Fascism is a violent and non-humanistic sub-set of Socialism

[firespin]

C'mon fs, you should take an on-topic whack at all this.

I don't know that there's much discussion here, more like talking past people. There's a reason they say not to bring up politics or religion Though perhaps we could just be like DCL and claim that fascism and socialism don't exist.

From what I can tell, in the US anyway, conservatives use the "socialist" or "communist" label to denigrate attempts by liberals to make others think the way they do, or at least behave they way they want them to.

Whereas liberals use the "fascist" label to denigrate attempts by conservatives to try to avoid constraints on their behavior or freedom of action. This works better for those at the top of the political food chain, of course.

Neither attempt is very successful, probably because the inference is strained at best, and illusory at worst. But it's funny to read "definitions" of socialism or fascism or whatever designed to prove the point that one's political opponents are indeed of that persuasion.

In the end, most of the bad aspects of both conservative and liberal thought have mirror images in the other major viewpoint. (Some) conversatives don't like gay marriage; (some) liberals want quotas for elected officlals and voting districts to match. Conservatives don't want to be taxed, liberals don't want to be wiretapped. Each side sees their viewpoint as the only one that's at all sensible.

To your point that fascism is like socialism, I tend to agree that what they have in common is a desire to change existing western society by extremist tactics, and that's appealing to people who have little stake in the status quo. Both philosophies devolve to totalitarian, top-down societies, where the difference is in the details of who gets to win and who has to lose.

 

[Sayyid]

In some cases, Germany, in other cases, England, depending on the context being discussed. I agree that it is reasonable for sincere socialists to want to distance themselves from national socialism -- that goes without saying -- but the implication is that it was (in Germany) the bourgeoisie who steered an otherwise grass-roots socialist movement toward the logically inevitable anti-humanistic ends - the fascist faction of socialism. And to a large extent, one also has to realize that Hitler's appeal to Germans was more than mindless militarism. As we study the dynamics at work there, we see that, more than anything, the emergence of a middle class boosted National Socialism tremendously. When you read Hitler, you see what one might call the "Jacoby and Meyers" sales job: The rich are lazy and decadent, produce nothing, and live off the sweat of the Workers, while the [peasants] lower classes [poor] don't pay any taxes, are essentially untrustworthy Bolshevik-leaning idiots with questionable levels of national spirit, so it is left to the Middle Class Germans to carry the heavy burden these non-producing sectors. The Nazi movement was many things, as we all know. But among them, I think we can agree, it was one of the very first middle class movements.

One problem is the modern-day equation of the terms bourgeoisie and middle class, although as we know they are separate in origin.

What I believe is that fascism found support among all sectors of society. The working class benefited from their social welfare measurements and employment initiatives (which were no more extensive than those of America at this time, remember), the conservative upper classes from their protection of big business (seen as a bulwark against Communism) and finally the middle classes who saw a return to national pride and dignity versus the betrayal mentality of the postwar period.

What is interesting is the demonizing of capital itself. While it's tempting to associate this anti-finance rhetoric with socialist sympathies, I don't think this was the case. In origin, the Nazis sought to imply an alliance of Jewish financiers and foreign business against the German people; in practice they protected corporate rights, suppressed labour power and colluded with big business to an unprecedented extent. Cynical to say the last, but what else can we expect from a bunch of career politicians and master manipulators.

To your point that fascism is like socialism, I tend to agree that what they have in common is a desire to change existing western society by extremist tactics, and that's appealing to people who have little stake in the status quo. Both philosophies devolve to totalitarian, top-down societies, where the difference is in the details of who gets to win and who has to lose.

I don't really agree with this. Since there is no real socialist movement in America (unlike in Europe and other countries) I believe most have a distorted perception of the ideology. Socialism is not necessarily extremist (unlike fascism) nor do I see it as necessarily authoritarian, although this is often the case. It seems to me that many on the political right tend to focus on the more radical forms of socialism and attempt to tar all socialists with their brush; but this is conceptually as absurd as tainting any notion of capitalism with the examples of Mussolini and Franco.

 

[Karen Kraft]

I accused you of plagiarism, yes. that's what you did. you plagiarised. you got called on it, big deal. I catch students doing it all the time. I can spot it a mile off.

not my fault you get into a hissy fucking fit, but it clearly touched a nerve. Did you fail a module for the same thing when you went to uni?

Nope.

Wrong again.

Check this out, whore: This is a discussion board. I am not getting paid, nor am I being graded on what I post here. Unlike most people, I respect copyright, and unless something is PD, I cite to the author, composer, etc.

I can see that you are a very poor teacher when you find "plagiarism" in anything that is not "original thought." See, that's the product of the generation of students who major in "feelings":

I feel that Nazis were, like, bad because you know, there like the guys in the westerns with the black hats who hurt people. The Nazis hurt people so they are bad. Germany was pissed about WWI and some treaty of whatever and so they followed this crazy guy first with shovels and then with rifles who killed Jews and such, which I also feel is bad because I feel that they deserve to live as much as the next person.

What is clear is that my post through you for a loop. You had no way of addressing it, so you did what your kind always does: bitch about the form.

Because you do not agree with me, you hold my posting to a different standard than you do for others with whom you agree. That, cunt, is dishonest. I am not your student; I am under no obligation to produce term-paper-quality posts and, were I to do so, you would bitch about the spelling. You are the type of "teacher" that can only damage society by producing factually bankrupt students who, like yourself, will major in "feelings" and wonder why it is that they can't pronounce their doctor's last name. Hint: it's because their doctor got an off-shore education where facts were taught and "feelings" were entertained later. You do not teach, you stupid fuck, you preach. Yours is a ministry of vacant minds bereft of facts and full of fervor.

In short, you are a public menace.

Put me on Ignore. Get the fuck off my discussion board.

 

[k_h]

Hi.

Joined to say:

Initial post is a straw man slaying heap o shite.

Cheers lid.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Hi.

Joined to say:

Initial post is a straw man slaying heap o shite.

Cheers lid.

Oh goodie.

Yet another SeanH alt.

 

[k_h]

Oh goodie.

Yet another SeanH alt.

No idea what that means. Read the thread and the front page. Only one thing to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIssKao1XZo

She's off her barnet
She's off her fucking barnet
She's off her barnet
She's off her fucking barnet
She's off her barnet
She's off her fucking barnet
She's off her barnet
She's off her fucking barnet

 

[garbage can]

has the daft bint put the quote marks in or is she still passing other's work off as her own?

It would be a mistake to underestimate Karen's knowledge and ability to write.

 

[Karen Kraft]

One problem is the modern-day equation of the terms bourgeoisie and middle class, although as we know they are separate in origin.

What I believe is that fascism found support among all sectors of society. The working class benefited from their social welfare measurements and employment initiatives (which were no more extensive than those of America at this time, remember), the conservative upper classes from their protection of big business (seen as a bulwark against Communism) and finally the middle classes who saw a return to national pride and dignity versus the betrayal mentality of the postwar period.

What is interesting is the demonizing of capital itself. While it's tempting to associate this anti-finance rhetoric with socialist sympathies, I don't think this was the case. In origin, the Nazis sought to imply an alliance of Jewish financiers and foreign business against the German people; in practice they protected corporate rights, suppressed labour power and colluded with big business to an unprecedented extent. Cynical to say the last, but what else can we expect from a bunch of career politicians and master manipulators.
I don't really agree with this. Since there is no real socialist movement in America (unlike in Europe and other countries) I believe most have a distorted perception of the ideology. Socialism is not necessarily extremist (unlike fascism) nor do I see it as necessarily authoritarian, although this is often the case. It seems to me that many on the political right tend to focus on the more radical forms of socialism and attempt to tar all socialists with their brush; but this is conceptually as absurd as tainting any notion of capitalism with the examples of Mussolini and Franco.

With respect to the demonetization of capital itself, I submit that your argument has the tail wagging the dog. I think the Labour Theory of Value predisposes one to accept that the accumulation of non-productive tokens of value (money) is an evil unto itself, as capital is not productive. Only labour, applied to materials, produces any real value. Thus the manipulation of valueless tokens, devoid of human [worker] input, must be demonized. It is seen as sucking the life blood from society's only productive sector, the Proletariat. Whether one subscribes to that or not, it certainly makes logical sense once one has accepted the initial premise.

Thus, the same can be said of the [inevitable?] path socialism takes as it drifts, by virtue of its ever-growing hegemony, coupled with the monopsony the socialist economic structure develops in the public sector, to a non-humanistic collective view of life -- fascism.

 

[RobDownSouth]

VIPER Plagiarism Detector results:
41% verbatim from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html
09% verbatim from http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=9290&fldIdMsg=76191

....and this was just the "quick scan" option.

 

[Sayyid]

With respect to the demonetization of capital itself, I submit that your argument has the tail wagging the dog. I think the Labour Theory of Value predisposes one to accept that the accumulation of non-productive tokens of value (money) is an evil unto itself, as capital is not productive. Only labour, applied to materials, produces any real value. Thus the manipulation of valueless tokens, devoid of human [worker] input, must be demonized. It is seen as sucking the life blood from society's only productive sector, the Proletariat. Whether one subscribes to that or not, it certainly makes logical sense once one has accepted the initial premise.

Why the Labour Theory of Value? That's a specifically Marxist notion which as far I know had no particular currency in fascist circles, or even among many non-Marxist socialists.

I think it's simpler than that. Fascists vehemently denounced "parasitic" elements of their new social experiment, whether they be the unemployed, political dissidents or financiers. The idea that one who doesn't contribute should not be rewarded isn't unique to socialism or indeed to any particular ideology. In fact, it's a widespread tenet of conservatives everywhere.

Thus, the same can be said of the [inevitable?] path socialism takes as it drifts, by virtue of its ever-growing hegemony, coupled with the monopsony the socialist economic structure develops in the public sector, to a non-humanistic collective view of life -- fascism.

I don't think this is inevitable at all. Plenty of countries have been governed by (democratically elected) socialist governments and not suffered any ill effects to their existing political structures.

 

[Karen Kraft]

VIPER Plagiarism Detector results:
41% verbatim from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html
09% verbatim from http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=9290&fldIdMsg=76191

....and this was just the "quick scan" option.

OH!

The convicted child molester has arrived.

By the way, you are using my likeness as your avatar.

I hold the rights to that picture.

Cease and desist using it, as it is clear that your purpose is to confuse the public in such a way that they will think that which you post has been posted by me.

You are infringing on my copyright of that photo, and you shall stop doing so immediately. You are in violation of the terms of service of Literotica.com and I will do everything within my power to have you banned for copyright infringement if you do not comply with this demand forthwith. Got that, you fat faggot?

 

[RobDownSouth]

*yawn*

 

[Sayyid]

Can we please stop this trolling and flaming. I came here to have an intelligent discussion about something that interests me. Yes, parts of her post appear to be plagiarized but I'm not here to criticize her for that. Her only fault is not citing her sources.

 

[miles]

Unread Today, 12:50 PM

The_Trouvere
This message is hidden because The_Trouvere is on your ignore list.

=======

More accusations that I stole?

I presume so.

Why not go talk to people who agree with you all the time?

That's best. Then everyone agrees and it's a happy happy world for ya

He must think that if he posts more often people who have him on ignore will see what he says.

 

[The_Trouvere]

...and Whittaker Chambers was a Communist Party member who redeemed himself by denouncing Communism and blessing us by putting his pen to paper with Witness, becoming an editor of Time magazine, and being vindicated by the Venona Papers. He influenced Reagan as well.

Then there is David Horowitz, a son of two card carrying Communist Party members, steeped as a youth in their totalitarian dogma, becoming a major player in the New Left only to eventually see the light to denounce it's evil. Yes, some can be redeemed.

Arianna Huffington moved to the left, and co-founded The Huffington Post.

After accurately predicting, with some enthusiasm The Emerging Republican Majority in 1969, and serving in the administration of Richard Nixon, Kevin Phillips has become an articulate critic of what the Republicans have done with their majority position.

 

[The_Trouvere]

It would be a mistake to underestimate Karen's knowledge and ability to write.

Among the Literotica General Board wingnuts s/he stands out by contrast. That is a modest distinction.

 

[Karen Kraft]

*yawn*

Okay.

Have it your way.

We'll see how this one plays out.

 

[Sayyid]

I know I'm a mere noob here, but did nobody read the post I just made.

Can we please stop this trolling and flaming. I came here to have an intelligent discussion about something that interests me. Yes, parts of her post appear to be plagiarized but I'm not here to criticize her for that. Her only fault is not citing her sources.

Or the actually on-topic post I made before that? I was under the impression this thread was about fascism, not Karen Kraft.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I know I'm a mere noob here, but did nobody read the post I just made.

Or the actually on-topic post I made before that? I was under the impression this thread was about fascism, not Karen Kraft.

In a meta sort of way, the quarreling and infighting here actually makes the thread more fascist and gives a better definition of it than the topic itself does.

 

[garbage can]

Among the Literotica General Board wingnuts s/he stands out by contrast. That is a modest distinction.

Trou, I assume you're an avowed Marxist. Though I disagree with your ideoligies, I give you credit for being fair in your assessments.

And unlike your fellow moon bats, you refrain from excessive insults.

Good for you....... You're about the only moon bat that I appreciate.

 

[Sayyid]

In a meta sort of way, the quarreling and infighting here actually makes the thread more fascist and gives a better definition of it than the topic itself does.

So I am the sole voice of reason yet again. Sigh.

Trou, I assume you're an avowed Marxist.

Wait is he really.

 

[Karen Kraft]

I know I'm a mere noob here, but did nobody read the post I just made.

Or the actually on-topic post I made before that? I was under the impression this thread was about fascism, not Karen Kraft.

Sweetie, I'm doing the best I can, but when the trolls and copyright violators come around, it takes time away from the fun. That's why they troll. They have no other way of gratifying themselves, so they troll people here.

I took the time to send off a memo regarding the TOS and Copyright offense, so I haven't had a chance to review your on-topic post. I'm sorry about that, but rights violations that remain ignored could be construed as an acceptance of the violation, putting the copyright itself in jeopardy.

I'm sure you understand. Again, sorry for the delay.

As for your being new here: you are doing just great! When you interact with me, however, there will always be a certain amount of distraction, as the jealous and intellectually unfit try to disrupt things. Usually we can move along, ignoring them, but sometimes we need to take action.

 

[Sayyid]

I suggest the age-old Internet adage: Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Why the Labour Theory of Value? That's a specifically Marxist notion which as far I know had no particular currency in fascist circles, or even among many non-Marxist socialists.

I think it's simpler than that. Fascists vehemently denounced "parasitic" elements of their new social experiment, whether they be the unemployed, political dissidents or financiers. The idea that one who doesn't contribute should not be rewarded isn't unique to socialism or indeed to any particular ideology. In fact, it's a widespread tenet of conservatives everywhere.
I don't think this is inevitable at all. Plenty of countries have been governed by (democratically elected) socialist governments and not suffered any ill effects to their existing political structures.

Well, yes, of course. The labour theory of value, however, provides a rationale for the hostility expressed by at least Marxist socialists toward capital, which was the discussion as I recall. The theory being tested is this: That fascism is a ugly and deformed bastard child of socialism. We see some historical references by fascists, wherein they profess to be socialists and sometimes use socialist rhetoric in their speeches and writings. From this we attempt to see if the history of 20th Century European fascism and fascist expression emanates from the socialist tradition or that of the bourgeoisie, or in some contexts, the emerging middle class.

 

[garbage can]

Wait is he really.

I haven't heard him say it, so my assumption may be wrong....