• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Challenge to the "lesser of two evils" crowd

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
When did I say socialism was right wing? Fascism is against socialism therefore isn't socialism, and your post is utter nonsense.

Pay attention to what I wrote earlier, they achieve the same goal government ownership. It's that simple. They are not on the right, the fake right wing you describe would be closer to a system of anarchy and if you insist on wanting to use a line to describe politics, fascism, socialism , communism, oligarchy, monarchy, dictatorship and democracy are all way to the left.



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
...huh?

Apparently this forum isn't up to speed on political science. Forget the line, instead picture a grid. The x axis is economy, the y society. X is individualist, -x is collectivist; y is authoritarian, -y is libertarian (anarchist would also fit). Communism is the top left corner (authoritarian collectivism), social democracy is the bottom left corner (libertarian collectivism), the bottom right corner is classical liberalism (libertarian individualist), and the top right corner is corporatism (authoritarian individualist). Most US politicians throughout the past century lie in the first quadrant, which is also where most fascist regimes lie. Even Obama is in this quadrant, though he's much closer to the origin than say Bush, Glenn Beck or Hitler. Honestly, any society with a negative y value would be preferable to what we have currently. Just take your pick of cooperation, survival of the fittest or a mix of the two.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Pay attention to what I wrote earlier, they achieve the same goal government ownership. It's that simple. They are not on the right, the fake right wing you describe would be closer to a system of anarchy and if you insist on wanting to use a line to describe politics, fascism, socialism , communism, oligarchy, monarchy, dictatorship and democracy are all way to the left.


Actually, "Animus" is right on this one, SVG...

Fascism is NOT "government ownership". It is when private corporations BECOME the government, and then exert their control of the means of production through the guise of the governmental monopoly on force (which they can't do nearly as effectively as mere corporations)

Fascism isn't so much a form of "government", as it is a socio-economo-political ideology. It is corporations exerting so much influence, control and direction over "government" that the corporations essenatially BECOME the real governing body in a society....

Sort of like what we have here in the US with Monsanto, the Banskters and the Military Industrial complex. They draft legislation to allow them to do whatever they want, then their lobbyists hand these drafts to "legislators" who pass it with the promise of financial help in future campaigns.

Do they even teach civics, political science, or international politics in school anymore?
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Despite the fact it's called National Socialism, it isn't socialism. That's a misnomer.

Despite the fact that they advocate most all of the same things as most socialists have the same ideas and want all the same crap...

The only difference is most modern socialists have come up with some bizarre innateness and expectations of socialists to disguise themselves.

Socialists can be left wing or right wing, either way they are trying for a big government that will give you everything they think you want and need and take away all the things they think you don't need. Its just a difference of opinion as to whether the government should change or keep society the same. Very European. Not the ol' American way of having a government small enough that it can't change nor keep society the same.
 

MuchoUno

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
10
Location
Iowa
If you actually worked at a financial institution, you'd know that the political climate is unfriendly at best. I don't know who you think "the banksters" are who are lobbying, but they're doing a piss poor job on their own behalf. All you need to do is peek at the constant barrage of compliance legislation that dictates risk policies on credit to figure that out.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
If you actually worked at a financial institution, you'd know that the political climate is unfriendly at best. I don't know who you think "the banksters" are who are lobbying, but they're doing a piss poor job on their own behalf. All you need to do is peek at the constant barrage of compliance legislation that dictates risk policies on credit to figure that out.

The word "bankster" isn't being used in reference to a bank teller. It is in reference to the high ranking members of banks, most commonly the banks that compose the federal reserve.

"Compliance" regulations are probably meant to make smaller banks comply with the larger bank's rules.
 

MuchoUno

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
10
Location
Iowa
I obviously wasn't referring to bank tellers. They hardly make the decisions or do any lobbying.
 

MuchoUno

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
10
Location
Iowa
Compliance regulation is hitting the large banks pretty hard. No probably about it Trust me on this.
 
Last edited:

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
Despite the fact that they advocate most all of the same things as most socialists have the same ideas and want all the same crap...

The only difference is most modern socialists have come up with some bizarre innateness and expectations of socialists to disguise themselves.

Socialists can be left wing or right wing, either way they are trying for a big government that will give you everything they think you want and need and take away all the things they think you don't need. Its just a difference of opinion as to whether the government should change or keep society the same. Very European. Not the ol' American way of having a government small enough that it can't change nor keep society the same.

I see you've never researched anarcho-socialism.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
I see you've never researched anarcho-socialism.

It would be just as easy to get an ant farm. Everyone mindlessly working for the "equality" of the society, without any concern or thought about enhancing their standard of living or providing an easier life for their kids/grandkids. That's "anarcho-socialism", and it's an insipid idea only the biggest morons ever to be thwarted by child-proof lids could possibly believe in.

We seriously need to let the morons kill themselves off.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Actually, "Animus" is right on this one, SVG...

Fascism is NOT "government ownership". It is when private corporations BECOME the government, and then exert their control of the means of production through the guise of the governmental monopoly on force (which they can't do nearly as effectively as mere corporations)

Fascism isn't so much a form of "government", as it is a socio-economo-political ideology. It is corporations exerting so much influence, control and direction over "government" that the corporations essenatially BECOME the real governing body in a society....

Sort of like what we have here in the US with Monsanto, the Banskters and the Military Industrial complex. They draft legislation to allow them to do whatever they want, then their lobbyists hand these drafts to "legislators" who pass it with the promise of financial help in future campaigns.

Do they even teach civics, political science, or international politics in school anymore?

I agree with what fascism is but the end result is the same , to me that is the point not how it got there. And it is all opposite of liberty and centralizes control into the "government". Corporations are people after all....(sarcasm hehe).
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
It would be just as easy to get an ant farm. Everyone mindlessly working for the "equality" of the society, without any concern or thought about enhancing their standard of living or providing an easier life for their kids/grandkids. That's "anarcho-socialism", and it's an insipid idea only the biggest morons ever to be thwarted by child-proof lids could possibly believe in.

We seriously need to let the morons kill themselves off.

What's wrong with trying to enhance the standard of living/provide an easier life for everyone/everyone's offspring? Equality is only a bad thing if we are equally destitute. Sure, if everyone is middle-class or above, people like you won't get to feel superior to all the peasants, but is that really a drawback? And for f**k's sake, you won't be poor, don't complain. If your ultimate goal is to be better off than your ancestors and to ensure that your descendants will be better off than you, what difference does it make if your countrymen are equally well-to-do? That only matters if you actually want to be a modern day aristocrat--in which case, just become a CEO.

For the record, I don't really care either way as long as my rights and the rights of my friends and family are left alone. Social democracy; laissez-faire capitalism; a free market regulated to prevent trusts, monopolies and corporatism with a social welfare system to provide for the needy; or some new system entirely, I'll work with it. I see no reason to be like others on this forum and in life that vehemently attack differing schools of economic thought--those aren't the problem, folks, it's the state. Once government is under control, then if you find a legitimate reason to argue the merits and ills of various economic systems, have at it. It's mostly only philosophically relevant though, any economic system done right will work.

Oh, still on ignore btw, just felt like replying this time.
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
Indeed I do, perfectly. Every now and then though I'll click "View Post" just to see what he says, particularly if it seems to be in reply to one of my posts, and this time I decided it was worth replying to. Not the case with his previous post, my tolerance of ignorance is only so great.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
What's wrong with trying to enhance the standard of living/provide an easier life for everyone/everyone's offspring? Equality is only a bad thing if we are equally destitute. Sure, if everyone is middle-class or above, people like you won't get to feel superior to all the peasants, but is that really a drawback? And for f**k's sake, you won't be poor, don't complain. If your ultimate goal is to be better off than your ancestors and to ensure that your descendants will be better off than you, what difference does it make if your countrymen are equally well-to-do? That only matters if you actually want to be a modern day aristocrat--in which case, just become a CEO.

For the record, I don't really care either way as long as my rights and the rights of my friends and family are left alone. Social democracy; laissez-faire capitalism; a free market regulated to prevent trusts, monopolies and corporatism with a social welfare system to provide for the needy; or some new system entirely, I'll work with it. I see no reason to be like others on this forum and in life that vehemently attack differing schools of economic thought--those aren't the problem, folks, it's the state. Once government is under control, then if you find a legitimate reason to argue the merits and ills of various economic systems, have at it. It's mostly only philosophically relevant though, any economic system done right will work.

Oh, still on ignore btw, just felt like replying this time.

The rights of your friends and family is included in economic structure of a country. The only way those rights would be protected is to let a truly free market alone. I am anti corporitism, when they can influence the government, but if you look at the history of "trust" laws in this country many were founded for protection of those in the industry. The only way any form of economic system other than free market, ( I like the idea of anarcho-capitalism myself) is done is by force and taking away rights.

The governments really needs to have little involvement.

Read, Hazlits, "Economics in One Lesson". A better book for this subject is Ludwig Von Mises's "Omnipotent Government".
 

Animus

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Cookeville, TN
That's not true. Neither social democracy nor socialist anarchy are accomplished by force, but by volition. You're thinking of communism.
 
Top