Reply With Quote
You guys really need to decide once and for all whether you are going to call Obama a fascist or a socialist.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"--that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
It's a definition of Fascism in the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
You guys really need to decide once and for all whether you are going to call Obama a fascist or a socialist.
That's where we're headed alright.
Who are "you guys"? I've already understood you're obsessed with Obama, democrats, republicans, idiots and labels in general - but this thread is not essentially about Obama, or even strictly about the US.
Thanks for the profound reasoning anyway.
So you aren't calling Obama or his policies fascist?
"Does this sound familiar?" in the le line, definition of fascism in the post. Does the observation fit or not? WH23 keeps referring to our mixed, Chinese-style economy. What do you call it, ChumpDumper? It ain't the system you and me grew up with.
Conceiving fascism as an economic arrangement, the implied comparison seems apt enough to me. De facto default is followed by de facto nationalization of broad sectors of the economy. I blame it on Bush and Obama both. Theme of continuity again.
The definitional *fascism* seems to have been adopted more as an expedience than as an aspiration in the USA: it's supposed to save *free trade* to fight another day. We'll see. I hope it does. The camel's nose is under the tent.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-31-2009 at 09:45 PM.
It's the system that comes into play whenever capitalism s itself up out of a normally acceptable proportion. It has happened before.What do you call it, ChumpDumper? It ain't the system you and me grew up with.
what's been going of for a LONG TIME is now being exposed, esp to the dumb s on the right.
"This country was sold, bought, and delivered a long time ago" - George Carlin.
The corps and the capitalists have captured the legislature and the regulatory bodies, democracy "for the people" is a sham, "democracy" for the corps and capitalists is the USA.
The New Deal and WWII come to mind. Were you thinking of anything else?
Fair point, but do you think the Federal government will one day say "OK, our intervention is officially over. We give the reins back to the nearest investor."
Because I doubt it. Once they have the power theyll be loathe to give it away...even if they have to create conditions where their continued control seems most prudent to the general public.
America was never meant to be a democracy anyway.
The left created the myth that america was a democracy and then denounce it for having forsaken its ideals.
But anyway, fascism is and always has been a form of socialism so this is hardly surprising news.
Go read a book written in 1945 and see what was really going on.
any book?
what if the book was written in 1944 but published in 1945........does that count?
...I think I am finally catching on to your schtick. You and johnsmith interact much?
They just sold IndyMac back to private investors.
Happens a lot.
Fair enough (<-- my overused phrase). I guess I am wrong until proven right. Its a convenient position.
Kind of depends on the situation. Regulations are always being enacted and repealed. There is an ongoing debate on whether the loosening of Depression era regulations contributed to the current recession. Usually the hubris of business types in good times is reflected in deregulatory legislation ("no really, we can handle it THIS time -- look how awesome we are now"), then when things go bad rubes like me say "I told you so" and call for more regulation.
you mean the schtick where I post smart ass remarks to ignorant dumb ass comments?
yeah, I do that a lot.
I can see both sides...and I usually dont try to middle-of-the-road topics like this.
But its the inherent difficulty of economic free trade. The American free market system was obviously the best choice and heaped vast wealth onto most of is citizens and certainly the government.
Over-regulating that market will hinder its ability to perform to its peak (or so it is said).
Not enough regulation and we all rise and fall by the whims of a few billionaires who buy and sell political moxy at will for favorable trade agreements and investment opportunities.
Big picture, for me? I dont think America is much different then the latter description. Its just veiled enough to trick the eye.
Im losing track...
Point is, there is no easy answer. Good conscience and will of character is a faith-based approach to regulation. Frankly, I dont trust my neighbor much less my fellow man. I side with regulation, but its an uninformed opinion.
Yeah, that. Even when you had absolutely nothing to do with a conversation up to that point.
Hence the comparison with johnsmith. There's no need to follow the conversation or even respond to it if what you really enjoy is dropping into threads to single out posters for derision.
It is possible to do both at the same time, but trolls are usually too lazy for that. Being insulting is enough, though if called out they will usually call it humor and "sport". I suppose it is.
The internet generally is a sweepstakes of sharp elbows and crankiness.
What conversation is happening in this thread that I'm not following?
I'm responding to angrydude's left field post while waiting for the OP to answer your question, WH.
I enjoy a good debate but I also get annoyed when someone tries to post something as fact when they failed to do even an ounce of research on the subject. I like to call them out on it.
If you call that trolling, so be it.
Last edited by Blake; 04-02-2009 at 03:42 PM.
That draws me into several threads as well. People here try to get away making up a lot of bull , and they become comically indignant when asked to back it up. It's internets gold.I enjoy a good debate but I also get annoyed when someone tries to post something as fact when they failed to do even an ounce of research on the subject and I call them out on it.
Just trollish really, and everybody's guilty from time to time, just some more than others.
Look, you're a regular poster, Blake. Not a troll IMO. You give lucid and rational takes when you actually bother to give them. But sometimes you just slag on the poster without offering any useful addition to the thread. That's trollish.
So be it if that's really your preference.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
