the neoliberal vision of the future

[Idris2002]

The core element in fascism is not privatisation, but forced unity. Fascists also regulate private businesses heavily. I have been following this thread and it has been explained throughoughly. It's called corporatism.
You can't just pick a random element and just point it out as fascism. Then you must also be a fascist since both Hitler and UK (and other countries) has police?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Do we have another sockpuppet here, mods?

 

[nino_savatte]

His mates are scarily mental though. The comments on his blog are full of One of them explains how "libertarians" need to take control of the military and police in order to arrest and, one must assume, liquidate all socialists. (Remember that for this lot anyone who isn't a vulgar right libertarian is a "socialist" so that means getting rid of most of the population). The Pinochet apologetics make more sense now. In another place Onar tells someone that their grandmother is as bad as Hitler because she approves of state funded roads etc. Proper stone bonkers.

Yes, without coercion and support from the repressive arms of the state, libertarians are a pretty spineless bunch. All we need do it look at Chile (again) to see that the Chicago Boys were agitating for a state that ran along Friedmanite lines as early as the middle to late 60's. When Pinochet seized power, they were in the perfect position to see their dreams realised and the General was more than happy to go along with them. The Italian futurists found themselves in a similar position. Without Mussolini's support, they would have been marginalised.

 

[nino_savatte]

The core element in fascism is not privatisation, but forced unity. Fascists also regulate private businesses heavily. I have been following this thread and it has been explained throughoughly. It's called corporatism.
You can't just pick a random element and just point it out as fascism. Then you must also be a fascist since both Hitler and UK (and other countries) has police?

WorkersUnite, eh?

 

[Idris2002]

Does marginalisation really matter to the avant-garde, though?

I did laugh when I read about the Futurist who signed up for the Austrian front in world war one, only to experience at first hand the fully lethal implications of modern technology.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by onarchy
You guys agree with 95% of Hitler's policies AND ideology.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[nino_savatte]

Does marginalisation really matter to the avant-garde, though?

I did laugh when I read about the Futurist who signed up for the Austrian front in world war one, only to experience at first hand the fully lethal implications of modern technology.

It shouldn't really but they were a little more than just an avant-garde art movement.

Most of them were killed or maimed in WWI but that didn't stop them from holding some pretty reprehensible views.

 

[Dillinger4]

It shouldn't really but they were a little more than just an avant-garde art movement.

Most of them were killed or maimed in WWI but that didn't stop them from holding some pretty reprehensible views.

Or just plain weird. Julius Evola, for example.

 

[stethoscope]

"workers unite"

 

[Idris2002]

It shouldn't really but they were a little more than just an avant-garde art movement.

.

Were they? I know their aesthetic foreshadowed a lot of fascism, but I didn't know they'd been more explicitly political.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Do we have another sockpuppet here, mods?

Nah, just another loon that reads Onan's tossmongery. It's amusing that on his blog Onan claims that "it does not bother me what the socialists say about me", yet he keeps on coming back time and time to demand our respect. Me thinks the tosser doth protest too much.

 

[Blagsta]

The core element in fascism is not privatisation, but forced unity. Fascists also regulate private businesses heavily. I have been following this thread and it has been explained throughoughly. It's called corporatism.
You can't just pick a random element and just point it out as fascism. Then you must also be a fascist since both Hitler and UK (and other countries) has police?

What do you base this on? Which studies? What historical evidence? Which academic studies agree with you?

 

[rekil]

The core element in fascism is not privatisation, but forced unity. Fascists also regulate private businesses heavily. I have been following this thread and it has been explained throughoughly. It's called corporatism.
You can't just pick a random element and just point it out as fascism. Then you must also be a fascist since both Hitler and UK (and other countries) has police?

Randomly chosen passages from Bosworth's book Mussolini's Italy. Why not fuck off and read it for a start. I'm sure plenty of people here would be happy to recommend many other books on the subject.

Politically, they (fascist supporters) were above all anti-socialist...For all its sarcasm about the supine bourgeoisie, fascism scarcely favoured an assault on property or the overthrow of the capitalist system that lay behind its maintenance in civil society. Rather than being the destroyers of the liberal world, fascists wanted it to accept the tempering begun in the war and become slimmer, more efficient, less yielding and clement, more modern.

At Arezzo, Amerigo Dumini (head of the gang that murdered Giacomo Matteotti), kidnapped and beat a local socialist member of parliament, marched menacingly through working class parts of the town and invaded and devastated the Chamber of Labour... At Arezzo, as elsewhere in the region, such actions were greeted with relief by the local propertied classes and by many old liberals, including such distinguished landowning families as the Guicciardinis, Ridolfis and Ricasolis. At the town of the San Sepolcro, home of the Buitoni pasta concern, it was early reported that "Fascismo is Buitonismo."

Re-rail the derailed re-rail please.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Onarchy - the wanking man's cunt

Anyway, about this neoliberal vision of the future. (Onar's comments are not required since the OP clearly stated that the views of idiot apologists were not sought - I know you're reading this Onar, you can't resist it can you?).

 

[invisibleplanet]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I wouldn't take it too seriously. His reply to me (below) was probably more to do with his annoyance at my having mentioned that he was involved with an ultraliberalistic microparty, and an unknown in Norway itself. He probably felt upset about that and went on another of his pre-prepared auto-rants which he reserves for forums where he feels his irrational ideas and odd-associations between things aren't accepted.

I just wonder how on earth you can have a meaningful thread about the neoliberal vision of the future when you are wrong on virtually every aspect of politics, economics, history and philosophy? You're living in a parallel universe completely detached from reality and have zero understanding of it. Before you can have a meaningful discussion about the neoliberal vision of the future (or any political topic for that matter) you need to go into rehab to un-brainwash yourself.

I know this sounds pretty arrogant, but how many times have you ever even remotely considered the possibility that we liberals actually are correct and that YOU are the ones who are caught in some psychotic fantasy? Did that even occur to your once? Or are you so power arrogant that you will dismiss even the possibility that you could wrong about virtually everything?

So, back to the thread - if Onar is reading, he can make new threads to discuss his ''concepts'' of reality in.

 

[rekil]

Were they? I know their aesthetic foreshadowed a lot of fascism, but I didn't know they'd been more explicitly political.

Well Marinetti invented squadrism when he and his mates attacked the PSI's paper's offices in 1919, and he wanted to expel the pope.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I wouldn't take it too seriously. His reply to me (below) was probably more to do with his annoyance at my having mentioned that he was involved with an ultraliberalistic microparty, and an unknown in Norway itself. He probably felt upset about that and went on another of his pre-prepared auto-rants which he reserves for forums where he feels his irrational ideas and odd-associations between things aren't accepted.



So, back to the thread - if Onar is reading, he can make new threads to discuss his ''concepts'' of reality in.

To be fair, I for one wouldn't be averse to having some sort of discussion with him about the topic of this one, if he was willing to discuss neoliberalism in the commonly accepted sense, but he's not as far as I can see.

He apparently just wants to go off on rants about the stuff that he means when he says 'liberalism' and about how awful us 'collectivists' are, which isn't really very interesting once the novelty wears off.

 

[camouflage]

It's not the fact that money is debt that bothers me, so much as the fact that it does not exist. Does it not seem strange to you that the world should be governed by a non-existent power?

It is not ruled by a non-existent power, 'money' is a means of measuring 'value'. However the measuring device is itself somewhat elastic (or compressible). It's a rubber ruler.

I do know what you're getting at but if you're not careful you'll end up joining that hideous Gold Cult, sacrificing virgins to the godshit material you'll by then believe has some sort of inherent sacred quality on which we should all measure our economy and ranting against the evil 'fiat lie' invented by the Banksters to enslave our children.

I actually approve of so called fiat money, it's an easily corruptible and get-wrongable device but the core concept of having the community control monetary policy in terms of what it needs rather than how much shiny yellow godshit happens to be around (mostly owned by the rich) is in my opinion a good idea. Just a matter of ensuring that the process is controlled through some sort of democratic feedback.

There's another thread elsewhere where I went on for quite long enough about where this post is going, so I'll stop here.

Just my opinion mind.

 

[onarchy]

95% eh? That's a bold claim to make when you haven't got a fucking clue what any of our politics are isn't it? You demented Randroid cunt.

From all I have read from your argumentation it is pretty clear to me that most of the people in here are in favor of:

- government schools
- government health care
- government pensions
- government social security
- government roads
- government water and sewage
- redistributive taxation
- strong labor regulation
- minimum wage laws
- strong regulation of business (especially the financial industry)
- central banking system
- toll barriers
- strict immigration laws

If you support most of these things then you have a virtually identical political platform as the Nazis. It's not bold to claim that you share 95% of the policies of the Nazis. It would be bold to claim that you are very different from the Nazis.

 

[invisibleplanet]

You're extrapolating from SpineyNorman to 'All Urbanites' to 'Hitlerite Fascists'? This is an absurd line of assumptive reasoning.

Logic (rationality) fail in the extreme!

 

[rekil]

Just fuck off cunt.

 

[Crispy]

- government schools
- government health care
- government pensions
- government social security
- government roads
- government water and sewage
- redistributive taxation
- strong labor regulation
- minimum wage laws
- strong regulation of business (especially the financial industry)
- central banking system
- toll barriers
- strict immigration laws

Ah yes, those are the things that distinguish the Nazis from every other western government of the last 100 years.

 

[onarchy]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Mostly by looking at your arguments which are virtually identical to those of the Nazis. From you arguments and stated political views I deduced that you were social democrats, i.e. 95% politically identical to the Nazis.

Now, you may not like that I use the word fascist to describe you, but what would YOU suggest is the right term for someone who shares 95% of the practical policies and ideology of Hitler? Even if we ignore the issue of what to call such an near-Nazi, does it in any way concern you that you are so nearly identical in politics as Hitler?

 

[invisibleplanet]

Make a thread, Onarchy, if you want to find out what people here are in favour of.
These pre-planned assumptions are a waste of yours and our time.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Ah yes, those are the things that distinguish the Nazis from every other western government of the last 100 years.

They were all nazis too, and his granny ...

 

[invisibleplanet]

Now, you may not like that I use the word fascist to describe you, but what would YOU suggest is the right term for someone who shares 95% of the practical policies and ideology of Hitler?

That's easy. The right term is 'ONARCHY'

Make a thread, Onarchy, if you want to find out what people here are in favour of.
These pre-planned assumptions are a waste of yours and our time.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Mostly by looking at your arguments which are virtually identical to those of the Nazis. From you arguments and stated political views I deduced that you were social democrats, i.e. 95% politically identical to the Nazis.

Now, you may not like that I use the word fascist to describe you, but what would YOU suggest is the right term for someone who shares 95% of the practical policies and ideology of Hitler? Even if we ignore the issue of what to call such an near-Nazi, does it in any way concern you that you are so nearly identical in politics as Hitler?

Doesn't it occur to you though, that if you make your definition of "Nazi" so wide that almost every government that's held power and almost every political persuasion other than your own is a "Nazi" then you really aren't conveying much useful information when you say "Nazi" ... ?

 

[onarchy]

Ah yes, those are the things that distinguish the Nazis from every other western government of the last 100 years.

Actually, that's the whole point. Nazism and Fascism was MAINSTREAM centrism in the 20th century, and still de facto is, though not in name. By extrordinary coincidence we liberals disagree with EVERYTHING on the above list that Nazism and most western regimes have in common today. Don't you think that's a bit relevant? Doesn't it make you the slightest bit curious that you have to sift through the policies of Nazism very carefully to find a little nugget here and there that distinguishes it from your own political view?

 

[nino_savatte]

Mostly by looking at your arguments which are virtually identical to those of the Nazis. From you arguments and stated political views I deduced that you were social democrats, i.e. 95% politically identical to the Nazis.

Now, you may not like that I use the word fascist to describe you, but what would YOU suggest is the right term for someone who shares 95% of the practical policies and ideology of Hitler? Even if we ignore the issue of what to call such an near-Nazi, does it in any way concern you that you are so nearly identical in politics as Hitler?

Again, your logic is flawed. The views or, rather, the arguments put forward by many of us on this thread in no way resemble that of Hitler and the Nazis. Your attempt to paint those of us who have different views to you is nothing short of a smear.

You're employing logical fallacies by the truckload here.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Actually, that's the whole point. Nazism and Fascism was MAINSTREAM centrism in the 20th century, and still de facto is, though not in name. By extrordinary coincidence we liberals disagree with EVERYTHING on the above list that Nazism and most western regimes have in common today. Don't you think that's a bit relevant? Doesn't it make you the slightest bit curious that you have to sift through the policies of Nazism very carefully to find a little nugget here and there that distinguishes it from your own political view?

Make a thread, Onarchy, if you want to find out what people here are in favour of.
These pre-planned assumptions are a waste of yours and our time.

 

[nino_savatte]

Actually, that's the whole point. Nazism and Fascism was MAINSTREAM centrism in the 20th century, and still de facto is, though not in name. By extrordinary coincidence we liberals disagree with EVERYTHING on the above list that Nazism and most western regimes have in common today. Don't you think that's a bit relevant? Doesn't it make you the slightest bit curious that you have to sift through the policies of Nazism very carefully to find a little nugget here and there that distinguishes it from your own political view?

If it was so "mainstream", as you keep saying, then why was it only limited to two European countries and a handful of client states?