Fascism

[vancityeagle]

Some good points. A few things to consider. You mentioned that the USSR attempted socialism- how did it go wrong?

I dont think USSR was direct democracy which is the best form of not only democracy, but socialism itself. The USSR is a very complicated subject that people like to simplify. The fact that there were many enemies abroad and within did not make for an environment to see the best results of their experiment. There were many mistakes, but overall in history I see the impact of the USSR as more beneficial to mankind than detrimental.

I just don’t see how socialism could work without some form of authoritarianism.

it works through direct democracy. Capitalism also does not work without a form of authoritarianism.

You said income inequality is the issue. I’m not completely sure about that. I believe crony capitalism which involves an under the table merger of private and public relations is a problem. With that comes illegal activities. That can happen under a socialist type of setting - Clinton and Gates gets wealthy off their ‘foundations.’

income inequality IS the problem. There literally is no bigger problem. In a socialist system Clinton and Gates would not be able to hide money in foundations, they wouldn't even have enough money for all of that. Bill Gates would literally not be able to exist in a socialist system, where the economy is generally controlled by the people. Where wealth is regulated through taxation. The NWO would not be able to exist. And I am not for taxing middle class people at any substantial rate.

So take away political advantages, and other illegal activities and let the natural supply and demand economics occur.

the idea that if you just let capitalism be, everything will work out is a myth, and frankly that is what created all these problems in the first place.

I don’t think government should be dominated by the haves. Income equality should only be limited by our work ethic not opportunity, etc.

the problem with government, is that it is corrupted by those with money. So the less you allow people to have massive amounts of wealth, the less they will be able to lobby and corrupt government.

Socialism by nature will require some type of governmental monitoring and regulation which can open the door to communism and then fascism.

thats what direct democracy is, that is why it is the solution. People actually voting and taking part in legislation, rather than leaving it up to elected officials who are corrupted by money.

Now other factors can come into play that result in the fascist take over of any government and economic system but if we look at the system itself you have to explain how all things being equal, income equality is 1.bad and 2. unfair.
I think it can be those things but only if there are illegal or unethical forces at play.

I dont think people should all be making the same amount of money. What you do, and how hard you work definately has to be a factor. However when you have multi billionaires and at the other end of the spectrum, people struggling to put food in their mouths, something is definately wrong, no matter how anyone tries to justify it.

Under this system , labour is not valued, labour needs to be valued, as does human life.

 

[Lisa]

No, that’s capitalism.

It’s its own self sufficiency when you can do that to make a living for yourself.

 

[justjess]

It’s its own self sufficiency when you can do that to make a living for yourself.

I don’t think you understand what is being discussed here. Your talking about self sufficiency like not being on welfare. This is broader then that... like the Amish or something. True self sufficiency.

 

[Lisa]

I don’t think you understand what is being discussed here. Your talking about self sufficiency like not being on welfare. This is broader then that... like the Amish or something. True self sufficiency.

But the Amish aren’t truly self sufficient are they? I don’t think anyone is in this world that is trying to become more and more global..a one world.

 

[justjess]

But the Amish aren’t truly self sufficient are they? I don’t think anyone is in this world that is trying to become more and more global..a one world.

I already said it was probably unrealistic. However I’m not sure how you can say they aren’t self sufficient. I’ve seen no holes and even if there are they are pretty damn close.

I guess your missing the point. Self sufficiency is the opposite of a one world. I’m all for it. However most people are not going to want to give up the fringe benefits they receive from globalization.

 

[shankara]

I dont think USSR was direct democracy which is the best form of not only democracy, but socialism itself. The USSR is a very complicated subject that people like to simplify. The fact that there were many enemies abroad and within did not make for an environment to see the best results of their experiment. There were many mistakes, but overall in history I see the impact of the USSR as more beneficial to mankind than detrimental.



it works through direct democracy. Capitalism also does not work without a form of authoritarianism.


income inequality IS the problem. There literally is no bigger problem. In a socialist system Clinton and Gates would not be able to hide money in foundations, they wouldn't even have enough money for all of that. Bill Gates would literally not be able to exist in a socialist system, where the economy is generally controlled by the people. Where wealth is regulated through taxation. The NWO would not be able to exist. And I am not for taxing middle class people at any substantial rate.


the idea that if you just let capitalism be, everything will work out is a myth, and frankly that is what created all these problems in the first place.



the problem with government, is that it is corrupted by those with money. So the less you allow people to have massive amounts of wealth, the less they will be able to lobby and corrupt government.



thats what direct democracy is, that is why it is the solution. People actually voting and taking part in legislation, rather than leaving it up to elected officials who are corrupted by money.




I dont think people should all be making the same amount of money. What you do, and how hard you work definately has to be a factor. However when you have multi billionaires and at the other end of the spectrum, people struggling to put food in their mouths, something is definately wrong, no matter how anyone tries to justify it.

Under this system , labour is not valued, labour needs to be valued, as does human life.

I think it's quite possible to conceive of Socialism which is nothing like the tyrannical authoritarian Communism of the USSR. Yeah, they did kind of provide a counterweight to US imperialism and help to some extent in the colonized peoples' liberation struggle, but the way they went about things was an aberration having nothing to do with real socialism. The same could be said for Cuba, it's another case where the state believes that it has the true ideology and imposes it from above with the threat of violence and imprisonment. In fact people don't need to be indoctrinated with an ideology, including the ideology of Marxism, they just need to be set free from the false consciousness imposed by capitalism.

When it comes to socialism it's necessary not to look just to Marx for inspiration. Communism is in a sense quite like Capitalism in the sense that it focuses on material conditions as the essential element. Real socialism would have to be in a sense spiritual, at least in the sense of giving people meaningful and creative labor (which in itself is a kind of spiritual fulfillment). A vast state bureaucracy really isn't the best means of administration, I think it's better to look to Anarchism and Syndicalism for inspiration, locally organized communities, total freedom of ideology and belief.

Actually the USSR did a great deal of damage in creating the false dichotomy "oh so you don't want to live under capitalism, well go and live under Soviet Communism". Really the people who were behind the whole show had their own agendas which didn't really have anything to do with bringing happiness to the human community. Marx included. Any kind of despotic regime needs to be resisted, there need to be some mechanisms of democracy - if the people are liberated from their false consciousness (using the Marxian term) they will come to understand who is really acting in their best interests.

 

[Lisa]

I already said it was probably unrealistic. However I’m not sure how you can say they aren’t self sufficient. I’ve seen no holes and even if there are they are pretty damn close.

I guess your missing the point. Self sufficiency is the opposite of a one world. I’m all for it. However most people are not going to want to give up the fringe benefits they receive from globalization.

Damn close is not self sufficient in the way you are talking about.

We don’t live in those kind of days anymore.

 

[justjess]

Damn close is not self sufficient in the way you are talking about.

We don’t live in those kind of days anymore.

Why do you think they aren’t self sufficient? I’m not an Amish person expert here and the last time I went to Amish country I was a kid.

 

[Lyfe]

I dont think USSR was direct democracy which is the best form of not only democracy, but socialism itself. The USSR is a very complicated subject that people like to simplify. The fact that there were many enemies abroad and within did not make for an environment to see the best results of their experiment. There were many mistakes, but overall in history I see the impact of the USSR as more beneficial to mankind than detrimental.



it works through direct democracy. Capitalism also does not work without a form of authoritarianism.


income inequality IS the problem. There literally is no bigger problem. In a socialist system Clinton and Gates would not be able to hide money in foundations, they wouldn't even have enough money for all of that. Bill Gates would literally not be able to exist in a socialist system, where the economy is generally controlled by the people. Where wealth is regulated through taxation. The NWO would not be able to exist. And I am not for taxing middle class people at any substantial rate.


the idea that if you just let capitalism be, everything will work out is a myth, and frankly that is what created all these problems in the first place.



the problem with government, is that it is corrupted by those with money. So the less you allow people to have massive amounts of wealth, the less they will be able to lobby and corrupt government.



thats what direct democracy is, that is why it is the solution. People actually voting and taking part in legislation, rather than leaving it up to elected officials who are corrupted by money.




I dont think people should all be making the same amount of money. What you do, and how hard you work definately has to be a factor. However when you have multi billionaires and at the other end of the spectrum, people struggling to put food in their mouths, something is definately wrong, no matter how anyone tries to justify it.

Under this system , labour is not valued, labour needs to be valued, as does human life.

I guess all those millions who were executed under the soviet union were beneficial to mankind?

 

[Lisa]

Why do you think they aren’t self sufficient? I’m not an Amish person expert here and the last time I went to Amish country I was a kid.

I don’t see how anyone can be in this day and age.

 

[justjess]

I don’t see how anyone can be in this day and age.

Do you know anything about the Amish or is this just an assumption?

 

[Lisa]

Do you know anything about the Amish or is this just an assumption?

I know a little about them. I thought I read that they aren’t totally self sufficient but I can’t remember what it was.

 

[shankara]

Do you know anything about the Amish or is this just an assumption?

I know a little about them. I thought I read that they aren’t totally self sufficient but I can’t remember what it was.

There exist communities that are self-sufficient and very nearly self-sufficient. I imagine there are probably quite a few which don't rely on imported products at all. It's true that the world is becoming increasingly globalized, but that being a fact says nothing about whether or not it is desirable.

 

[Lisa]

There exist communities that are self-sufficient and very nearly self-sufficient. I imagine there are probably quite a few which don't rely on imported products at all. It's true that the world is becoming increasingly globalized, but that being a fact says nothing about whether or not it is desirable.

Why wouldn’t it be desirable?

 

[shankara]

Why wouldn’t it be desirable?

Well according to the alter-Globalists, globalization tends to enrich corporations while exploiting people in the countries that produce goods for the "core" countries where the economy is service based (banks etc). Honestly Lisa I can't really be bothered to explain the whole alter-Globalization thing to you, try going and reading a book.

 

[Aero]

Wouldn't a little bit of imports/exports not really break the whole idea of self-sufficiency? They should at least be able to export.

Some Amish communities definitely import and export. The point is they aren't reliant on it.

 

[justjess]

Why wouldn’t it be desirable?

It is desirable, to some. To others it isn’t.

 

[justjess]

Wouldn't a little bit of imports/exports not really break the whole idea of self-sufficiency? They should at least be able to export.

Some Amish communities definitely import and export. The point is they aren't reliant on it.

I’m sure there’s a way to do it that doesn’t perpetuate this screwed up global system, I just don’t know how that would be. Maybe if imports/exports were limited to specialty products that can’t be made on your own soil? Idk. When I think self sufficiency I think make and produce everything I use and consume myself. Or barter with local people.

 

[Lisa]

Well according to the alter-Globalists, globalization tends to enrich corporations while exploiting people in the countries that produce goods for the "core" countries where the economy is service based (banks etc). Honestly Lisa I can't really be bothered to explain the whole alter-Globalization thing to you, try going and reading a book.

You’d think they would be happy more people would be able to buy their items and that in turns puts more money into their pockets.

Corporations are made up of working people ya know?

 

[shankara]

You’d think they would be happy more people would be able to buy their items and that in turns puts more money into their pockets.

Corporations are made up of working people ya know?

You clearly understand economics better than people who actually have some knowledge of economics.