A Psychological Exercise or 'Why Those At The Top Seem Able To Justify Anything'.

Let me summarise the op,

People with wealth/power are evil/manipulative
Facism will be the result

The op does not understand that facism is national socialism; an attempt by the many to restrain the success of the few and to curtail the liberty/assets of anyone who says otherwise or who doesn't fit the mold of who they consider a 'national' to be.

Since Socialism require everyone, who, exactly would be the ones to curtail the liberties, or be the ones being curtailed? This is the thing NO ONE gets about Socialism; it doesn't exist unless everyone agrees to it. Without that, you have Communism, which is not Socialism.
 
@Saru Inc

i guess you arent an underpaid third world worker...

Nor Chessie a top level CEO. I find it ironic of any American complaining about the wealthy and power of the 1% meanwhile our entire fucking lives are propped up on genocide, slavery and butchery. ESPECIALLY the sleeping blind ridiculous middle class.
 
Nor Chessie a top level CEO. I find it ironic of any American complaining about the wealthy and power of the 1% meanwhile our entire fucking lives are propped up on genocide, slavery and butchery. ESPECIALLY the sleeping blind ridiculous middle class.

im not american :) i live in a third world country
 
Let me summarise the op,

People with wealth/power are evil/manipulative
Facism will be the result

The op does not understand that facism is national socialism; an attempt by the many to restrain the success of the few and to curtail the liberty/assets of anyone who says otherwise or who doesn't fit the mold of who they consider a 'national' to be.

Fascism is when corporate power and government power blur together and that is what we have been seeing

Hitler worked closely with bankers and industrialists. they funded him and supported him because they were threatened by the potential rise of communism in Russia and they wanted to create a strong regime in germany that could act as a sheild against communism; they believed that they could work with Hitler

So fascism isn't socialism as socialism is when the workers control the means of production. The workers did not control the means of production in nazi germany they were controlled by a centralised government so nazi Germany was not 'socialist'...you could perhaps describe it as 'state socialist'

It seems where state capitalism and state socialism meet you get fascism because power has become centralised and the corporations usurp power

What we are seeing at the moment is the destruction of the middle classes and the movement of public wealth upwards into the hands of the few at the very top of society; freedoms are being curtailed in this process and will continue to be so for as long as it is allowed to continue
 
Fascism is when corporate power and government power blur together and that is what we have been seeing

Hitler worked closely with bankers and industrialists. they funded him and supported him because they were threatened by the potential rise of communism in Russia and they wanted to create a strong regime in germany that could act as a sheild against communism; they believed that they could work with Hitler

So fascism isn't socialism as socialism is when the workers control the means of production. The workers did not control the means of production in nazi germany they were controlled by a centralised government so nazi Germany was not 'socialist'...you could perhaps describe it as 'state socialist'

It seems where state capitalism and state socialism meet you get fascism because power has become centralised and the corporations usurp power

What we are seeing at the moment is the destruction of the middle classes and the movement of public wealth upwards into the hands of the few at the very top of society; freedoms are being curtailed in this process and will continue to be so for as long as it is allowed to continue

Facism = National Socialism. It's all about confiscating the wealth/jobs/industry the majority hate and redistributing it to the 'nationals'. Observe Germany, Italy and Spain in WW2 or many countries in the middle east today; learn your history!
 
Facism = National Socialism. It's all about confiscating the wealth/jobs/industry the majority hate and redistributing it to the 'nationals'. Observe Germany, Italy and Spain in WW2 or many countries in the middle east today; learn your history!

My history is fine

Mussolini the fascist leader of Italy during WWII said the following:

''Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of corporate and government power''

So there you have it Jim, straight from the horses mouth so to speak

The real problem here is with centralised power. It seems you don't want to be controlled by a domineering authority and neither do i, so we have that in common (is that fair?)

When there is centralised power there is corruption and exploitation

So as power centralises whether it is in a 'capitalist' or a 'socialist' state then it becomes more authoritarian, more totalitarian (ie wanting to control more and more aspects of our lives)

So there are libertarian capitalists who are saying that the UK and US has become 'state capitalist' because the corporations (including the bankers) have basically merged with government. Look at the heavy sentences handed out for poor people who stole small items like bottles of water during the riots last year and then ask yourself how many bankers have been jailed for the LIBOR scandal and how many MP's were jailed for the expenses scandal and how many police have been jailed for the News of the World phone hacking scandal?

The truth is that the crimes being committed at the top of our society are BIG crimes involving huge sums of money, but no one gets jailed for them because of the corruption and because at the top of society there is basically a corporate mafia who fund the politicians and then give the politicians jobs i their corporations when they leave politics

So the libertarian capitalists like Ron Paul are right in saying that the corporations have formed large monopolies that are now steering national policy but i just don't agree with their solution which is anarcho-capitalism because i think large power blocks would still form under that system and would probably form huge private armies whcih they would use against other groups (they'd probably call these 'private defence contractors' initially until they sought more authority from their power in which case they would then create a government to enforce their power!)

So i agree with the libertarian capitalists in their diagnosis but not in their solution. Instead i agree with the libertarian socialists who like the libertarian capitalists are wary of government.

So i guess my isssue with your post is with your use of the word socialism because although the nazis called themselves 'nationalist socialists' they were not real socialists in the same way that the current merger of government and corporations (into a 'corporatocracy') is arguably not real capitalism

True socialism is when the workers control the means of production but nazi germany was centrally controlled by a totalitarian government

And thats always been the problem for peoples claiming to be seeking 'communism' is that they never reach a proper state of communism....they always get stuck with a centralised dictatorship

The project keeps failing, but lessons are being learned and success will finally come when we can work around the problem of centralised power
 
My history is fine

If it is then you really do need to learn to call a spade a spade.

Either that or your history is poor.
 
If it is then you really do need to learn to call a spade a spade.

Either that or your history is poor.

I'm calling it exactly as it is

One definition of fascism is a merging of corporate power and government power and that is what we are seeing in the UK and US at the moment

Further to that centralised control leads to increasing totalitarian tendencies
 
[MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION]

Do you think anything needs be changed with the current western governments who use Capitalism as their economic model?
 
@InvisibleJim

Do you think anything needs be changed with the current western governments who use Capitalism as their economic model?

Yes, the election system doesn't work; we go 'left right left right left right'. It's not a question of left vs right, it's a question of how we can establish a system which meets everyone's aspirations. This would then set a steady position which is understood and has legal backing.

The mistake is actually messing about with the capitalism aspect at all; a responsible government would aim to create opportunity, not to manipulate the markets and hamstring the activities of it's citizens; see perverse regulation, interest rate fiddling, bail outs, etc.
 
Yes, the election system doesn't work; we go 'left right left right left right'. It's not a question of left vs right, it's a question of how we can establish a system which meets everyone's aspirations. This would then set a steady position which is understood and has legal backing.

The mistake is actually messing about with the capitalism aspect at all; a responsible government would aim to create opportunity, not to manipulate the markets and hamstring the activities of it's citizens; see perverse regulation, interest rate fiddling, bail outs, etc.

I agree with a fair amount of that!

Its just how to stop those pesky monopolies forming and influencing governments (squeezing out democracy)?
 
Yes, the election system doesn't work; we go 'left right left right left right'. It's not a question of left vs right, it's a question of how we can establish a system which meets everyone's aspirations. This would then set a steady position which is understood and has legal backing.

The mistake is actually messing about with the capitalism aspect at all; a responsible government would aim to create opportunity, not to manipulate the markets and hamstring the activities of it's citizens; see perverse regulation, interest rate fiddling, bail outs, etc.

I agree with you.

Why do you think governments are not being responsible?
 
Since Socialism require everyone, who, exactly would be the ones to curtail the liberties, or be the ones being curtailed? This is the thing NO ONE gets about Socialism; it doesn't exist unless everyone agrees to it. Without that, you have Communism, which is not Socialism.

Socialism is a broad church. All western countries include various levels of socialism. National socialism favours a select group of nationals, see the middle east today, saudi, uae etc.
 
Socialism is a broad church. All western countries include various levels of socialism. National socialism favours a select group of nationals, see the middle east today, saudi, uae etc.

I think that is a missuse of the word socialism.

Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. western countries do not have that so they are not socialist

What you seem to mean when you say 'socialism' is government interference?

Government interference in capitalism is called 'state capitalism' it is not socialism....its very far from socialism, but the corporate media (who are influencing government) will call it socialism to hide from people that there is another alternative which is real socialism
 
There was a study published recently that has been mentioned in an article in the guardian newspaper today which warns that democracy in the UK is in 'terminal decline' due to rising corporate power:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/british-democracy-decline-report

Here's the opening paragraph:

A study into the state of democracy in Britain over the last decade warns it is in "long-term terminal decline" as the power of corporations keeps growing, politicians become less representative of their constituencies and disillusioned citizens stop voting or even discussing current affairs.
 
I agree with you.

Why do you think governments are not being responsible?


It seems that each progressive American generation becomes more and more dependent upon government and other people to supply even their basic needs far into adulthood. I've talked to a lot of younger adults about this and I hear fear of offending and/or biting the hand that feeds them. Fear makes for a very manageable population, doesn't it? If a government has a malleable population, it is certainly much easier for them to be irresponsible.
 
Since Socialism require everyone, who, exactly would be the ones to curtail the liberties, or be the ones being curtailed? This is the thing NO ONE gets about Socialism; it doesn't exist unless everyone agrees to it. Without that, you have Communism, which is not Socialism.

Would it be better if we said Fascism = National Communism? I don't mean to sound snarky with that, but the meaning is the same.

Nor Chessie a top level CEO. I find it ironic of any American complaining about the wealthy and power of the 1% meanwhile our entire fucking lives are propped up on genocide, slavery and butchery. ESPECIALLY the sleeping blind ridiculous middle class.

I'm not going to extrapolate the meaning of this post to insinuate your political leanings, but that doesn't add up. Also: America resides on the basics of liberty. Do we have our mistakes? Sure. But only count our mistakes if you count the mistakes the rest of the world makes. Now please note I'm not saying we're not accountable for our grievances -- of course we are, but enough with the big bad America lets go be like Asia/Europe/South America.

Also: I hope you're not referring to the Indians when you are referring to genocide. It was a war. Indians made poor use of the land, in many cases we tried to make peace (which we actually achieved in many places) but then lovely people like Andrew Jackson (dem) made the trail of tears, and Teddy Roosevelt (Progessive --not-- Republican) promoted racism against Indians. Were some Indians needlessly slaughtered at the hands of Colonists? Unfortunately yes, but all we can do is not let us repeat the past and move on.


Now if you weren't referring to Indians then I just wasted a post but whatevs.
 
Would it be better if we said Fascism = National Communism? I don't mean to sound snarky with that, but the meaning is the same.

Hi Saru

I've cut and pasted a definition of communism from wikipedia below; as you can see clearly from this definition fascism is not the same as communism, so i think it would be pretty missleading to call fascism 'national communism'. Perhaps a more objective approach is to see that fascism is about centralised control.....its when the corporations and the government merge and power consolidates. I think neither true capitalists or true socialists want to see that happen:

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production


I'm not going to extrapolate the meaning of this post to insinuate your political leanings, but that doesn't add up. Also: America resides on the basics of liberty. Do we have our mistakes? Sure. But only count our mistakes if you count the mistakes the rest of the world makes. Now please note I'm not saying we're not accountable for our grievances -- of course we are, but enough with the big bad America lets go be like Asia/Europe/South America.

Also: I hope you're not referring to the Indians when you are referring to genocide. It was a war. Indians made poor use of the land, in many cases we tried to make peace (which we actually achieved in many places) but then lovely people like Andrew Jackson (dem) made the trail of tears, and Teddy Roosevelt (Progessive --not-- Republican) promoted racism against Indians. Were some Indians needlessly slaughtered at the hands of Colonists? Unfortunately yes, but all we can do is not let us repeat the past and move on.


Now if you weren't referring to Indians then I just wasted a post but whatevs.

I think that all countries have blood on their hands and so do both political parties. The reality is that there is a power behind governments/states and behind political parties and if you are looking to point the finger of blame then i think they are probably more culpable than anyone

here's a president of the US warning you about this power behind government:

[video=youtube;8y06NSBBRtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/video]
 
It seems that each progressive American generation becomes more and more dependent upon government and other people to supply even their basic needs far into adulthood. I've talked to a lot of younger adults about this and I hear fear of offending and/or biting the hand that feeds them. Fear makes for a very manageable population, doesn't it? If a government has a malleable population, it is certainly much easier for them to be irresponsible.

Yes I think they want us as dependant on the corporate system as possible

I think this is part of the reason they want students (and people in general) to be in debt to them because it makes people more fearful and therefore more controllable...i think this has been part of their schema all along

Even the governments are in debt to the global investors so they are being controlled as well

But whereas we saw massive student protests in the 60's i think now students will be in so much debt that a lot of them will be so totally focussed on trying to get a job (and then once they have one trying to keep it) to pay off the debt that they will not be able to properly engage with the democratic process.....however that can also go the other way....people can be pushed past breaking point so that they kick back at the system....perhaps the corporations have overplayed their hand? There are definately signs that people are getting pissed off with it all

In effect the global investors want to own everyone (indentured labourers) and everything

This might sound grim but this fight isn't over. I think democracy is on the ropes at the moment but the fact is that the workers still hold most of the cards really as they make the economy work....they just need to become organised enough that they can act with the unity and coherence necessary to challenge the corporations and we are seeing movements like the occupy movement that can provide something for people to rally around; but perhaps most of all they need to believe in themselves and in their rights as humans (particularly the young as they are going to inherit the system)
 
It seems that each progressive American generation becomes more and more dependent upon government and other people to supply even their basic needs far into adulthood. I've talked to a lot of younger adults about this and I hear fear of offending and/or biting the hand that feeds them.

Fear makes for a very manageable population, doesn't it?

If a government has a malleable population, it is certainly much easier for them to be irresponsible
.

Yes. It does make it easier for the government to act irresponsibly.

My question is - Why do you think the government IS acting irresponsibly?

Certainly it cannot just be because the population is becoming dumber and more afraid. The governments made them that way in the first place.

Why?
 
Back
Top