Socialism does work

[Marblehead]

If we have run out of other things to talk about we could always talk about socialism.

[Apech]

If we have run out of other things to talk about we could always talk about socialism.

 

 

I'm glad you mentioned that.  What I was kind of hoping was not that people became socialists (because that's up tot hem) but that at least they understood what it was. i.e. it's not the same as Fascism.

[Marblehead]

I'm glad you mentioned that.  What I was kind of hoping was not that people became socialists (because that's up tot hem) but that at least they understood what it was. i.e. it's not the same as Fascism.

Absolutely.  Germany (Hitler) was Fascism.  Russia was Socialism (in the beginning) then Communism.  All three are subject to gross mismanagement.  All three are not too far removed from a Dictatorship.

[ralis]

I'm glad you mentioned that.  What I was kind of hoping was not that people became socialists (because that's up tot hem) but that at least they understood what it was. i.e. it's not the same as Fascism.

 

 

There is one writer here in the U.S. that equates the two, but I can't remember his name. His book is a revisionist rant with no references and is replete with errors and lies. Many including some of the media have bought into his book as if it were fact. 

[Marblehead]

There is one writer here in the U.S. that equates the two, but I can't remember his name. His book is a revisionist rant with no references and is replete with errors and lies. Many including some of the media have bought into his book as if it were fact. 

Well, with a hypothesis like that it had to include a lot of lies.

[Karl]

Article on Alternet regarding the influence of Thatcher on the Greek crisis. Relates to this thread on socialism.

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/ghost-thatcherism-stalks-greeks

 

It's thatcher what done it. Even in death it appears socialists still blame her for everything.

 

Great set of demands that Greece should embrace even if the other countries don't. However, they could do all that outside of the EU anyway.

[ralis]

The writer is Jonah Goldberg who writes for the National Review.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

 

 

ARE FASCISM AND SOCIALISM THE SAME?

 

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/15702-are-fascism-and-socialism-the-same

[Karl]

I'm glad you mentioned that.  What I was kind of hoping was not that people became socialists (because that's up tot hem) but that at least they understood what it was. i.e. it's not the same as Fascism.

 

Just hate the thought they are twins don't you ? Too much to bare. It's like I've accused God of being the Devil.

 

Back to the request which neither hard line socialist appears to want to take up:

 

Please define facism and socialism. Then it's possible to see what you believe to be the differences and end the argument for good.

[Marblehead]

It's thatcher what done it. Even in death it appears socialists still blame her for everything.

Well, Thatcher was Reagan's friend.  That's bad enough, isn't it?

 

Great set of demands that Greece should embrace even if the other countries don't. However, they could do all that outside of the EU anyway.

I think Greece should never have joined the EU.  But then, I think there was little choice.  Join or burn.

 

So now they are burning anyhow.

 

That's the way life is sometimes.

 

Tao pisses on all equally.

[Karl]

The writer is Jonah Goldberg who writes for the National Review.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

 

 

 

ARE FASCISM AND SOCIALISM THE SAME?

 

 

Similar. They share a number of characteristics and some stark differences, but essentially the things we are talking about here which is mostly economic differences and collectivism they are hard to split except in application.

 

I don't spilt socialism and communism they were simply Marx extension by degree. They were never intended as stand alone models but as a process.

[Karl]

Well, Thatcher was Reagan's friend.  That's bad enough, isn't it?

 

 

 

I spent what felt like a lifetime detesting that woman. Looking back she did some good things and also some bloody terrible things. That said, she led the Government, but ultimately didn't have the same control of it after the first few years.

[ralis]

Excellent expose on Jonah Goldberg and his confusion of liberal and fascism.

 

 http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/

[Marblehead]

The writer is Jonah Goldberg who writes for the National Review.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

 

 

ARE FASCISM AND SOCIALISM THE SAME?

 

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/15702-are-fascism-and-socialism-the-same

Liberal Fascism.  That just doesn't fit into my brain.

[Karl]

Liberal Fascism. That just doesn't fit into my brain.

Mine neither. Today's liberals aren't yesterday's liberals. It's like they started with twix and came out with Starbursts.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Karl

[Marblehead]

ARE FASCISM AND SOCIALISM THE SAME?

 

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/15702-are-fascism-and-socialism-the-same

I can understand calling Obama a Fascist but Socialist?  No, I can't accept that.

[Karl]

I can understand calling Obama a Fascist but Socialist?  No, I can't accept that.

 

Well he isn't nationalist or racist so that can't be fascist.

[Marblehead]

Well he isn't nationalist or racist so that can't be fascist.

I would agree that he isn't a nationalist.  That's all I will say.

[Karl]

I would agree that he isn't a nationalist.  That's all I will say.

 

Do you think he is racist ? I mean in terms of fascistic racism of the type that believes in deportation or genocide.

He isn't ultra masculine and promotes feminism.

The corporations and banks control him and not he them.

He doesn't really do the glory of war thing, he seems pushed into it.

 

None of those things seem particularly fascist.

 

When I consider it seems to me that it isn't unlike the British Empire at its point of collapse. The corporations run the Government, which is different to the Nazi state in which it was the Government that decreed what the corporations must do. The direction of travel is dictated by power and money, there isn't as such - a vision- just some rather grubby deals backed up by the threat of violence.

 

[Brian]

<snip>

Government not for me but for them. Hmmm.

<snip>

 

This is an inherent problem with statism in all its flavors.

[gendao]

The USA tax code sucks. It is designed to keep the poor poor and make the middle class poor. And yet it allows the wealthy to pay little or next to no taxes whatever.

If you have government you will never have "no tax". If a society can't be a Social Anarchy you will always have government.

It's human nature to accept the existing status quo as the norm and thus "correct" due to having won out. The side that won, was the right side by virtue of winning (even if by force).

 

But in reality, everything can still be up for debate at any point...and perhaps even should, with the added benefit of hindsight & retrospect.

 

Now other than a temporary Civil War income tax, the US did not have a federal income tax until 1913.

 

The tax code you complain about now to "keep the poor poor and wealthy wealthy" (despite the fact that half of poorer Americans already pay NO federal income tax at all, but OK?) was imposed by the Left back then with the very same debate as is going on in this forum today. This required the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, so was a completely radical change to the original "no taxes without representation" ethos of the Founders. And they really wanted to progressively tax the rich, but eventually settled for a flat tax on just the richest, for starters. Of course, this quickly spread down the slippery slope to more of the Middle & Lower classes...and the rest is now history.

In 1913 Congress enacted a top rate of 7 percent and a high exemption that spared all but 2 percent of households entirely. But just five years later, the top rate was 11 times higher. Many of the same lawmakers who voted for the light and narrow tax of 1913 also voted for the heavy and much broader tax of 1918.

 

Rep. John Nance Garner led the drive for a graduated rate structure. Hull was reluctant, worried that progressive rates would leave the new tax vulnerable to judicial and political challenges. Eventually, however, he agreed to a modest amount of graduation. Rates in the House bill topped out at 4 percent.

 

The House version of the income tax included a $4,000 exemption for both single and married taxpayers -- almost $100,000 in 2013 dollars. Wilson specifically asked Hull to set the exemption high, because he was eager to "burden as small a number of persons (as possible) with the obligations involved in the administration of what will at best be an unpopular law."

 

After passing the House, the tariff bill moved to the Senate, where left-leaning Democrats and progressive Republicans were intent on raising income tax rates. The Finance Committee resisted those changes, instead focusing on exemption levels. In particular, the panel lowered the exemption to $3,000 for single filers but kept the House's $4,000 figure for married couples. Finance members created a $500 child exemption (with a $1,000 maximum).

 

When the tariff bill reached the floor, insurgent Democrats and progressive Republicans teamed up to push for higher rates, with some amendments seeking to raise top rates as high as 20 percent. But the bill's Democratic floor manager, Sen. John Sharp Williams, tried to beat back the insurgency. "No honest man can make war upon great fortunes per se," he insisted. "The Democratic Party never has done it; and when the Democratic Party begins to do it, it will cease to be the Democratic Party and become the socialistic party of the United States; or better expressed, the communistic party, or quasi-communistic party, of the United States."

 

Williams had plenty of support from old-line Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, who denounced the "confiscation of property under the guise of taxation." Lodge urged his colleagues not to transform "the imposition of a tax to the pillage of class."

 

Democratic leaders and their conservative Republican allies eventually agreed to a compromise with the insurgents. As passed by the Senate, the income tax law featured rates as high as 7 percent -- a long way from 20 percent, to be sure, but also a fair distance from the House's top rate of 4 percent.

 

if Root had no problem with a graded tax, plenty of other observers did. Editorial critics objected to the high exemption as a form of class legislation. The New York Sun, for instance, called it "taxation of the few for the benefit of the many." And their crosstown colleagues were similarly unhappy. "The aim of the cumulative tax is to take from those who have much for the benefit of those who have little," The New York Times wrote. At the end of the day, such a tax would hurt the rich (and the economy) but do little to help the poor.

 

The New York Times had succinctly voiced its objections some four years earlier when the 16th Amendment first made its way to the states. "When men once get the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they are not easily cured of it," the paper warned.

Edited July 22, 2015 by gendao

[Apech]

Just hate the thought they are twins don't you ? Too much to bare. It's like I've accused God of being the Devil. Back to the request which neither hard line socialist appears to want to take up: Please define facism and socialism. Then it's possible to see what you believe to be the differences and end the argument for good.

 

 

Ok.

 

Socialism, which existed before Marx by the way he didn't invent it, is working towards the betterment of people through improving social organisation.  In other words preferring the idea of the good of others or the many over the selfish interest of the few.

 

Fascism is grouping of society around the elite few (who in the benign form of this movement are supposed to make decisions on behalf of the many) - as imaged by the Roman symbol of the fasces , viz:

 

where the axe represents the ruling elite and the bundle of wood is the people.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Apech

[Apech]

This is an inherent problem with statism in all its flavors.

 

 

I think this is right is in a sense.  I think history is in effect the story of human social development.  Politics or government and the experiments which mankind has carried out to try to find the ideal way to live is not a static thing but an organic one.  So at a certain point in history feudalism is the 'right' things, later it falls apart and is replaced - but that does not make it inherently morally wrong it just makes it 'of it's time'.  What is interesting to me is not to take rigid positions right or left etc. because similarly they are 'of their time' and it is more about understanding the forces which are pushing to find new forms of living which are better than the past.  The biggest problem (apart from human cruelty and greed) is being stuck in one mode of being when time has moved on.  This really in my view is the big problem with today - we are trying to address current problems using the techniques of the past.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Apech

[Karl]

Ok.

 

Socialism, which existed before Marx by the way he didn't invent it, is working towards the betterment of people through improving social organisation.  In other words preferring the idea of the good of others or the many over the selfish interest of the few.

 

Fascism is grouping of society around the elite few (who in the benign form of this movement are supposed to make decisions on behalf of the many) - as imaged by the Roman symbol of the fasces , viz:

 

where the axe represents the ruling elite and the bundle of wood is the people.

 

Well thank you for giving it a go. Can I guide you a bit here to see if it can be improved ? At present it's as broad as a broad thing. Here is my go at fascism as its only fair I do likewise.

 

A form of collectivism which is totalitarian, racist, nationalist and preserves the facade of private property.

 

The genus is collectivism ( your example 'gather around', but collectivism is what you seem to be implying ). The differentia are those things which are specific and differentiate fascism from other forms of collectivism such as communism/socialism.

 

 

[ralis]

Sen. Pat Roberts obviously is confused as to what National Socialism is and is not. Stupid unfounded remarks are divisive.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pat-roberts-warns-national-socialism-the-us

 

 “We have to change course because our country is heading for national socialism. That’s not right. It’s changing our culture. It’s changing what we’re all about.”

 

Nation Reviews Kevin Williamson are equally absurd.

 

 

 

It was a curious moment. Pat Roberts, after spending more than three decades on Capitol Hill, was either arguing that America is headed towards Nazism or was using the phrase “national socialism” without knowing what it means.

 

About a year later, the phrase has popped up once more. National Review, ostensibly one of the leading media outlets in U.S. conservatism, published this piece from Kevin Williiamson about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign.

In the Bernieverse, there’s a whole lot of nationalism mixed up in the socialism. He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement, which is a queasy and uncomfortable thing to write about a man who is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. But there is no other way to characterize his views and his politics.

 

[gendao]

Are you part of the 1%? If not, then why are you feeling sorry for them? I have had many extremely wealthy clients that have more than one house in various states. These homes are expensive palaces! I have such pity for those poor souls that have so little and complain so much.

 

The wealthy corporate owners use far more of the commons than anyone else. Pollution from manufacturing, semi-truck traffic on highways/interstates and that includes bridges, many of which are old and need major repair.The use of the military to protect corporate interests in the middle east; oil, natural gas and mining. The U.S. military is one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels on the planet. NSA contractors; we all know what that is about. The list goes on, but some may understand.

 

Steve Jobs benefited from government R&D and what does Apple do in return? Stuff their profits overseas so as to avoid taxes.

 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/09/10-Big-Corporate-Tax-Breaks

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/

To act out of a sense of fairness for all, rather than simply out of selfish greed...must be a radically foreign concept to you, huh?

 

Well, corporate profits and policies are driven by the consumers who vote for them with their wallets on a DAILY basis and occasionally, ballots. So, the buck literally stops with the consumer - who exercises free choice in whose businesses and ethos they want to support - in actual DEED, not just WORDS. Because talk is cheap, MONEY talks, BS walks...and so the American people have SPOKEN.

 

And yes, high taxes spur capital flight. But, shouldn't you be happy when the same class of job creators you demonize...finally leaves town? Problem solved then, right?

Edited July 22, 2015 by gendao