dictators are more like Nazis, e.g. Xi Jinping.

Sure, socialism has a noble cause. And Marx was 100% correct in his analysis of the evils of capitalism. Therefore socialism is popular in every generation. The message is very compelling and seems quite logical on paper. However, socialism has not worked . It has always been an abysmal failure that ends in the murder of the masses and complete decadence.

In every decade you always hear people say: That the genocides of the 20th century were not real socialism. Somehow, this time around it will be better. Yeah, right.

Capitalism has a lot of imperfections, but that is the best we have at this time. Furthermore, this is the most prosperous time in world history and you can thank capitalism for that. The problem with the left is that they compare capitalism to the utopia of the last stage of communism, which is basically the equivalent of heaven in Christianity.

As for fascism: You are correct I can only think of Germany and Italy. Mussolini was a socialist and Hitler called his movement socialist, but who cares.

BTW, if I was in the gutter and dirt poor I would be a socialist. I think socialism can uplift those at the bottom. However if you are middle class and above you lose BIG time with socialism

[Patrickov]

Sure, socialism has a noble cause. And Marx was 100% correct in his analysis of the evils of capitalism. Therefore socialism is popular in every generation. The message is very compelling and seems quite logical on paper. However, socialism has not worked . It has always been an abysmal failure that ends in the murder of the masses and complete decadence.

In every decade you always hear people say: That the genocides of the 20th century were not real socialism. Somehow, this time around it will be better. Yeah, right.

Capitalism has a lot of imperfections, but that is the best we have at this time. Furthermore, this is the most prosperous time in world history and you can thank capitalism for that. The problem with the left is that they compare capitalism to the utopia of the last stage of communism, which is basically the equivalent of heaven in Christianity.

What I think is that, regardless of the aims of ideologies, they should only be experimented in democratic societies where the people have both the will and power to maintain whatever good they have and rollback on whatever bad.

Capitalism was probably the only system capable of building a democratic society, but I don't think we should arbitrarily say it's "the best we have" -- I actually first heard such claim from The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, written by David Landes, but I think I should be a bit more critical instead of taking these words verbatim.

BTW, if I was in the gutter and dirt poor I would be a socialist. I think socialism can uplift those at the bottom. However if you are middle class and above you lose BIG time with socialism

The richest are often smart asses and won't just wait and die. As in the case of Russia / China, they subvert the said countries' socialism into oligarchy / plutocracy.

[B0ycey]

The Nordic nations are as capitalist as America. They just have a much better social net, they are small, and relatively homogeneous. But, don't kid yourself. They thrive because they are capitalists. Socialists do not create wealth. Capitalists create the wealth to pay for the social programs.

There is no reason to believe a state cannot run an enterprise as well as the bourgeois. So perhaps don't kid yourself. Although for me personally I have no issue with the free market as long as it isn't within vital services due to the insane cost for the consumer. That is to say Capitalism has no right to demand a profit within Health, education, housing, police and fire service or transport etc. It belongs in the consumer market where people can choose to live without the products being sold to them. As long as tax and subsidies are fair, I don't really demand anything else. Basically the Nordic Model. Not the Reaganism you see in America.

Final was an abysmal failure until they adopted capitalist practices. China's success is due to capitalism. The problem is that they remain a fascist state. Why do lefties love China? I will never know.

I don't love China. But I will not look at them with blinkered eyes either. The are an economic success despite being Socialist because they took all the best bits out of Capitalism and threw out the bad stuff because the West wanted short term profits out of them. Are you aware that Capitalism in China is leased out? That is to say they could take all the modes of production once those leases run out legally. They are by definition Socialist playing Capitalism better than anyone else, letting the bourgeois invest in specific areas of their economy to their benefit whilst restricting the areas that don't.

If I was poor and in the gutter I would be a socialist. That system would clearly elevate my socioeconomic status. However, if you are middle class and above you are screwed.

Surely the whole point of a society is to cater to all socioeconomic status? If the free market cannot do that, then it is up to the state to rectify that. As long as you understand the need for fair tax, a fair minimum wage, subsidies and welfare then I don't see you having much problem with my line of thinking nor of those most people claim are Socialists. As I have already said, PoFo is an anomaly. Radical revolutionaries don't really exist. They might speak tough on forums and twitter, but they aren't actually doing anything meaningful in politics right now. They are key board warriors. Those who are doing something are reformers. Those who are asking for change.

Ask yourself that question. You are confusing social programs paid for by capitalism for true socialism.

Ehhhh no I am ASKING YOU! What do you call Socialism? It is important because you said it had to be authoritarian when it doesn't. The ONLY CRITERIA is that things are owned by the state. The Nordic model isn't Socialism it is Social Democratic and a form of hybrid economy. So I am a Social Democratic. But when you have Americans call Sanders and Biden a Socialist, both of whom are less Socialist than the Scandinavians, then we need to have some understanding from people like you what your definition of Socialism is. I ask, because it is already wrong when you claim that it is authoritarian when it is merely an economic system.

OK. That is the only statement you have made that makes a bit of sense. How would you fix capitalism?

Well in my opinion it cannot be fixed. The amount of borrowing going on especially right now is going to come crashing down on it eventually. Not to mention the consequences of petrodollar when oil starts running out. So the question is not if Capitalism dies but when.

But to be more specific, because I think you really meant to say "How can we fix society?", all I will say to that is follow the Nordic Model until the financial system collapses completely and then when that happens governments need to invest in infrastructure and Keynesianism economics to create jobs and move towards Socialism that way. I am not calling for seizing of production or what not from the free market. I think market forces will eventually do that for us. But it is up to governments to invest in vital production that go bust eventually like what we saw during the manufacturing post WW2 boom, but this time make sure we do not sell it off again.

[Torus34]

You are welcome!
I apologize for destroying your argument. I did not mean to leave you speechless. But, that is OK!
Carry on!

Hi!

Never a problem. Unlike those who post in order to 'win', I post in order to learn.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Potemkin]

Hi!

Never a problem. Unlike those who post in order to 'win', I post in order to learn.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Meh. I usually post in order to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women. But maybe that's just me.

[Torus34]

Meh. I usually post in order to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women. But maybe that's just me.

Hi, Potemkin! Good to see your post.

And a big 'Thank you!' for starting my day with a big, broad grin!

Wishing the best for you and yours. Stay safe 'n well.