"Bullshit propaganda again, it's hardly consistant with the libertarian yugoslavian or chez experiments in workers ownership is it? Or dont you know the reason that the tanks roled in?"
"How do these events alter the definition of socialism? " The point would have been obvious if you ever had the correct knowledge of what the Marxist ideal says, or how Yugoslavia under Tito managed their economy. Socialism is something that has to do with workers, not necessarily the government. In fact, the Socialist future is supposed to witness the end of any existing Nation-states, and governments. The government's role in Socialist/Communist transition was emphasized by Lenin, with strict and special reasons that had to do with the conditions surrounding Russia and the World. The Comintern approach with the government socialist aroma seems to be a misjudgement on part of Lenin. The government of Yugoslavia was Socialist, and they did not intervene with the industry.
"In Facism Industry willfully collaborates you mean!! Hitler was helped into office by wealthy cartels or dont you read anything other than dogmatic revisions of history a la hayek?!"
"Fascism is an economic system. It does not carry any requirement for ultranationalism, except in the propaganda of socialists who are attempting to distance themselves from it."
And this would have been also obvious if you had ever known how fascism evolved in European history, or if you had known it's origins. Fascism is NOT an economical system, it is a political one under the economic system of capitalism, collaborated towards the corporative state's ideals in extreme. (And about this part, I recommend you read about my post down there, Lark. The one with the title "Oh, I see") It is typical of some people to divert the attention from how and why fascist Germany ignited on such violent manner. The tradition of fascism root from Vilfredo Pareto(1848~1923) and Gaetano Mosca(1858~1941). Their motives were (unlike what you think, Don) "free play of market forces without government intervention" and "the organized minority always rules the disorganized majority". They were vastly anti-democratic, and though their economic motives remained with laissez-faire capitalism, they refused the democratical system. Therefore, the emphasis on the ruling elite which "collaborates, not rules" the economic capitalism to its maximum is the first glimpse of fascism will ever get in history. It evolved through the very principle of racism, by naturally taking up eugenics, which tended to proove some particular race were vastly superior than others. Therefore, the ruling elite had to be the superior race.
The racist ideals, nostalgic to the glorious Roman traditions(Italy) and to the "pure" aryan customs(Germany) merged with the elitist ideals and anti-democratic, near Machiavellistic tendencies and had created fascism. It's a political ideal, and the laissez-faire principles had been altered on the way. Organized and corporative structure which flourishes under strict social hiearchy and ethnic nationality - that's what fascism is. So I disagree with some leftwing analysis noting capitalism as the motive for fascism. But since the egalitarian and democratical principles were much loathed, and since capitalist class-structure were ideal in promoting the fascism, it was a natural choice.
Fascism is a political philosophy which was a compound of radical ideas and mysticism, or left-wing sounding slogans and conservative policies. It is often subsidized by big business and capital.
As I said in my recent post underneath, Don, it is quite clear you take fascism as an economic system, therefore, it is a VERY convinient and self-serving way to refute any capitalist motive behind the fascist states of the 1930's. And it is also a convenient way to cop-out from the left-wing criticism that once said "the reformative 'capitalism with a human face' won't last long". Well that happened correct, but now we can always say "they weren't right. That wasn't capitalism at all, but it was fascism. The Marxists don't prove nothin'", right?
Under your definition, all things that have failed were fascism and socialism, communism(which, under your judgement, seems it was meant to fail). And naturally the recent "flourishing" (which isn't by much) status of the world is all in the courtesy of your capitalism, which, by the way contains ONLY the flavour of laissez-faire.
It is interesting to see people denying there own capitalism which prospered during mid 20th century, and basically, whose success was the only thing that stopped the "R"evolution from winning. It is quite clear if the classical capitalist policies went on, the world as we knew would diminish under it's own paradox. Now for 20 years, Neo-classicism and Adam Smith has appeared again, and now, the people deny the "welfare-state", and "Keynes" and "FDR" and the Social Democracy altogether, which people were so sure of, because it appeared it was a desirable alternative to socialism and communism.
Now then, if current fad of capitalist economics fail, it seems you would find another way we can describe even laissez-faire as "fascist".
I said in my post "Oh, I see" that you were unique, because, frankly, not even straight-forward, hard-line majority of capitalists would agree with you.
I kinda feel sorry for you, Lark.
I butt in this once, so I'm not gonna butt in again, but if the debate in this thread goes on, Lark would have to start explaining all the way from the French Revolution, and how these things, terms, and meanings which we call liberalism, socialism, fascism, capitalism and etc. ever took place, and what it is.
And even that were so, Don could always say "that's propaganda".
And then start over again explaining why it isn't.
I've seen a lot of 'left-wing' manias, who seem to relish the fact that they are 'left', never even thinking once what it means to be 'left'. But seeing the mirror version in the right does not amuse me.
Especially if we have to teach modern history all over again, if we want to talk to them.
None.
