the neoliberal vision of the future

[onarchy]

He's got a point though, I mean there are a lot of definitions of fascism on offer, but neither Mussolini nor any serious academic commentator I can think of has said that 'bullying is the essence of fascism'

When you strip away all the intellectual fluff of fascism, force lies at its center. The most cogent definition of fascism I've seen is FORCED UNITY. I.e. deviants are not tolerated, everyone has to march to the same beat (whatever that beat may be). Socialists do not tolerate social deviants. Socialists come in two variations 1) leftwing socialists who believe that everyone are born the same way and that any unequality in society must therefore be the result of oppression. 2) rightwing socialists who accept that some are born smarter and some are born less smart, which results in social inequality. They accept this as true, but just don't like it and want to rid society of the deviants.

In practice both leftwing and rightwing socialists end up with the same politics aimed at reducing social inequality.

As a tolerant person I accept that people are born different and that they choose to be different. So I am tolerant to all forms of peaceful deviants: gays, different races, smart people, less smart people, rich people, poor people. Fascists generally speaking refuse to tolerate some kind of group of deviants. Socialists refuse to accept material deviants. Not all socialists are as extreme though. Stalin and Hitler through the deviants into concentration camps, whereas moderate socialists are satisfied with a mild form of concentration camp for the able in the form of high taxes and strict regulations.

 

[Blagsta]

Oh dear

Do you never read any history books? You should try it sometime.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're quite mad, aren't you?

 

[Captain Hurrah]

lol.

 

[Blagsta]

Try some politics books too.

 

[butchersapron]

When you strip away all the intellectual fluff of fascism, force lies at its center. The most cogent definition of fascism I've seen is FORCED UNITY. I.e. deviants are not tolerated, everyone has to march to the same beat (whatever that beat may be). Socialists do not tolerate social deviants. Socialists come in two variations 1) leftwing socialists who believe that everyone are born the same way and that any unequality in society must therefore be the result of oppression. 2) rightwing socialists who accept that some are born smarter and some are born less smart, which results in social inequality. They accept this as true, but just don't like it and want to rid society of the deviants.

In practice both leftwing and rightwing socialists end up with the same politics aimed at reducing social inequality.

As a tolerant person I accept that people are born different and that they choose to be different. So I am tolerant to all forms of peaceful deviants: gays, different races, smart people, less smart people, rich people, poor people. Fascists generally speaking refuse to tolerate some kind of group of deviants. Socialists refuse to accept material deviants. Not all socialists are as extreme though. Stalin and Hitler through the deviants into concentration camps, whereas moderate socialists are satisfied with a mild form of concentration camp for the able in the form of high taxes and strict regulations.

Why aren't you fighting your captors with guns?

 

[Random]

When you strip away all the intellectual fluff of fascism, force lies at its center.

Force lies at the centre of liberalism as well. And btw the idea that high taxes are 'a form of concentration camp' would be laughed at by anyone with any experience or knowledge of concentration camps.

 

[onarchy]

I think it would help if, as with so many other ultra-free marketeers who have unfortunately multiplied with the internet, you didn't come across as a bit of a swivel-eyed cult believer. What's all this peace-loverhistorical truth crap for instance? Talk like a normal person and tone down the martyr crap and people might take you seriously.

I came to this site because I noticed that I was mentioned in the thread (Onar Åm of the Free State Initiative), and not only mentioned. A guy says he wants to slit my throat. No-one reacts. That's apparently kosher on this forum. I offered and still offer to explain why we "neo-liberals" think like we do and what our motives are.

 

[Blagsta]

That Jonah Goldberg one doesn't count.

 

[TruXta]

I bet onany thinks Norway is a fascist country, where the stranglehold of PC has deadened all impulses of freedom and liberty, all marching in goose-step to the tune of the National Socialist Labour Party. Don't you, Onan?

 

[Random]

I bet onany thinks Norway is a fascist country, where the stranglehold of PC has deadened all impulses of freedom and liberty, all marching in goose-step to the tune of the National Socialist Labour Party. Don't you, Onan?

Free healthcare is a form of concentration camp

 

[LLETSA]

When you strip away all the intellectual fluff of fascism, force lies at its center. The most cogent definition of fascism I've seen is FORCED UNITY. I.e. deviants are not tolerated, everyone has to march to the same beat (whatever that beat may be). Socialists do not tolerate social deviants. Socialists come in two variations 1) leftwing socialists who believe that everyone are born the same way and that any unequality in society must therefore be the result of oppression. 2) rightwing socialists who accept that some are born smarter and some are born less smart, which results in social inequality. They accept this as true, but just don't like it and want to rid society of the deviants.

In practice both leftwing and rightwing socialists end up with the same politics aimed at reducing social inequality.

As a tolerant person I accept that people are born different and that they choose to be different. So I am tolerant to all forms of peaceful deviants: gays, different races, smart people, less smart people, rich people, poor people. Fascists generally speaking refuse to tolerate some kind of group of deviants. Socialists refuse to accept material deviants. Not all socialists are as extreme though. Stalin and Hitler through the deviants into concentration camps, whereas moderate socialists are satisfied with a mild form of concentration camp for the able in the form of high taxes and strict regulations.

There's no such thing as a material deviant, and neo-liberals, especially the neo-conservative wing, are currently engaged (through both governments and private bodies) in using more force across the world than most, and have been for the last three decades.

Force on the political level is as old as the human race. In other words, it is not exclusive to 'fascism.' I remember, by the way, juvenile arguments like yours ('socialism is fascism') turning up in places like the letters page of the NME, twenty-five or more years ago. It seems that every generation turns out a little group of Ayn Rand cult believers, always wet behind the ears and totally blind to history.

 

[TruXta]

Free healthcare is a form of concentration camp

Damned right! You've noticed, haven't you, how people go into those hospitals, and sometimes they don't come back? It's gas, I tell you.

 

[Blagsta]

I came to this site because I noticed that I was mentioned in the thread (Onar Åm of the Free State Initiative), and not only mentioned. A guy says he wants to slit my throat. No-one reacts. That's apparently kosher on this forum. I offered and still offer to explain why we "neo-liberals" think like we do and what our motives are.

You're not a neo-liberal, you're a very naughty boy.

 

[butchersapron]

You're not a neo-liberal. The people we're taking about would not go near anyone who thinks as you do. You're just a powerless loon.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I came to this site because I noticed that I was mentioned in the thread (Onar Åm of the Free State Initiative), and not only mentioned. A guy says he wants to slit my throat. No-one reacts. That's apparently kosher on this forum. I offered and still offer to explain why we "neo-liberals" think like we do and what our motives are.

I understand why you think like you do. It is because you are stupid and ignorant.

 

[LLETSA]

I came to this site because I noticed that I was mentioned in the thread (Onar Åm of the Free State Initiative), and not only mentioned. A guy says he wants to slit my throat. No-one reacts. That's apparently kosher on this forum. I offered and still offer to explain why we "neo-liberals" think like we do and what our motives are.

Nobody really wants to slit your throat, as you well know. Pull yourself together; it's just words on a screen.

 

[Santino]

Fascism is the same as socialism because Hitler said it was.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Nobody really wants to slit your throat, as you well know. Pull yourself together; it's just words on a screen.

I have several neo-liberals buried under my patio, don't tell anyone though ...

 

[onarchy]

Oh dear

Do you never read any history books? You should try it sometime.

Not only have I read history books, I also happen to know which parts of that history isn't told properly in the standard story. For instance, how many history books say that The German National SOCIALIST Worker's Party was as their name indicates, socialist? How many people know that Mussolini and Hitler were immensely popular on the left before WWII? How many people know that Stalin in a propaganda war against the fascists and Nazis branded them as "right wing" to scare away the communist voters who were interested in them and wanted to vote for them? How many people know that Stalin ALSO called the social democrats "right wing" and termed them "social fascists"? Stalins definition of "right wing" was someone who favored ANY private property in business, even when hampered by high taxes and regulations? These are historical facts that are well-known among historians, but not often retold.

And then there is the socalled difficulty in defining fascism. Do you know WHY it is so hard for historians to define fascism? Because either fascism becomes extremely narrow (essentially just Italian fascism) or it also includes all socialists, all social democrats and most conservatives. The "difficulty" lies in the fact that Hitler and Mussolini were so close to the mainstream socialism at the time that if you break down their actualy policies you will find no essential differences. Let me list a few of Hitlers policies:

- a strong welfare state (public health care, public schools, public pensions, public child care)
- strong regulations of key industries
- high taxes
- redistribution of wealth

Who does this sound most like? a) "right wing neo-liberals"? or b) centrist social democrats?

 

[onarchy]

I bet onany thinks Norway is a fascist country, where the stranglehold of PC has deadened all impulses of freedom and liberty, all marching in goose-step to the tune of the National Socialist Labour Party. Don't you, Onan?

How old are you? Let me guess: younger than 14? It sure sounds like it when you resort to anal name calling.

 

[Random]

And then there is the socalled difficulty in defining fascism. Do you know WHY it is so hard for historians to define fascism? Because either fascism becomes extremely narrow (essentially just Italian fascism) or it also includes all socialists, all social democrats and most conservatives.

So you're saying that all conservatives are fascists?

 

[onarchy]

Fascism is the same as socialism because Hitler said it was.

Well, even if we ONLY look at the POLITICS of Hitler and Mussolini and ignore everything they SAID, it would be very clear that they were pioneers of the welfare state mixed economy. Today's political system is essentially a carbon copy of Mussolini's corporatism, which is right wing socialism. All of you guys are bashing the current system as capitalist, when it in fact is not a capitalist system but a corporatist system. The United States and all European countries are democratic fascist corporatist systems, right wing socialism.

 

[TruXta]

How old are you? Let me guess: younger than 14? It sure sounds like it when you resort to anal name calling.

Ooooo, you got me there, old man. Nah, I've just seen your type many many times before in Norway and elsewhere in Europe. You're a failed FrP'er, whining because you can't drive as fast as you can, have to pay taxes and generally behave like a godamned decent person. And when you're not allowed you start whining about the social democrat fascists depriving you of your rights.

 

[onarchy]

So you're saying that all conservatives are fascists?

Not all, but most. George Bush for instance, is a classical fascist left-wing conservative. No US president expanded the welfare state more than him.

 

[Random]

Not all, but most. George Bush for instance, is a classical fascist left-wing conservative. No US president expanded the welfare state more than him.

Don't you think that if you say that most of the political spectrum is 'fascist' that it make the term vague to the point of uselessness? You're like a teenager who calls his mum a fascist because he can't stay up late.

 

[LLETSA]

Not only have I read history books, I also happen to know which parts of that history isn't told properly in the standard story. For instance, how many history books say that The German National SOCIALIST Worker's Party was as their name indicates, socialist? How many people know that Mussolini and Hitler were immensely popular on the left before WWII? How many people know that Stalin in a propaganda war against the fascists and Nazis branded them as "right wing" to scare away the communist voters who were interested in them and wanted to vote for them? How many people know that Stalin ALSO called the social democrats "right wing" and termed them "social fascists"? Stalins definition of "right wing" was someone who favored ANY private property in business, even when hampered by high taxes and regulations? These are historical facts that are well-known among historians, but not often retold.

And then there is the socalled difficulty in defining fascism. Do you know WHY it is so hard for historians to define fascism? Because either fascism becomes extremely narrow (essentially just Italian fascism) or it also includes all socialists, all social democrats and most conservatives. The "difficulty" lies in the fact that Hitler and Mussolini were so close to the mainstream socialism at the time that if you break down their actualy policies you will find no essential differences. Let me list a few of Hitlers policies:

- a strong welfare state (public health care, public schools, public pensions, public child care)
- strong regulations of key industries
- high taxes
- redistribution of wealth

Who does this sound most like? a) "right wing neo-liberals"? or b) centrist social democrats?

Even if, for the sake of argument, what you say is accepted, all it proves is that there are different forms of socialism, usually corresponding to material conditions found where circumstances bring socialism to the fore. Most people, including most of socialism's opponents, accept that there is a world of difference between different strands of the socialist 'family.' Only right-wing libertarian fanatics claim, for example, that welfare state social democrats, or more libertarian versions of socialism or communism (which have admittedly been tried only fleetingly if at all due to a variety of factors), are to be compared with Stalin's terroristic regime, or even the vastly toned down versions of the latter that survived until 1989, let alone Nazism or fascism-which was never part of the socialist 'family' anyway.

What do you actually think you're telling us here?

 

[Random]

The United States and all European countries are democratic fascist corporatist systems, right wing socialism.

But where do the Jews fit into all of this?

 

[TruXta]

But where do the Jews fit into all of this?

The ashtray? BOOM TISH

 

[Santino]

Who do you think 'did' 9/11, onarchy?