the neoliberal vision of the future

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

No no. You completely misunderstand this point. This is where Hitler can be compared, for instance, to Peron. Like Peron a decade later, he persecuted and criminalised free unions and forcibly coopted the labour movement into the state, granting just enough concessions to stop this causing a revolution. This was done not to maximise worker benefit, but to minimise it – to enable capitalist businesses to continue practising without fear of revolution or strikes through granting the absolute minimum necessary concessions. Capitalism had to make concessions to avoid a revolt. It did so through fascism by coopting labour movements and imprisoning or shooting the leaders of the truly free labour movements.

 

[nino_savatte]

'Your argument is invalid.'

Well, he is a philosopher after all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's staggering really. I don't think we've encountered a topic yet that he has any understanding of at all. And we've tacked history, politics, economics, philosophy, and even touched on ethology along the way.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

On collectivism, socialism and the state:

O thou powers of England, though thou hast promised to make this People a Free People, yet thou hast so handled the matter, through thy self-seeking humour, That thou hast wrapped us up more in bondage, and oppression lies heavier upon us; not only bringing thy fellow creatures, the Commoners, to a morsel of Bread, but by confounding all sorts of people by thy Government​

Gerrard 'Il Duce' Winstanley

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

Which is why Hitler coopted unions to serve the state. Your point about "fasces" is a red herring, which is yet another logical fallacy.

 

[invisibleplanet]

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

Tell me I am wrong with this dawning realisation that only someone who is a crypto-neo-fascist would claim Mussolini as a non-racist, etc, and try to make out that communists/socialists/etc are 'the real fascists'.

 

[onarchy]

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...

Which overlaps 95%.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's staggering really. I don't think we've encountered a topic yet that he has any understanding of at all. And we've tacked history, politics, economics, philosophy, and even touched on ethology along the way.

Aye, it's pretty shocking stuff from a soi-disant philosopher.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Which country has the highest percentage of public (state/social) housing, Onarchy?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which overlaps 95%.

It's always 95% with you, isn't it?

Well, 95% of the time, at least.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which country has the highest percentage of public (state/social) housing, Onarchy?

Ooo. Is it Singapore?

 

[Dillinger4]

over 9000.

 

[Idris2002]

Tell me I am wrong with this dawning realisation that only someone who is a crypto-neo-fascist would claim Mussolini as a non-racist, etc, and try to make out that communists/socialists/etc are 'the real fascists'.

Most likely he's just an idiot. But recall the words of Huey Long, when asked if the US could ever turn fascist: 'sure, but here they'd call it anti-fascism'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Most likely he's just an idiot. But recall the words of Huey Long, when asked if the US could ever turn fascist: 'sure, but here they'd call it anti-fascism'.

Well, yes. This is what his 'free state' would be like, for sure.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Which overlaps 95%.

Only if you exclude nearly all of that which distinguishes FDR from fascism; which is obviously what you need to do intellectually and psychologically...but is none the less hugely dishonest, stupid or both.

Louis MacNeice

 

[invisibleplanet]

ooo. Is it singapore?

 

[onarchy]

No no. You completely misunderstand this point. This is where Hitler can be compared, for instance, to Peron. Like Peron a decade later, he persecuted and criminalised free unions and forcibly coopted the labour movement into the state, granting just enough concessions to stop this causing a revolution. This was done not to maximise worker benefit, but to minimise it – to enable capitalist businesses to continue practising without fear of revolution or strikes through granting the absolute minimum necessary concessions. Capitalism had to make concessions to avoid a revolt. It did so through fascism by coopting labour movements and imprisoning or shooting the leaders of the truly free labour movements.

If this were true, may we assume that this is also the reason why Stalin and all the communist regimes banned free labor unions? Remember, even Hugo Chavez wants to ban free labor unions and nationalize them.

 

[nino_savatte]

If this were true, may we assume that this is also the reason why Stalin and all the communist regimes banned free labor unions? Remember, even Hugo Chavez wants to ban free labor unions and nationalize them.

Have you got a link for that assertion?

 

[invisibleplanet]

Stalin was not a communist.
Stalinist USSR was not communist.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Chavez? A chommunist?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If this were true, may we assume that this is also the reason why Stalin and all the communist regimes banned free labor unions? Remember, even Hugo Chavez wants to ban free labor unions and nationalize them.

The Soviet Union is a different model because there was no privately owned industry there. In the Soviet Union, theoretically, there was a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you wish to discuss Stalin and his particular brand of tyranny, you can't make invalid comparisons like that. In Hitler's Germany – as in Peron's Argentina - there was plenty of privately owned industry; only the unions were nationalised.

 

[onarchy]

Which country has the highest percentage of public (state/social) housing, Onarchy?

Probably one of the communist countries such as Cuba, but I assume that your point is that Singapore has a very high percentage of public housing. That is true, but so? The People's Action Party is a labor party, and obviously pursues many socialist policies. Someone described Singapore as the most successful socialist state in the world, and that is probably true. However, at least until very recently Singapore has based its socialism on a firm market foundation. Everything in Singapore has a market component, including the housing. The houses are not OWNED by the government, but rather cheap loans are given to Singaporeans so that they become the house owner. The market component is so integral to the thinking of PAP that Singapore is the least socialistic country in the world.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Did you actually just make that up (''probably one of the communist countries such as Cuba'')?
It's mainly guesswork, replete with assumptions (rather than taking the time to seek clarification), contradictions ("Singapore based it's socialism on .... Singapore is the least socialistic country") and truly a real insight into how you form your opinions and arguments.

Probably one of the communist countries such as Cuba, but I assume that your point is that Singapore has a very high percentage of public housing. That is true, but so? The People's Action Party is a labor party, and obviously pursues many socialist policies. Someone described Singapore as the most successful socialist state in the world, and that is probably true. However, at least until very recently Singapore has based its socialism on a firm market foundation. Everything in Singapore has a market component, including the housing. The houses are not OWNED by the government, but rather cheap loans are given to Singaporeans so that they become the house owner. The market component is so integral to the thinking of PAP that Singapore is the least socialistic country in the world.

 

[butchersapron]

Someone described Singapore as the most successful socialist state in the world, and that is probably true...Singapore is the least socialistic country in the world.

Coherence. You're doing it wrong.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If this were true, may we assume that this is also the reason why Stalin and all the communist regimes banned free labor unions? Remember, even Hugo Chavez wants to ban free labor unions and nationalize them.

They are both white, spherical and used in competitive sports. They are both balls. They aren't both footballs and no amount of saying they are will make them so.

Louis MacNeice

 

[onarchy]

Have you got a link for that assertion?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/venezuela-oil-hugo-chavez-politics

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The market component is so integral to the thinking of PAP that Singapore is the least socialistic country in the world.

What does this mean? In terms of housing, you're right that many of the state-built flats are owned, not rented. But they are built and planned by the state. 'The market' would never provide enough housing for everyone because it is more profitable to maintain a housing shortage. We've done this on another thread here recently if you'd like to do a search. You might learn something.

In fact, Singapore is an authoritarian place that engages in the kinds of social engineering that I find deeply uncomfortable. It is an extremely conformist place – just like your 'free state' would be.

 

[invisibleplanet]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/venezuela-oil-hugo-chavez-politics

 

[rekil]

Whereas once the movement talked a lot about welfare, now (in late 1921), as Mussolini expressed it: 'in terms of economics, we are overtly anti-socialist....In economic matters we are liberals, because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureacracy.' Such business people as Gino Olivetti, honoured by Mussolini with the title 'duce of Italian industrialists', were pleased at the news and happily learned that fascists in the Trentino had guaranteed that 'property is nothing if not man's first freedom.'

lol

 

[nino_savatte]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/venezuela-oil-hugo-chavez-politics

Highly dubious