Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the neoliberal vision of the future

onarchy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, how comes you're not even embarrassed or anything.:confused:
 
onarchy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Systematic eradication of the Jews, Violent repression of minorities, Single-party politics, Pervasive police state, Empire by conquest and Religious leader cult are indeed the minutest of trifling nuggets, yes.
 
onarchy said:
- 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
Click to expand...

In the absence of socialism, I'll take these as a start. ;)

But where you say 'government', I say 'owned by everyone'. :)

BTW for what it's worth, Hitler didn't believe in strong labour regulation, neither did he particularly believe in 'government' social security. If you were weak, it was your proper place in the world to be dominated by the strong. That was the essence of fascism, and particularly Nazism. If you don't understand that, you understand nothing. Ironically, of course, it is what your 'free state' would most resemble.
 
onarchy said:
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.
Click to expand...

So those are the defining characteristics of Nazism? Not the racial war or industrialised genocide?
 
Bernie Gunther said:
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" ... ?
Click to expand...

Oh, no, I didn't say you were a NAZI. Nazism is a special branch of fascism that will forever be colored by the distinctions of race policies. The main difference between Mussolini and Hitler was that Mussolini was not racist in any way. Nazism may be defined as fascism + anti-semitism.

So you're definitely not a Nazi, but you DO share 95% of the political views with Hitler, and even more so with Mussolini.
 
onarchy said:
Mussolini was not racist in any way.
Click to expand...

This is another demonstrable, provable lie. We need someone to do an 'It's an Onarchy Fact' pic.

Racial segregation laws were introduced in Italian-ruled Eritrea in the early 1930s. Then there was the 'Manifesto of Race' issued by the Italian fascist government in 1938.

Here's one I made earlier:

I see that this thread contains the proposition that Italian fascism was not racist.

This commonly held view is a falsehood, an untruth and a lie.

Well before the introduction of anti-semitic legislation in Italy at Hitler's behest in 1938, the Italian fascist dictatorship had introduced racist policies in its African colonies, such as Eritrea.

Under the pre-fascist regime, Italian colonial rule had been (at least in principle - practice was another matter) paternalistic. After 1932, there was a clear movement towards an ideology of permanent African inferiority, and of the necessity of eternal white dominance in African. Just as in Nazi Germany, this new departure found a spurious, pseudo-scientific justification from academic supporters such as Professor Lidio Cipriani. Tekeste Negash, in his history of Eritrea in these years, notes that new laws against miscegenation, Eritrean-Italian marriage and cohabitation were introduced.

At the bottom end of what is now Liberation Avenue in Asmara, a system of apartheid was introduced, with the area being declared Europeans only, and off limits to Eritreans.

The wider context for all this was, of course, Mussolini's plan for an unprovoked war of imperialist aggression against Eritrea's southern neighbour, Ethiopia.

Those who continue to assert that Italian fascism was not racist are either ignorant, deluded, or deliberately telling lies.
Click to expand...

And another:

Some racist and racialist quotes from the Fascist criminal Benito Mussolini:

Fascism must concern itself with the racial problem...
Fascist Congress in Rome 1921

Quote:
Fascism must concern itself with the racial problem...
Ascension Day speech 1927

Quote:
We need to be seriously vigilant in regard to the destiny of the race, we need to take care of the race.
Preface to Richard Korherr's 'Regresso Delle Nascite: Morte Dei Popoli' 1928

Quote:
Because of the low birth rates in urban areas the city dies and the nation,without the vital lymph fluid of the young of new generations, no longer can resist, composed now of vile old people. A younger people will press against the abandonded frontiers. That will happen and not only among cities and nations but on an order of magnitude infinitely greater: the entire white race, the western race, can become submersed by other races of color that multiply with a rhythm unknown to ours.
Blacks and yellows are at the door?
Yes they are at the door,and not only because of their fecundity but also because of their race consciousness and their future in the world.
Racial Theories in Fascist Italy, Aaron Gillette, p40.

Quote:
The singular enormous problem is the destiny of the white race. Europe is truly at the end of its destiny as the leader of civilization.

And here's another one:

Giorgio Pini, Filo diretto con Palazzo Venezia (Bologna Cappelli 1950, p90)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benito Mussolini
"I am a racist.."

He was discussing Giulio Cogni's racial theories here.
Click to expand...
 
I've conducted an extensive literature review and found that your 95% figure might be more like 93. It depends on the analysis used. Tell me, what sort of standard deviation are you getting?
 
What's this 95% bollocks? It's like those who misunderstand genetics, isn't it? We share 50 percent of our genes with bananas, therefore humans are half-banana.
 
When you say "fascist" what you really mean to say is "state" - that would make your arguments sound at least a little more sane.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
What's this 95% bollocks? It's like those who misunderstand genetics, isn't it? We share 50 percent of our genes with bananas, therefore humans are half-banana.
Click to expand...

All we have to do is pass a few thousand new laws on minute topics, and we can shrink that 95% figure down to below the error margin.
 
You can see where Onarchy is coming from though. It is true that Hitler was nominally in favor of state economic control, which is what's significant to neo-liberals. It is a common element between fascism and socialism, and there are many others too.

But it's also true that fascism saved capitalism when nothing else could have. Hitler in particular destroyed the socialist elements within his party as soon as he came to power.

The whole point of fascism was to match the popular appeal of socialism by providing a parallel movement that did not threaten total expropriation of the capitalists.
 
Athenian state schools (4th century BCE)
British Neolithic roads (3rd millenium BCE)
Minoan water and sewage management (27th to 15th century BCE)
Redistributive Egyptian taxation (2345 – 2181 BC)
Sumerian labour regulation (late 4th millennium BCE)
Code of Hammurabi minimum wage laws (c.1750 BCE)
Late European Medieval regulation of business, especially the financial industry

I haven't worked my way through all Onarchy's crude and uneducated claims.

Having got this far, not sure I need to.
 
'fascism saved capitalism when nothing else could have'? You're not going to start calling FDR fascist now?

It would be more tenable to contend that corporatism saved capitalism when nothing else could have. Fascism is corporatist, but it isn't just corporatist. FDR was corporatist but not fascist. There's a Venn diagram in there somewhere...
 
littlebabyjesus said:
But where you say 'government', I say 'owned by everyone'. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed, just like Hitler and Mussolini.

"It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benito_mussolini.html#ixzz1JUb2imV8

"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benito_mussolini.html#ixzz1JUbKQX43"



BTW for what it's worth, Hitler didn't believe in strong labour regulation, neither did he particularly believe in 'government' social security. If you were weak, it was your proper place in the world to be dominated by the strong. That was the essence of fascism, and particularly Nazism. If you don't understand that, you understand nothing.
Click to expand...

If you combine this with the fascist and unionist motto that "together we are strong" your paraphrasing of Hitler takes on a whole new meaning. Fasces means "bundle" or "union." It is no coincidence that the labor unions of Italy were called "fasces." It is a core belief of fascism that the INDIVIDUAL is weak and the COLLECTIVE is strong. ("strength through unity") That is perfectly in alignment with Hitler's view that the weak should perish or be dominated by the strong. To Hitler (and to every socialist or social democrat) the individual must bow to the collective. The common good comes before self-interest. And yes, Hitler DID believe in strong labor regulation, but he was opposed to PRIVATE unions. That is why he NATIONALIZED all unions and united them into the DAF (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), the German Labor Union.
 
onarchy said:
Oh, no, I didn't say you were a NAZI. Nazism is a special branch of fascism that will forever be colored by the distinctions of race policies. The main difference between Mussolini and Hitler was that Mussolini was not racist in any way. Nazism may be defined as fascism + anti-semitism.

So you're definitely not a Nazi, but you DO share 95% of the political views with Hitler, and even more so with Mussolini.
Click to expand...

I also, apparently, share 95% of my dna with mice. Big deal ..
 
No, you misunderstand and misrepresent 'socialism' there. Self-interest is tied into the common good. Engagement with the common good is the only way the individual can thrive. Individuals don't 'bow' to the collective – they are a part of the collective.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
'fascism saved capitalism when nothing else could have'? You're not going to start calling FDR fascist now?
Click to expand...

FDR wouldn't have cut it in Europe, which was definitely going to have a revolution one way or the other. Fascism ensured that it happened in such as way as to preserve capitalism, enabling it to weather the socialist storm and emerge as the triumphant, universal world system it is today.
 
onarchy said:
And yes, Hitler DID believe in strong labor regulation, but he was opposed to PRIVATE unions. That is why he NATIONALIZED all unions and united them into the DAF (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), the German Labor Union.
Click to expand...

Which was entirely subservient to the state.
 
Milton-keynes-peace-pagoda.jpg


auswitch3.jpg


Fascism.

Louis MacNeice
 
onarchy said:
Indeed, just like Hitler and Mussolini.

"It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benito_mussolini.html#ixzz1JUb2imV8

"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benito_mussolini.html#ixzz1JUbKQX43"





If you combine this with the fascist and unionist motto that "together we are strong" your paraphrasing of Hitler takes on a whole new meaning. Fasces means "bundle" or "union." It is no coincidence that the labor unions of Italy were called "fasces." It is a core belief of fascism that the INDIVIDUAL is weak and the COLLECTIVE is strong. ("strength through unity") That is perfectly in alignment with Hitler's view that the weak should perish or be dominated by the strong. To Hitler (and to every socialist or social democrat) the individual must bow to the collective. The common good comes before self-interest. And yes, Hitler DID believe in strong labor regulation, but he was opposed to PRIVATE unions. That is why he NATIONALIZED all unions and united them into the DAF (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), the German Labor Union.
Click to expand...
1skz.jpg
 
onarchy said:
Indeed, just like Hitler and Mussolini.

"It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benito_mussolini.html#ixzz1JUb2imV8

"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.
Click to expand...

Whereas for socialism the state is an enemy to be destroyed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
'The woke have no vision of the future' and the 'similarities between woke militants and the Bolsheviks who seized power in 1917'
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Raheem
Raheem
fucthest8
Water; scarcity and the trade in futures
Replies
11
Views
880
two sheds
two sheds
Yuwipi Woman
Farmer Bankruptcies, Trade Wars, Tarriffs, and the Future of Food
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
spring-peeper
spring-peeper
editor
Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani – a manifesto for the future
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
202
Views
12K
petee
petee
alkirby
Ukrainian view of the future of Russia
Replies
5
Views
472
tim
tim
Back
Top Bottom