“Progressive” Economics - Socialist or Fascist?

Dear god, you're probably one of those who believe that some of our programs are socialist in nature. I literally gave you the definition, and you go and get a cheaper version from the dictionary. By the way, even with that cheaper version it STILL proves my point. "Exalts the nation(it erroneously says race, but that was far more Germany than Italy, nor was it all that important to the idea, certainly not for the Italians anyway. And less so for the social-political theorem in general.) above the self."

But even that exaltation itself is largely incorrect. Again, to reiterate: The Nation-state is bound to the people. The binded sticks that make up the Fascist sigma. Almost all of Hitler's speeches had several minutes of 'Deutschen volk'. I'm literally explaining, again, basic tenants to you IN REAL TIME.

Just stop it. You have no knowledge whatsoever of either political social structure, and that becomes more obvious with every post you make on the topic.

 

I believe you're confusing socialism with programs that are socialized. They are not the same thing.

No, you are rambling in real time. Just a few minutes ago you literally made the claim that fascism "does not ignore individual will." Do you have any idea how ridiculous that reads? I have to believe you're just trolling because it's better than believing anyone could write something so ignorant.

 

It doesn't, it merges it. Essentially, the German Government for example didn't care what work you did(well, as long as it was honest work, ie they were against crony capitalism, but I'm not going to make this complicated for you because you can't even follow the basics.), they just wanted to get the citizen to work. That's in large part how the German Economic Miracle took place, mass production(and it wasn't entirely militaristic, note the autobahn and the volkswagen, among other benevolent things.). Did you know that one massive appeal was for farming and commercial land?

Italy wasn't as successful as Germany, but even the Italians set up a modernized business model under Mussolini(as I said, both privatized at least far more than the Soviets.).

There's just so much you're willingly blind to as a whole and instead you cite a public dictionary. I actually read the actual material.

 

Again, that is gibberish. Your right to self determination cannot be "merged" against your will into someone else's or into some other thing. Provided you don't seek to harm others in the process, either you are free to do as you wish with your life or you are not. The moment your freedom is "merged" it is also erased.

You have a rather Orwellian view of individual liberty.

 

No one said authoritarian rule wasn't efficient. Quite the opposite is true. But in another similarity with Socialism, the centralization of political authority needed for that efficiency doesn't stop with cute family sedans rolling down smoothly paved, well lit roads. The authority quickly moves on to solving other "problems," and that's when the killing starts.

 

That's not true at all, and to prove it let's use the very example of this country: Someone is working their shift, and to be sure they get paid for their well-earned labor, but the government takes a percentage of it via taxation and applies it for its own purposes. The government literally benefits from the working class, and the more workers there are the better.

Citizens, as workers generally do not pay attention to the symbiotic relationship between themselves and the State(nor is it required that they do so, actually it's better that they don't) but nevertheless it is the effective function that serves the self interests of both State and Individuals.

We as people are at our happiest when we are productive, and free to enjoy the fruits of our labor. In the Philosophy of Fascism, the Fascist organizes the government and society so that people may be their most productive, and thus at their most free.

But since my words aren't good enough, I'd like to introduce you to my mentor: Take some time and go through it. Mind you, the language of course is outdated, and we can discuss where I've made changes and some iterations, but first we need to get you through the basics.

 

No thank you. I really don't need further study on the subject. I've quite reasonably concluded that fascism does not respect individual rights, nor does it preserve them through this frankly idiotic idea of "merging" them into the state. And I'm in no need of being lectured by a recreational fascist attempting to convince me otherwise.

 

You have no understanding of any of its conceptions, and as you've stated here you have even less desire to have such an understanding and yet from this position of self professed ignorance you have the gall to call any of it idiotic. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, that's an unrealistic goal. I'm just asking you to refrain from a topic you've shown no interest or capability in.

 

Exactly, being somewhat of an authoritarian you don't want me saying things you disagree with. How fitting.

 

'don't want you' LMFAO. No, it's just that it contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's not a mere disagreement, it's that you have no conception of what you're talking about. But it's 'convincing enough' for the masses, because it's the same basic drivel about the topic that's been beaten in our heads from elementary school onward.

But when one does research on the political movements of its time, and their reasoning and concepts, there's a deeper understanding. I'm not being an authoritarian, you can feel free to be as closed minded to the topic as you'd like but if that's how closed minded you want to be, it doesn't make sense for you to be in this thread. You've had both a socialist and a fascist tell you that you don't understand the ideologies(and you don't), that should be a sign.

 

Yes, yes, of course You think fascism, as a system, respects individual rights and I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

BTW, do you get out much?

 

If you had bothered to watch/listen to the audio I linked, your issues would have been answered(actually, I also answered them myself, but it's not surprising.) It's literally leading a donkey to water, i can't make you drink it. Look at the title of the thread. It deals with Fascists and Socialists. The least someone who isn't a fascist or a socialist could do, is to pretend to have an interest in the discussion and then find out how to engage from there.

But like you just confessed, you don't want to bother so why then did you even bother to make a post towards me at all when this all began? From your standpoint, it also doesn't make sense.

 

While I ought to say stick to your YourTube videos as they would appear to be your speed, you really should raises your game some.

Consider books, especially those written by people who lived through the fascist and socialist experiments of the 20th century. In fact, I recommend you read some history on the Czech Republic. In the span of 60 years they went from a largely capitalist system, to Fascism, to Socialism, and back to capitalism again, It’s a remarkably controlled experiment for something that happened in the real world. My strong opinion is that most of them would think you’re absolutely nuts for claiming there is some meaningful difference between Socialism and Fascism or that either system respects the individual.

Even better, Go visit them, as I have, and hear what have to say.

 

Nah, I prefer the direct sources rather than third hand sources. And it's because I use the direct sources, I understand both systems well, their differences and their similarities and I understand the animosity between them. Did you know how close Germany came to a civil war prior to Hitler's rise to power? Yeah, I bet you had absolutely no idea. Because in your mind, they were chums!

Which is such a gross historical error.

 

So talking to people who lived through some of that is a third hand source?

 

Winkling out what a group actually stands for is a difficult undertaking. We can start by discarding the pronouncements of politicians. They tend to have both feet firmly planted in mid air.

Position, n. An ideological point on the political map. To take a position is to plant both feet firmly on an undefined location. The basic map coordinates are ego and the political zeitgeist.

A politician, one fine day
Said, with a lofty air:
'I'm standing on my principles.
I'm sure you'll find them fair.'

And then he turned and walked away.
I checked the floor with care;
Examined where he just had stood,
But there was nothing there.

[A Modern Dictionary, Fragmentary Press, 2016, Chelm, IA]

If we wish to pin down what 'progressive' stands for, we have to also include a temporal milestone. Labels change with time. Fascism was once the form of authoritarian rule found in Italy under Benito Mussolini. Now, it's bandied about freely as a pejorative for 'them'.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Interesting Post .. the quote at least .. this is perhaps the smartest thing I have heard Biden even say ... although he did have a few good ones back in the day .. before the dark side caught up..

There is nothing Fascist .. and nothing "Pure Socialist" .. a bare whisp of socialism lite .. against the other side .. which is an argument for extremism "Lassez Faire" however that is spelt.

What ever "Shareholder Capitalism" means to Biden -- how else do you call the kind of system in which we currently reside ? .. and what are the problems with such a system .. in addition to what Biden suggests .. Does the corporation have no responsibility to workers .. community .. and country ? ..

and how is it Fascism to suggest otherwise .. and why label it fascism in some demonization trope .. deflecting away from coherent train of discussion.

 

Yes, you don't truly know what they've been through(hell, they themselves don't even know.) See the unique American experience(that other posters have opined below) where Americans don't know from their left or their right politically, let alone about the political organizations that were created, out of Europe.

The main source material, is what the thinkers of their time thought. Anyone who truly wants to get a prospective on an issue, gets as close to that as possible. Which is why a dictionary source, from a side of the pond that was victorious in the second world war could never be an applicable source of information. If you'll notice, said dictionary source ties in the war economy, with the political philosophy as though they were one and the same(they are not, and were not.)

Having studied the main source material, I firmly understand what they believe, why they believed it and where they erred. And having studied the main source material, I also understand that the two sides were never, ever friends. Both despised one another equally. It would be as though Jews and Muslims would enter a military pact, even if that were to happen both of us could understand that they're not friends.


(of course, we all wish for those two factions to be in peace, but we're realistic here.)

 

Should we all be Marxists:

 

Fascists are socialists. The German Fascists were the National Socialists.

Biden's Fascist EPA Attacking LA with "Equity" Attack.

'In a novel application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which allows the federal government to defund entities found to discriminate based on race, creed or national origin – the EPA is threatening to withhold millions of dollars in general federal grants to Louisiana unless it enters into an “informal resolution agreement.” This would give federal regulators wide latitude to control a process currently run by Louisiana agencies.'

I highlighted in red why the Fascist Biden Administration will lose this battle in court. If there is no clear GRANT of power, from We The People, to the Executive Branch, they do not have authority in this area. That's the difference between Constitutional Liberal Democracy and all types of Totalitarianism, including Fascism (National Socialism) and International Socialism.

 

It is not fascism. It is simply a highly regulated business environment. That is not fascist, socialist, or communist.

 

In the end socialism is little more than the idea that human freedom is dangerous and only some bureaucrat in an office a thousand miles away can truly administer your wants and needs.
Where the rubber meets the road fascism doesn't differ significantly. Both are the province of tyrant's large and small who wish desperately to micromanage everyone else's life.

 

So employees are not humans who can add value to the company. YOu are as outdated and obsolete as your state.

Employees are what makes a company valuable. It is why they are called human resources much like any qualified food or material the company may use to make their product. Depending on their function within the company. A stakeholder is a party that has an interest in a company and can either affect or be affected by the business. They can be the shareholders, the employees, the investors, the suppliers, and the customers. A good CEO makes the decision with all those inputs, not just the "bottom line." And there have been examples where companies did not take all the stakeholders into account and thus either abandoned the company's proposed plans or went bellyup in the process.

 

Inane comments which have no bearing on anything I stated and attempts to insult my state which continue to lie about............

Humans who are employees of the company are PAID to add value and that is an expense. It does not make them a "stakehholder" in the company do you even have any concept as to what is a "stakeholder" I've been trying to help you out here.

Lots of things make a company valuable so what? Employees as employees have no stake in a company. INVESTORS and lenders have stakes in the company. An employee can quit tomorrow with no loss on their part.

 

Bear in mind, you were the one who said that employees are not stakeholders Blues. They are just "expenses" which implies no humanity in that comment. Employees are paid to do lots of things, and if they are adding value, then they are more than just "expenses." It is hard and expensive to replace good employees. It is even more expensive to replace employees in which the company has a turnover rate greater than 100%, and in some cases, greater than 50%. Some industries come with a high turnover rate, namely service industry jobs where job skills are pretty common and pay is low, while other industries don't. And yes, it does make them a stakeholder because it is they who are affected directly. Employees are not robots and why companies must balance work and life for everyone. If you create an environment where employees take much, if not all of the brunt, then eventually, you will not have a pool to get employees. And this is what Musk is facing. He is compensating by trying to

A stakeholder does not mean they make decisions, but they are on the front lines in many cases and probably know more about the product than the sales reps or even the engineers who designed it on paper. Your idea of a stakeholder is decision-making, and that is not what a stakeholder means.

If you ignore parts where the value comes in from any and all directions, then you are creating the weakest link and thus not creating the fullest potential of the company. Compensation or lack thereof does not mean they don't have imput or add value, it just means the owner is taking advantage of the situation and will more than likely close the business within a few years because even the customers will get wind and go elsewhere. Why do you think the number one reason small businesses fail within 5 years? The person who owns the small business knows how to sell or make their product, but not much of anything else. It is even faster when dealing with employees who work in small businesses, namely restaurants because the owner thinks they are not doing anything wrong even though the employees are constructively criticizing the owner to improve the product after listening to the customer complaints.