FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Italian Fascism and National Socialism..
Italian Fascism and National Socialism..
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Well I think we can all agree that Putin is a fuckwit. ‘Tribes’ can be debated till the cows come home, but the truth is your either a fuckwit or your not. We all have the capacity to be fuckwits, its just that most of us don’t want to be." Putin made Alexandr Solzchinitzen mandatory reading for all Russian highschoolers. And his assessment that NATO and the EU are just a modern attempt at Marxism is also valid. Issue with fuckwits is people delegate their personal responsibility to them. | |||
| |||
"It is always about power. Animal Farm is still worth a read as is watching the Death of Stalin. " Love Death of Stalin. Animal Farm is good but I personally think The Road To Wigan Pier is better! | |||
| |||
"It is always about power. Animal Farm is still worth a read as is watching the Death of Stalin. Love Death of Stalin. Animal Farm is good but I personally think The Road To Wigan Pier is better!" & sadly all roads lead to 1984 - even if its through incompetence rather than design… | |||
| |||
"It is always about power. Animal Farm is still worth a read as is watching the Death of Stalin. Love Death of Stalin. Animal Farm is good but I personally think The Road To Wigan Pier is better! & sadly all roads lead to 1984 - even if its through incompetence rather than design…" As F. A Hayek said "Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion." | |||
"What a topic for a swingers site....." Sorry is the politics forum only for politics relating to Swinging? See a post about broken britain, migration and the state of the government but can't address the failures of collectivisation? Sorry I don't exist to just talk about sex with men. | |||
| |||
"Every so often this completely in incorrect trope gets wheeled out by people who are right wing leaning but want to distance themselves from the Nazis and Nazism because of the inarguable atrocities and ideological extremism associated with them. It has been regularly debunked. You really need the fuller context around the quotes you have used. And re-read them, especially the first one as it is not saying what you think it is! The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal of raw, totalitarian power. And therein lies the issue. It isn’t actually about whether far left or far right are worse, they both have horrendous examples (Stalin’s Soviet Union for one, Cambodia etc). The issue is totalitarianism vs democracy." No, if that was the assumption I would have said so. I was quite clear in my point. What does the first statement say? If not for the focus on race NS would compete with Marxism on its own ground? Hitler was a Socialist and the deflections you present are common from the socialists who want to distance themselves from the failures of their ideology. | |||
"Every so often this completely in incorrect trope gets wheeled out by people who are right wing leaning but want to distance themselves from the Nazis and Nazism because of the inarguable atrocities and ideological extremism associated with them. It has been regularly debunked. You really need the fuller context around the quotes you have used. And re-read them, especially the first one as it is not saying what you think it is! The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal of raw, totalitarian power. And therein lies the issue. It isn’t actually about whether far left or far right are worse, they both have horrendous examples (Stalin’s Soviet Union for one, Cambodia etc). The issue is totalitarianism vs democracy." And read Vampire Economy. You're misled by Marxist historians into believing the Nazis supporter Capitalism or only paid lip service to Socialism. It's not a factual argument and serves to deflect from what I actually quoted, of which you seem to not quite grasp fully. | |||
| |||
"Nope wrong again. German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterises this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”: “This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.”" Just factually wrong. National socialism had full control over businesses and destroyed any form of free market. As Gunter Reimann highlights in his booK, German business men were reading Marxist theory to understand National Socialism. | |||
"Nope wrong again. German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterises this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”: “This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.”" Hitler didn't believe in Christianity either. How could he serve in the Soviet army as a Marxist and uphold Christian values? | |||
| |||
"Were Socialist in nature. Here are some quotes from Hitler, Wagner, Mussolini, Gentile and a political historian who translated a lot of Fascist and Communist texts to back up my point. Really wish we'd admit collectivisation is a failed idea, but until we do here you go. "The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground." - Hitler. Mein Kampf, Vol. 2. "But first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise the peoples and their governments are not ready for the socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal in one’s own country and demand socialism among nations. Education about and firm belief in national socialism must precede that change." - Otto Wagner, quoting Hitler in 'Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant' "The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)—as well as the influence of contemporary Italian idealistic doctrines from which Fascist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity." - Giovani Gentile who ghost wrote the doctrine of Fascism and served to generate the philosophy behind Mussolinis statemanship, Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, translated by A. James Gregor. "Whatever one thinks of his Marxism today, Mussolini was accepted by his socialist peers as a Marxist theoretician. He rose to leadership in the Italian Socialist Party at least in part on the basis of his recognized capacity as a socialist intellectual." - A. James Gregor , The Ideology of Fascism. Lastly I recommend before anyone tells me Hitler had a Capitalist focused government should read 'Vampire Economy: doing business under fascism' written by a German/Jewish Business man who lived and worked in Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of the war. He states in it, about 9 pages in that business men in Nazi Germany were reading Marxist theory to understand the state of the economy. I have more, such as Hitler spending time fighting for the Soviets in Bavaria post WW1 and being photographed wearing a Communist red arm band at the funeral of a Jewish Socialist in 1922ish but my point is self evident. Socialism is the totalitarian collectivisation that formed the basis of the Holocaust, Holodomor, The Great Leap Forward, S-21 and the Khymer Rouge, Lenins Cheka abuses through mass imprisonment and Stalins expansion of the gulag systems. Lastly a great book on Liberalism and how it was accidentally formed through endless revolution caused by the church through the English Civil Wars seems to mimic the state of Communist revolutions. Basically, if you're a Socialist and claim to be antifascist, against fascism in general or think you're 'liberal' then you're sorely mistaken. I didn't even get into the antisemetic remarks from Marx, or the calling of genocide from Engles, but I can if you want to argue against my assertion. Curious if i'll get just expected denial or if someone can present coherent arguments against it." If only he’d sold a few more paintings when young . | |||
"Nope wrong again. German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterises this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”: “This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.” Hitler didn't believe in Christianity either. How could he serve in the Soviet army as a Marxist and uphold Christian values?" Precisely the point being made. He didn’t believe in Christianity, he co-opted whatever suited him. That is why it says “As with Hitler’s protestations of...” | |||
| |||
"Nope wrong again. German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterises this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”: “This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.” Hitler didn't believe in Christianity either. How could he serve in the Soviet army as a Marxist and uphold Christian values? Precisely the point being made. He didn’t believe in Christianity, he co-opted whatever suited him. That is why it says “As with Hitler’s protestations of...”" Is there a comparison to be made to todays ‘career politicians’? Rather than those that see it as a cause. Taken to extreme I guess both can be dangerous. Not comparing BJ to Adolf of course but early on both would go with whatever they thought would / could serve them best. Adolf ended up with a movement of course. Let’s call it ‘cuntism’. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So many weak and spurious arguments in one post!" Whose post? | |||
"So many weak and spurious arguments in one post! Whose post?" Not yours Birldn. Yours was well made and articulated and nuanced well. The OP however seemed intent on presenting an interpretation and I felt a personal ideology and then decrying everyone else was wrong. | |||
| |||
"So many weak and spurious arguments in one post! Whose post?" The original one. It's like he's read "the far right playbook" of how to not appear like a fascist. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"And the point on redistribution of wealth... Socialism advocates redistribution of wealth towards the poor to create a more equitable society. Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down). Nazism advocated the redistribution of wealth based on race and into the hands of the few not the many with the veneer it would be good for Aryan society (but like capitalism enriching the elite)." Where did you find the definition of capitalism the way you defined it? It's funny that you get angry when someone defines socialism the way you don't believe in. But you would throw random definitions for capitalism. | |||
"And the point on redistribution of wealth... Socialism advocates redistribution of wealth towards the poor to create a more equitable society. Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down). Nazism advocated the redistribution of wealth based on race and into the hands of the few not the many with the veneer it would be good for Aryan society (but like capitalism enriching the elite). Where did you find the definition of capitalism the way you defined it? It's funny that you get angry when someone defines socialism the way you don't believe in. But you would throw random definitions for capitalism." Except I don’t get angry I am just saying it as it is. Regular on these forums and been quite clear I am a centrist who can see good and bad in both socialism and capitalism. The clue is in the name. SOCIALism sees society, the collective, as most important. CAPITALism sees capital, and generating for the individual, as most important. Feel free to explain what is incorrect about my definition of capitalism. Am open to ideas rather than rhetoric  | |||
| |||
| |||
"And the point on redistribution of wealth... Socialism advocates redistribution of wealth towards the poor to create a more equitable society. Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down). Nazism advocated the redistribution of wealth based on race and into the hands of the few not the many with the veneer it would be good for Aryan society (but like capitalism enriching the elite). Where did you find the definition of capitalism the way you defined it? It's funny that you get angry when someone defines socialism the way you don't believe in. But you would throw random definitions for capitalism. Except I don’t get angry I am just saying it as it is. Regular on these forums and been quite clear I am a centrist who can see good and bad in both socialism and capitalism. The clue is in the name. SOCIALism sees society, the collective, as most important. CAPITALism sees capital, and generating for the individual, as most important. Feel free to explain what is incorrect about my definition of capitalism. Am open to ideas rather than rhetoric "Just for clarification, I believe you don't believe in Marxist version of socialism because you are a centrist and Marxism is far left. Is that correct? Because if you support Marxism, you have no business calling yourself a centrist. The definition for capitalism you gave in this post is much different from the definition you gave in the original post: " Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down). " Capitalism doesn't advocate inequitable society. The biggest mistake all armchair socialists make is assuming that wealth is zero sum property. Capitalism provides freedom for everyone one to generate wealth. You give something to the society that the society really wants, you will take something out of it. For instance 5 out of the top 10 richest people in the world are from poor or lower middle class families. The top richest people in the 90s are nowhere in the list now. Embracing economic liberalism is what pulled a majority of population out of population in the past few decades. If socialism is a good thing by definition because it has the word "social" in it, it wouldn't have resulted in millions of deaths. As I said in my original post, the Marxist version of socialism hides behind good intentions and causes an impact which is as bad as fascism. Social welfare societies on the other hand depend on capitalism. It uses capitalism as an economic model to generate wealth and does a fair bit to provide basic stuff such as healthcare. | |||
"And the point on redistribution of wealth... Socialism advocates redistribution of wealth towards the poor to create a more equitable society. Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down). Nazism advocated the redistribution of wealth based on race and into the hands of the few not the many with the veneer it would be good for Aryan society (but like capitalism enriching the elite). Where did you find the definition of capitalism the way you defined it? It's funny that you get angry when someone defines socialism the way you don't believe in. But you would throw random definitions for capitalism. Except I don’t get angry I am just saying it as it is. Regular on these forums and been quite clear I am a centrist who can see good and bad in both socialism and capitalism. The clue is in the name. SOCIALism sees society, the collective, as most important. CAPITALism sees capital, and generating for the individual, as most important. Feel free to explain what is incorrect about my definition of capitalism. Am open to ideas rather than rhetoric
Just for clarification, I believe you don't believe in Marxist version of socialism because you are a centrist and Marxism is far left. Is that correct? Because if you support Marxism, you have no business calling yourself a centrist.
The definition for capitalism you gave in this post is much different from the definition you gave in the original post:
Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down).
Capitalism doesn't advocate inequitable society. The biggest mistake all armchair socialists make is assuming that wealth is zero sum property. Capitalism provides freedom for everyone one to generate wealth. You give something to the society that the society really wants, you will take something out of it. For instance 5 out of the top 10 richest people in the world are from poor or lower middle class families. The top richest people in the 90s are nowhere in the list now. Embracing economic liberalism is what pulled a majority of population out of population in the past few decades.
If socialism is a good thing by definition because it has the word "social" in it, it wouldn't have resulted in millions of deaths. As I said in my original post, the Marxist version of socialism hides behind good intentions and causes an impact which is as bad as fascism.
Social welfare societies on the other hand depend on capitalism. It uses capitalism as an economic model to generate wealth and does a fair bit to provide basic stuff such as healthcare."No I do not agree with marxism for many reasons but primarily because it is an unachievable utopia that fails to recognise those with higher skills. The reality is that no all jobs or skillsets provide equal value to society, so why should they be treated equally in terms of benefit and reward. I find it interesting that you cite the top 10 richest people to prove that capitalism is a better model. It certainly is for the 0.0000001% of the population. ALL of whom have built their wealth on the labour of others. MOST of whom have not appropriately rewarded those providing that labour. Society (across the world not just in the UK) has seen a dramatic and ongoing increase in the growth of wealth of the richest and decrease in wealth of the poorest. In the UK the inequity is the biggest it has been since the inter-war period and growing. I don’t see that as capitalism having benefitted the majority in society. Do you? | |||
| |||
"And the point on redistribution of wealth... Socialism advocates redistribution of wealth towards the poor to create a more equitable society. Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down). Nazism advocated the redistribution of wealth based on race and into the hands of the few not the many with the veneer it would be good for Aryan society (but like capitalism enriching the elite). Where did you find the definition of capitalism the way you defined it? It's funny that you get angry when someone defines socialism the way you don't believe in. But you would throw random definitions for capitalism. Except I don’t get angry I am just saying it as it is. Regular on these forums and been quite clear I am a centrist who can see good and bad in both socialism and capitalism. The clue is in the name. SOCIALism sees society, the collective, as most important. CAPITALism sees capital, and generating for the individual, as most important. Feel free to explain what is incorrect about my definition of capitalism. Am open to ideas rather than rhetoric
Just for clarification, I believe you don't believe in Marxist version of socialism because you are a centrist and Marxism is far left. Is that correct? Because if you support Marxism, you have no business calling yourself a centrist.
The definition for capitalism you gave in this post is much different from the definition you gave in the original post:
Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down).
Capitalism doesn't advocate inequitable society. The biggest mistake all armchair socialists make is assuming that wealth is zero sum property. Capitalism provides freedom for everyone one to generate wealth. You give something to the society that the society really wants, you will take something out of it. For instance 5 out of the top 10 richest people in the world are from poor or lower middle class families. The top richest people in the 90s are nowhere in the list now. Embracing economic liberalism is what pulled a majority of population out of population in the past few decades.
If socialism is a good thing by definition because it has the word "social" in it, it wouldn't have resulted in millions of deaths. As I said in my original post, the Marxist version of socialism hides behind good intentions and causes an impact which is as bad as fascism.
Social welfare societies on the other hand depend on capitalism. It uses capitalism as an economic model to generate wealth and does a fair bit to provide basic stuff such as healthcare.
No I do not agree with marxism for many reasons but primarily because it is an unachievable utopia that fails to recognise those with higher skills. The reality is that no all jobs or skillsets provide equal value to society, so why should they be treated equally in terms of benefit and reward.
I find it interesting that you cite the top 10 richest people to prove that capitalism is a better model. It certainly is for the 0.0000001% of the population. ALL of whom have built their wealth on the labour of others. MOST of whom have not appropriately rewarded those providing that labour.
Society (across the world not just in the UK) has seen a dramatic and ongoing increase in the growth of wealth of the richest and decrease in wealth of the poorest. In the UK the inequity is the biggest it has been since the inter-war period and growing. I don’t see that as capitalism having benefitted the majority in society. Do you? "I mentioned the top richest people because you claimed that capitalism is focused on redistributing the wealth towards the rich. It's not true at all. There are poor people becoming rich and rich people becoming poor all the time. Capitalism has benefitted majority of the society. If you go by news channels which report only bad incidents that happen around the world, it creates a distorted view of the reality. All statistics show that number of people below the poverty line has been reducing globally in the last few decades. India was on the path towards disaster because of the population explosion. Thanks to embracing free markets in the 1990s, the country saved itself. If it didn't do that and went ahead with its "mixed economy", other countries wouldn't be getting skilled workers from the country, they would be getting refugees instead. I strongly recommend reading "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling. If reading the book is too much work, check the GapMinder website which shows statistics on economic and social issues over the past few decades. You will be surprised. Saying this as someone who used to be a wannabe socialist. Inequality is not a big concern as long as the standard of living for poorer section keeps moving up. I have a couple of friends becoming ultra rich after starting their own companies. Should I be jealous of them and be worried about the inequality between them and me? Not at all. They took risks I would never take in my life. I have seen them struggle through the growing pain and are now in a position to actually enjoy the benefits of having preserved through all this. I have also seen a couple of friends try the same and fail big time. Define "appropriately rewarded". Capitalism has a simple way of rewarding - supply and demand. If you want high reward, you get skills which are in demand and your job will reward you highly for that. That's as fair as it can get. If you think there is an "appropriate reward" based on some values like the amount of labour, will you follow it and pay the same amount of money that you pay for services and hotels when travelling to a developing country as much as you pay here in developed countries? I think of myself as a little bit right of centre or even a centrist. I like free markets. I also like the idea of looking after each other socially, like public healthcare, free education. I would like the government to help people get skills which are in demand for jobs. Centrism is about embracing the good of both sides. You have openly said that capitalism is bad by definition and socialism is good by definition. How are you centrist? | |||
| |||
"And the point on redistribution of wealth... Socialism advocates redistribution of wealth towards the poor to create a more equitable society. Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down). Nazism advocated the redistribution of wealth based on race and into the hands of the few not the many with the veneer it would be good for Aryan society (but like capitalism enriching the elite). Where did you find the definition of capitalism the way you defined it? It's funny that you get angry when someone defines socialism the way you don't believe in. But you would throw random definitions for capitalism. Except I don’t get angry I am just saying it as it is. Regular on these forums and been quite clear I am a centrist who can see good and bad in both socialism and capitalism. The clue is in the name. SOCIALism sees society, the collective, as most important. CAPITALism sees capital, and generating for the individual, as most important. Feel free to explain what is incorrect about my definition of capitalism. Am open to ideas rather than rhetoric
Just for clarification, I believe you don't believe in Marxist version of socialism because you are a centrist and Marxism is far left. Is that correct? Because if you support Marxism, you have no business calling yourself a centrist.
The definition for capitalism you gave in this post is much different from the definition you gave in the original post:
Capitalism advocates redistribution of wealth (via the means of production and ownership) towards the rich to create a more inequitable society (with the myth and veneer of truckle down).
Capitalism doesn't advocate inequitable society. The biggest mistake all armchair socialists make is assuming that wealth is zero sum property. Capitalism provides freedom for everyone one to generate wealth. You give something to the society that the society really wants, you will take something out of it. For instance 5 out of the top 10 richest people in the world are from poor or lower middle class families. The top richest people in the 90s are nowhere in the list now. Embracing economic liberalism is what pulled a majority of population out of population in the past few decades.
If socialism is a good thing by definition because it has the word "social" in it, it wouldn't have resulted in millions of deaths. As I said in my original post, the Marxist version of socialism hides behind good intentions and causes an impact which is as bad as fascism.
Social welfare societies on the other hand depend on capitalism. It uses capitalism as an economic model to generate wealth and does a fair bit to provide basic stuff such as healthcare.
No I do not agree with marxism for many reasons but primarily because it is an unachievable utopia that fails to recognise those with higher skills. The reality is that no all jobs or skillsets provide equal value to society, so why should they be treated equally in terms of benefit and reward.
I find it interesting that you cite the top 10 richest people to prove that capitalism is a better model. It certainly is for the 0.0000001% of the population. ALL of whom have built their wealth on the labour of others. MOST of whom have not appropriately rewarded those providing that labour.
Society (across the world not just in the UK) has seen a dramatic and ongoing increase in the growth of wealth of the richest and decrease in wealth of the poorest. In the UK the inequity is the biggest it has been since the inter-war period and growing. I don’t see that as capitalism having benefitted the majority in society. Do you?
I mentioned the top richest people because you claimed that capitalism is focused on redistributing the wealth towards the rich. It's not true at all. There are poor people becoming rich and rich people becoming poor all the time.
Capitalism has benefitted majority of the society. If you go by news channels which report only bad incidents that happen around the world, it creates a distorted view of the reality. All statistics show that number of people below the poverty line has been reducing globally in the last few decades. India was on the path towards disaster because of the population explosion. Thanks to embracing free markets in the 1990s, the country saved itself. If it didn't do that and went ahead with its "mixed economy", other countries wouldn't be getting skilled workers from the country, they would be getting refugees instead.
I strongly recommend reading "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling. If reading the book is too much work, check the GapMinder website which shows statistics on economic and social issues over the past few decades. You will be surprised. Saying this as someone who used to be a wannabe socialist.
Inequality is not a big concern as long as the standard of living for poorer section keeps moving up. I have a couple of friends becoming ultra rich after starting their own companies. Should I be jealous of them and be worried about the inequality between them and me? Not at all. They took risks I would never take in my life. I have seen them struggle through the growing pain and are now in a position to actually enjoy the benefits of having preserved through all this. I have also seen a couple of friends try the same and fail big time.
Define "appropriately rewarded". Capitalism has a simple way of rewarding - supply and demand. If you want high reward, you get skills which are in demand and your job will reward you highly for that. That's as fair as it can get. If you think there is an "appropriate reward" based on some values like the amount of labour, will you follow it and pay the same amount of money that you pay for services and hotels when travelling to a developing country as much as you pay here in developed countries?
I think of myself as a little bit right of centre or even a centrist. I like free markets. I also like the idea of looking after each other socially, like public healthcare, free education. I would like the government to help people get skills which are in demand for jobs.
Centrism is about embracing the good of both sides. You have openly said that capitalism is bad by definition and socialism is good by definition. How are you centrist?"I appreciate you taking the time to write such s detailed response. I do not have time right now to adequately absorb or respond in a manner that reflects your effort. However, I do think you are putting words in my mouth. I have not said all capitalism is evil. Nor have I said all socialism is good. The opposite in fact. As a centrist I believe there is a middle ground. I believe certain aspects in society, those that are essential for life or those where a lack of competition makes a mockery of “market forces”, should be state owned. So Gas, Electric, Water and Trains. I believe the assets of the nation should be exploited to support everyone in that nation (such as North Sea oil & gas extraction - along the same lines as Norway’s approach and sovereign wealth fund). I think the state should provide all emergency and essential (non-elective) healthcare. The state should provide education. I do believe in regulation rather than a totally “free market” in order to uphold standards and protect both consumers and citizens. However, for most things, and certainly those where consumers are able to exercise choice, these should be in private hands and market forces should indeed drive success or failure. | |||
""I mentioned the top richest people because you claimed that capitalism is focused on redistributing the wealth towards the rich. It's not true at all. There are poor people becoming rich and rich people becoming poor all the time." ...but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. It's like the "American Dream" where any individual can become super wealthy, or any wealthy people could lose it all, but in reality those with wealth and privilege use that wealth and privilege to ensure their children and descendents maintain their privilege. You state that capitalism isn't about the redistribution of wealth to the rich and powerful, but this is exactly what capitalism is. It is the control of our society and economy by the capitalist class, for the interests of that class, against the interests of the working class. That is the very definition of capitalism. It will be portrayed by some (or many) as a system based upon freedom for all, but in reality it is the economic control of the capitalist class. Placing the needs of capital before the needs of labour." All the statistics prove everything you told wrong: https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/ The percentage of people below poverty line has been shortening over the decades. In the 1980s, people were really worried about the population explosion and everyone predicted hunger and starvation. Guess what? In most developed countries, obesity is a bigger problem than starvation. Even China had to embrace private farming eventually to start developing after the disastrous reign of Mao. Air travel, mobile phones, internet, which were items of luxury at one point are now a common commodities these days. The only thing that limits capitalism is science. Energy is a problem because we do not have an electricity source that is cheap and can sustain such a big population. Real estate is a problem because we do not have a solution to house so many people without affecting the ecology of a place. The fact that half of the top 10 richest were not even close to rich when they grew up is an example evidence against claims that capitalism only benefits the rich. If you need to become rich like that, you need a smart idea, understanding of the market, ethics to work hard relentlessly at least until the business is self sustaining. I have seen people try it and succeed. I have also seen people try it and fail. So one thing I would never do is to act like they became rich for reasons other than their own smartness and will power. | |||
" I appreciate you taking the time to write such s detailed response. I do not have time right now to adequately absorb or respond in a manner that reflects your effort. However, I do think you are putting words in my mouth. I have not said all capitalism is evil. Nor have I said all socialism is good. The opposite in fact. As a centrist I believe there is a middle ground. I believe certain aspects in society, those that are essential for life or those where a lack of competition makes a mockery of “market forces”, should be state owned. So Gas, Electric, Water and Trains. I believe the assets of the nation should be exploited to support everyone in that nation (such as North Sea oil & gas extraction - along the same lines as Norway’s approach and sovereign wealth fund). I think the state should provide all emergency and essential (non-elective) healthcare. The state should provide education. I do believe in regulation rather than a totally “free market” in order to uphold standards and protect both consumers and citizens. However, for most things, and certainly those where consumers are able to exercise choice, these should be in private hands and market forces should indeed drive success or failure." I did not put any words in your mouth. You literally told capitalism advocates supporting only rich people. I have had a love hate relationship with government ownership of electricity/rail network/water. But as of now I am more inclined towards privatisation. If you look at the amount of tax money that goes into these and the amount of money people actually pay in bills, private ownership does as good as public ownership. I agree that monopoly should be avoided at all costs. That's where a government should chime in. | |||
""I mentioned the top richest people because you claimed that capitalism is focused on redistributing the wealth towards the rich. It's not true at all. There are poor people becoming rich and rich people becoming poor all the time." ...but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. It's like the "American Dream" where any individual can become super wealthy, or any wealthy people could lose it all, but in reality those with wealth and privilege use that wealth and privilege to ensure their children and descendents maintain their privilege. You state that capitalism isn't about the redistribution of wealth to the rich and powerful, but this is exactly what capitalism is. It is the control of our society and economy by the capitalist class, for the interests of that class, against the interests of the working class. That is the very definition of capitalism. It will be portrayed by some (or many) as a system based upon freedom for all, but in reality it is the economic control of the capitalist class. Placing the needs of capital before the needs of labour. All the statistics prove everything you told wrong: https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/ The percentage of people below poverty line has been shortening over the decades. In the 1980s, people were really worried about the population explosion and everyone predicted hunger and starvation. Guess what? In most developed countries, obesity is a bigger problem than starvation. Even China had to embrace private farming eventually to start developing after the disastrous reign of Mao. Air travel, mobile phones, internet, which were items of luxury at one point are now a common commodities these days. The only thing that limits capitalism is science. Energy is a problem because we do not have an electricity source that is cheap and can sustain such a big population. Real estate is a problem because we do not have a solution to house so many people without affecting the ecology of a place. The fact that half of the top 10 richest were not even close to rich when they grew up is an example evidence against claims that capitalism only benefits the rich. If you need to become rich like that, you need a smart idea, understanding of the market, ethics to work hard relentlessly at least until the business is self sustaining. I have seen people try it and succeed. I have also seen people try it and fail. So one thing I would never do is to act like they became rich for reasons other than their own smartness and will power." I think your grasp of statistics is somewhat questionable. "All the statistics prove everything you told wrong". You include one statistic which doesn't prove anything of the sort. In the UK (and the majority of the rest of the west), 45 years of neoliberalism have led to us being in a position where wages are at a 45 year low and profits at a 45 year high as proportions of GDP. Capitalism is, by definition, the control of society and the economy by capital. It exists solely for the benefit of capital. We've had, since WW2, ever increasing scientific, technological and industrial knowledge, with far greater productivity. If this society was run for the benefit of all then we would be working 3 day weeks by now and all living comfortable lives. The fact that so many are having to choose between eating and heating, and so many in work have to queue at food banks, whilst corporations and energy companies make record profits, whilst the number of billionaires continues to rise surely tells you that our whole economy is designed to work for the few at the top. They of course have to make sure we have just enough that we don't organise to overthrow them, but absolute poverty is not a useful measure of the fairness of society when we have ever growing wealth at the top. If capitalism isn't society run for and by capital then what on earth is it? | |||
" I appreciate you taking the time to write such s detailed response. I do not have time right now to adequately absorb or respond in a manner that reflects your effort. However, I do think you are putting words in my mouth. I have not said all capitalism is evil. Nor have I said all socialism is good. The opposite in fact. As a centrist I believe there is a middle ground. I believe certain aspects in society, those that are essential for life or those where a lack of competition makes a mockery of “market forces”, should be state owned. So Gas, Electric, Water and Trains. I believe the assets of the nation should be exploited to support everyone in that nation (such as North Sea oil & gas extraction - along the same lines as Norway’s approach and sovereign wealth fund). I think the state should provide all emergency and essential (non-elective) healthcare. The state should provide education. I do believe in regulation rather than a totally “free market” in order to uphold standards and protect both consumers and citizens. However, for most things, and certainly those where consumers are able to exercise choice, these should be in private hands and market forces should indeed drive success or failure. I did not put any words in your mouth. You literally told capitalism advocates supporting only rich people. I have had a love hate relationship with government ownership of electricity/rail network/water. But as of now I am more inclined towards privatisation. If you look at the amount of tax money that goes into these and the amount of money people actually pay in bills, private ownership does as good as public ownership. I agree that monopoly should be avoided at all costs. That's where a government should chime in." Then we need to agree to disagree. In my opinion (not just mine) privatisation of these “essential for life utilities” has been a disaster. Just one example, water. Since privatisation the water companies, in the name of innovation and efficiency, have invested c.£5bn in improving water network, storage, sewage treatment etc. Sounds good right? Except we know based on recent headlines how crap (literally) the water & sewage system is in the UK. And yet over the same time period where they invested that impressive sounding £5bn they also managed to pay out dividends totally over £70bn. Hmmm wonder where their priorities lie? | |||
| |||
"However, we are digressing from the thread. We could start a new thread to discuss socialism vs centrism vs capitalism! But back on topic... the Nazis were not socialists. End of. Period. " Only fascists ever claim that the Nazis were socialist. | |||
" I think your grasp of statistics is somewhat questionable. "All the statistics prove everything you told wrong". You include one statistic which doesn't prove anything of the sort. In the UK (and the majority of the rest of the west), 45 years of neoliberalism have led to us being in a position where wages are at a 45 year low and profits at a 45 year high as proportions of GDP. Capitalism is, by definition, the control of society and the economy by capital. It exists solely for the benefit of capital. We've had, since WW2, ever increasing scientific, technological and industrial knowledge, with far greater productivity. If this society was run for the benefit of all then we would be working 3 day weeks by now and all living comfortable lives. The fact that so many are having to choose between eating and heating, and so many in work have to queue at food banks, whilst corporations and energy companies make record profits, whilst the number of billionaires continues to rise surely tells you that our whole economy is designed to work for the few at the top. They of course have to make sure we have just enough that we don't organise to overthrow them, but absolute poverty is not a useful measure of the fairness of society when we have ever growing wealth at the top. If capitalism isn't society run for and by capital then what on earth is it? " Can you clarify why you want to calculate wage and profit as percentage of GDP? Here is the chart of average real wage in UK adjusted to cost of living. https://www.economicvoice.com/chart-of-the-week-historical-real-average-salary/ It has been going up all the time. Every country that embraced free markets has seen its GDP grow up immediately. Which socialist country that ran for the "benefit for all" managed to pull the 3 day work week you suggested? On the other hand, there are many capitalist countries where they are experimenting 4 day work week. Bigger perspective - Population has increased at a crazy rate in the past few decades. In spite of that, we have moved enough people outside poverty. Quality of life has increased for everyone. Changing the world to a three day work week doesn't happen overnight. At least until the population stabilises and automation can take over many jobs, it won't happen. But we have made major strides towards it. Lots of companies have started giving importance to work life balance compared to the past. There is progress and it is gradual. A socialist economy will only make things worse as it has proven again and again. | |||
" I appreciate you taking the time to write such s detailed response. I do not have time right now to adequately absorb or respond in a manner that reflects your effort. However, I do think you are putting words in my mouth. I have not said all capitalism is evil. Nor have I said all socialism is good. The opposite in fact. As a centrist I believe there is a middle ground. I believe certain aspects in society, those that are essential for life or those where a lack of competition makes a mockery of “market forces”, should be state owned. So Gas, Electric, Water and Trains. I believe the assets of the nation should be exploited to support everyone in that nation (such as North Sea oil & gas extraction - along the same lines as Norway’s approach and sovereign wealth fund). I think the state should provide all emergency and essential (non-elective) healthcare. The state should provide education. I do believe in regulation rather than a totally “free market” in order to uphold standards and protect both consumers and citizens. However, for most things, and certainly those where consumers are able to exercise choice, these should be in private hands and market forces should indeed drive success or failure. I did not put any words in your mouth. You literally told capitalism advocates supporting only rich people. I have had a love hate relationship with government ownership of electricity/rail network/water. But as of now I am more inclined towards privatisation. If you look at the amount of tax money that goes into these and the amount of money people actually pay in bills, private ownership does as good as public ownership. I agree that monopoly should be avoided at all costs. That's where a government should chime in. Then we need to agree to disagree. In my opinion (not just mine) privatisation of these “essential for life utilities” has been a disaster. Just one example, water. Since privatisation the water companies, in the name of innovation and efficiency, have invested c.£5bn in improving water network, storage, sewage treatment etc. Sounds good right? Except we know based on recent headlines how crap (literally) the water & sewage system is in the UK. And yet over the same time period where they invested that impressive sounding £5bn they also managed to pay out dividends totally over £70bn. Hmmm wonder where their priorities lie? " https://www.water.org.uk/news-item/new-research-shows-water-companies-in-england-and-wales-outperform-comparable-water-sectors-in-europe/ Water system in England/Wales seems to outperform all the other countries. Pollution is a different story. I would love government involvement there and forcing companies to treat sewage properly. Anyway, the thread has digressed a lot. Have a good weekend | |||
| |||
