Attention Forum Socialists

[Sir Bandelot]

"visible minority"

"U.S. Peacekeeping Force"

[bloodyminded]

Anyone who has made a serious study of fascism will point out that "conservative/right" and "liberal/left" are insufficient to discuss it, and in many ways beside the point. Fascism has components of typically left and right politics mixed into it. Tyrannies generally do. If anyone ever has the misfortune to come across neo-fascists (often calling themselves "Phalangists," and usually eschewing hitler's hatred of the Jews...but accepting of most of fascism's tenets), one will very quickly notice the amalgam of left and right in their politics.

The whole "liberal fascism" notion, which is believed only by facile and ignorant and (most crucially) partisan-minded people, has gained more ground since Goldberg wrote about it. Of course, in available debates between Goldberg and well-known scholars of fascism, Goldberg was pounded easily into the ground by those with the superior knowledge. (I will later find these debates and post them, if anyone's interested).

[bush_cheney2004]

"U.S. Peacekeeping Force"

"Canadian Peacekeeping"

[Sir Bandelot]

"Canadian Peacekeeping"

"American Aid"

[Jack Weber]

Anyone who has made a serious study of fascism will point out that "conservative/right" and "liberal/left" are insufficient to discuss it, and in many ways beside the point. Fascism has components of typically left and right politics mixed into it. Tyrannies generally do. If anyone ever has the misfortune to come across neo-fascists (often calling themselves "Phalangists," and usually eschewing hitler's hatred of the Jews...but accepting of most of fascism's tenets), one will very quickly notice the amalgam of left and right in their politics.

The whole "liberal fascism" notion, which is believed only by facile and ignorant and (most crucially) partisan-minded people, has gained more ground since Goldberg wrote about it. Of course, in available debates between Goldberg and well-known scholars of fascism, Goldberg was pounded easily into the ground by those with the superior knowledge. (I will later find these debates and post them, if anyone's interested).

I agree with this,hence why I said that NAZI's were the most virulent form of the ideology.Fascism and Socialism/Communism have many things in common based on the authoritarian/totalitarian aspect of both.The difference between the extreme left and the extreme right is:

1.The private property ownership issue.

2.The corporatism issue

3.The fact that Fascism is very specific when it comes to Nationalism.The extreme left positions are more of a philosophical,nebular construct.

I'd be interested in seeing those debates....

Edited May 2, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bush_cheney2004]

"American Aid"

"Responsibility to Protect"

[Pliny]

It's as meaningful and telling as "People's Republic."

"Republic" refers to a constitutional form of government and that is all.

[Sir Bandelot]

"Responsibility to Protect"

"Emancipation Proclamation"

[Pliny]

It is interesting,but it's simply semantics.The NAZI party was the most virulent form of Fascism we have ever seen.They were definately NOT Communists or Socialists...

They were not "communists" in the sense they were not internationalists and were more concerned with national interests.

Fascism is simply a different form of totalitarian socialism or State domination of the economy.

Jack, I knew from your posts that we would eventually end up in this discussion. We are only talking about big government in it's various forms. Socialism, communism, social democracy or even just democracy, is about big government. Limited government is not what people will vote for, especially when over 50% of the people are dependent upon government for their paycheck.

[Smallc]

"Republic" refers to a constitutional form of government and that is all.

And when it's together with the word people's? Don't try to play dumb just to be right.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Emancipation Proclamation"

"Residential School"

[Pliny]

And when it's together with the word people's? Don't try to play dumb just to be right.

Yes, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was all about the word "people".

[Jack Weber]

They were not "communists" in the sense they were not internationalists and were more concerned with national interests.

Fascism is simply a different form of totalitarian socialism or State domination of the economy.

Jack, I knew from your posts that we would eventually end up in this discussion. We are only talking about big government in it's various forms. Socialism, communism, social democracy or even just democracy, is about big government. Limited government is not what people will vote for, especially when over 50% of the people are dependent upon government for their paycheck.

Fascism is not really socialism...It is true that the Italian Fascists under Mussolini originally adopted what seemed to be socialistlike policies.When one scratches the surface of this,however,one can see that it really was a ruse to get power and give power to the state and quasi state run corporations.

If the arguement is that both the extreme left and right are top down,totalitarian,authoriatrian ideologies there is no arguement becuase they are.As I said in a thread a month ago,I think the confusion comes from a misreading of the poltical spectrum by alot of people and buying into semantics.Most people read the political spectrum as a straight line,and from the middle out.This would obviously lead one to think that the two extremes on the ends were diametrically opposed.While they are opposed to each other,they are almost identical,with at least 3 very big philosophical differences.I was always taught to read it like a horseshoe,or an incompleted circle.I like the horseshoe better because it shows that the extremes are much closer than they are apart.But there should be no confusion that the extreme right and left have a few very extreme differences that keep them like anti-matter.I outlined 3 of them earlier.

Actually,it's even more different than that...European Fascism came in at least 4 different versions.At it's worst was NAZI Germany.Mussolini was a Fascist that Hitler originally modeled his ideology on,but Fascist Italy was never as violent as NAZI Germany.Franco's Spain,in my opinion,would be the next severe version.Franco himself tried to distance himself from the Falangists after they had outlived their usefulness to him.Franco described himself as a Conservative Monarchist...Frankly,it's a fine lne between that and Fascism.Oliviera Salazar in Portugal would be the 4th version of Fascism.Strongly authoritarian,but still almost colonial...

There are the same different variations on the extreme left.Lenninist/Stalinist Russia was far different than Maoist China,although both were disastrous.Of the two,I find Mao's version the most frightening because of his almost svengali-like appeal and effect on the Chinese masses.As the Sino-Soviet relationship soured,maoist regimes started to teke hold in Southeast Asia.Ho Chi Minh in Viet Nam and Pol Pot with the Khmer Rouge uprising in Cambodia are examples of this.

Almost all of the supression in leftist regimes come from a forced agrarian policy.In Fascist states,the problem arise from agression towards surrounding states,or those who stand up to the corportist nature of Fascist states.

[Jack Weber]

Yes, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was all about the word "people".

The best is the German Democratic Republic because Eric Honecker was such a democrat...

[Moonlight Graham]

Dear Canada, thank you for your yucky "socialist" policies that created government banking regulations that have helped save our economy from much of the ravages of this recent recession compared to other countries, and in turn kept the Canadian mutual funds in my portfolio doing quite nicely compared to my other funds.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think you're making two errors, both related. First of all, Obama is not a socialist.

But ok, that argument can go round and round forever, so here's a better one: many of the posters here whom you deem "socialists" most likely are not.

Myself, for example. Just like, to guess at a number, 90% or more of North Americans, I consider myself a capitalist, but with a belief in certain "socialist" (broadly termed) ameliorative properties to diminish some of capitalism's harsher effects.

And virtually everyone, no doubt yourself included, feels the same way. The difference is only a matter of degree, not of basic philosophy.

That may be. But often the focus seems to be on curtailing the harsher effects of Capitalism.

Unfortunately, one of the effects of socialism and bigger government is that it begets even more government; socialism has a "creeping" aspect to it which is rarely scaled back.

As a result can we agree that it's also important to curtail rampant growth of government?

A good example would be Ralph Klein in the 90's, acting aggressively to cut government spending and, ultimately, taxes.

Of course the example of what happens when you don't do this is what's happing in Europe with the PIGS (portugal Ireland Greece and Spain).

[Smallc]

A good example would be Ralph Klein in the 90's, acting aggressively to cut government spending and, ultimately, taxes.

Why is that a better example than Chretien, who did the same thing?

Edited May 2, 2010 by Smallc

[eyeball]

You are correct I beleive.

One of the biggest problems in understanding government is having slippery and everchanging definitions which tends to obfuscate. Of course the argument is that language is always changing but it never changes faster than in politics. Just when you think you understand something it becomes something else.

It's not that big a mystery, like I said actions speak louder than words.

And it's not governments or corporations that are the problem, they are simply things. It's how people use them that counts. It's how people act.

I'm no more willing to write off capitalism than I am communism, not until I've seen either system governed with complete transparency. As it stands now I'm willing to write off the failings of both systems simply on the basis of the corruption that's been their most common feature.

Just so we're clear on the definition of corruption, I understand the term to mean secrecy with an intent to deceive, especially in the context of governing.

[Argus]

Whoa! What happened to you? Did you have an epiphany?

This is not the same Argus I've come to know and love...

I don't oppose and ridicule the NDP because they're Socialists. I never have. I oppose and ridicule the NDP because they're fiscal idiots and social-engineering zealots.

[Argus]

Also the core of Vancouver's downtown eastside, though a relatively small area, has got to be about as bad as any slum in North America. Those few blocks are literally completely covered in throngs of drugged up zombies.

Nothing is as bad as American inner cities. Nothing in Canada matches them for the scale, the hopelessness, the violence and the sense of being locked away from the rest of the country. The "underclass" is an American phenomenon unknown in Canada. People are born, grow old, have kids, and die in American slums without ever having left them or ever having held a job.

[Argus]

Say what?

That's not to say Socialists don't often make bad government. A certain kind of pie-in-the-sky, naive, self-righteous busy-body type seems to be constantly attracted to Left wing political parties, and they tend to make for incompetent government. Certainly all the ones I've seen in Canada have been of that stripe.

[Argus]

I disagree. Take a look at the riots in Greece, or in France when government proposes spending cuts, or pay freezes, or pension reform, or vacation reform, or hiring reform, etc, etc, etc.

Those people have riots over soccer games. They'll riot over anything. It's a different culture.

Yes, the less they practice European socialism, the more they tend to do better.

The Nordic countries, as far as I know, are among, if not the most socialist governments in Europe, if not the world. I'm not saying they're fiscal geniuses, but they do seem to have largely succeded in providing a lot of solid services for their people without descending into poverty or fiscal failure. They have been infected with a certain degree of busybody interference in people's lives of late, particularly in their idiocy about immigration and crime trends, but aside from that they've provided good government compared to the US.

They've just been practicing European socialist policy for several decades now. And the chickens have come home to roost.

People have been waiting for the chickens to come home to roost for a long time and I haven't seen them yet. The fiscal problems there are largely the result of the bank failures - which is capitalism run rampant - and weak minority governments cutting deals and not having the courage to make tough decisions. They do not appear to be, in other words, systemic failures which can be laid at the door of Socialism.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Argus

[Shady]

It is interesting,but it's simply semantics.The NAZI party was the most virulent form of Fascism we have ever seen.They were definately NOT Communists or Socialists...

Actually, they were very much socialist. Take a look at their domestic agenda.

[Shady]

Those people have riots over soccer games. They'll riot over anything. It's a different culture.

Yes, but in this case, they're not rioting over soccer. They're rioting over their government goodies being taken away from them.

The Nordic countries, as far as I know, are among, if not the most socialist governments in Europe, if not the world. I'm not saying they're fiscal geniuses, but they do seem to have largely succeded in providing a lot of solid services for their people without descending into poverty or fiscal failure.

Well, I guess they're stable, for now. I'm not sure I'd characterize them as largely succeeding. They've had very slow economic growth for quite a while. Long before the current recession. And Norway in particular generates quite a lot of oil wealth, which skews their situation.

The fiscal problems there are largely the result of the bank failures - which is capitalism run rampant.[

Not really. Their fiscal problems are a result of growing government, and growing entitlements leading to growing deficits for decades and decades. And the bank failures are largely due to government interference and not capitalism so-called run rampant. Much of the problems failing banks are dealing with are overleveraging and more importantly bad assets. These assets were created by government policy, which is directly related to socialism, and a socialist type agenda.

[nicky10013]

Actually, they were very much socialist. Take a look at their domestic agenda.

Dude, quit here. You've got no idea what you're talking about.