-=> Boraxman wrote to Dr. What <=-

> "No, this isn't socialism. It's just gov't control over the markets."

Bo> They is actually more akin to fascism.

Which is a form of socialism.

Bo> Besides, modern "Capitalism" is control over the economy by a few
Bo> anyway.

The ignorant words of Marx. He has a great deal to say about how an economy
works - even though he never worked a day in his life.

Bo> You have to show how it is WRONG. Just saying that Marx might have
Bo> said something like that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

And if all you are going to do is quote the ignorant words of Marx, that is not
showing that you are right.

.... I'm not lost, I'm "locationally challenged."
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A46 2020/08/10 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Arcadia BBS | Putnam, CT | bbs.arcadiabbs.com

Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Dr. What to Boraxman on Mon Jul 18 2022 08:11 am

> Bo> They is actually more akin to fascism.
>
> Which is a form of socialism.
>
What? Seriously, what??!

Whatever definition of Socialism you have in mind, must be so broad that it captures everything but your preferred 'ideal'. Which isn't really a useful definition at all.

> The ignorant words of Marx. He has a great deal to say about how an economy
> works - even though he never worked a day in his life.
>

OK, so everyone who has extolled the virtues of the Free Market, who didn't work a regular job should be ignored as well, as well as any other economist who has just been an economist. I always find it amusing people who dismiss some ideas as just being from "intellectuals" who have "never worked a day in their lives" then quoting other intellectuals to support their view

Dumb argument, but I'll bite. *I'VE* worked real productive jobs for 20 years, so I therefore do get to comment. That more time working "real jobs" than Mises, Hayek or Friedman...

> And if all you are going to do is quote the ignorant words of Marx, that is
> not showing that you are right.
>

I didn't quote Marx. Show me which of Marx's quotes or words I used. I'm not even a Marxist.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Boraxman to Dr. What on Tue Jul 19 2022 12:36 pm

> > Bo> They is actually more akin to fascism.
> >
> > Which is a form of socialism.
> >
> What? Seriously, what??!
>
> Whatever definition of Socialism you have in mind, must be so broad that it capture
>

If you check the political programs of actual Fascist groups, you will notice they are
Socialist programs.

The main difference between a Fascist State and a Communist State is that Communism
does what it does in the name of The Workers while Fascists do for Our Country.

In practical terms, this shows when Western Socialists are seen trying to provide
Socialism for everybody (such as immigrants or poor people not related to the country)
while Fascists want Socialism for nationals only.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

> In practical terms, this shows when Western Socialists are seen trying to prov
> e
> Socialism for everybody (such as immigrants or poor people not related to the
> country)
> while Fascists want Socialism for nationals only.

Exactly.

* SLMR 2.1a * "Get out & take your Sacagawea dollars with you!" - Moe

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Thu Jul 21 2022 06:18 am

> > What? Seriously, what??!
>
> > Whatever definition of Socialism you have in mind, must be so broad that
> > it capture
>
>
> If you check the political programs of actual Fascist groups, you will
> notice they are
> Socialist programs.
>
> The main difference between a Fascist State and a Communist State is that
> Communism
> does what it does in the name of The Workers while Fascists do for Our
> Country.
>
> In practical terms, this shows when Western Socialists are seen trying to
> provide
> Socialism for everybody (such as immigrants or poor people not related to
> the country)
> while Fascists want Socialism for nationals only.
>
> --
Many Western Socialists are Marxist in nature, or more specifically, Trotskyites

Fascism is only "Socialism" in that the state runs things, but the state doesn't represent the will of the people. It is on paper perhaps socialism, but in practice totalitarianism. The public don't really have any practical rights to control industry, commerce and production. This is the kind of sophistry that allows North Korea to proclaim itself Democratic. I mean, the ruling dynasty is the head of the people, right? Some of Hitlers writing sounded positively Marxist, but there was never any real Socialism, only the propagandist elements of anti-Capitalist thought.

A very broad defintion of Socialism covers everything that isn't Capitalism, so therefore is not useful. Government programs and welfare have been defined and Socialism, but this is a distinctly seperate idea to Marxist socialism, or other types.

Consider the term "Democracy". We call ourselves a democracy, but it is a distinctly different system to Athenian democracy. Democracy doesn't describe a system, but only characteristics. Two different systems can share the same characterstics and be called "Democracy".

This is also true for Capitalism. Any system where the means of production is privately owned is Capitalism, so "Capitalism" can describe two very different systems, one of totalitarian monopolist oligarchs, and one of an ownership economy with universal self-employment and democratically run firms, similar to what I endorse. Both technically Capitalist, but to lump them as if they were both the same would be in error.

This is the problem really, a system can be replaced by something quite different, yet claim to be the same thing because of a single shared general attribute or two.

Typically though, when someone says "Socialist" in an accusatory tone they are either referring to Marxism, or if they are of the libertarian/AnCap bent, referring to any system which has welfare and government spending more than their ideology deems appropriate.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sat Jul 23 2022 10:38 am

>
> Fascism is only "Socialism" in that the state runs things, but the state doe
> commerce and production. This is the kind of sophistry that allows North Ko
> Socialism, only the propagandist elements of anti-Capitalist thought.
>

I'd argue that no State represents the will of the people, and therefore, any
Socialist State does not represent the will of the people either. Therefore,
according to your logic, Socialism is not Socialism (which is absurd).

Fascism didn't make a flag from authoritarism. It made a flag of principles
such as not leaveing anybody behind, organizing strategic industries in Unions
in order to preserve everybody's rights, and improving the standing of
everybody by improving the standing of the nation (because the nation is the
people).

Spanish Fascism stablished lots of Socialists programs still in use today, such
as Social Security and State funded housing for the poor, because General
Franco was the benevolent overseer who ensured not one of us was left behind.

Of course, if you disliked Franco or the vertical Unions, you disliked Spain
and therefore you disliked every Spaniard. As such, you were a Communist
traitor and we had to shoot you in order to protect our rights.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

> Fascism is only "Socialism" in that the state runs things, but the state doesn
> represent the will of the people. It is on paper perhaps socialism, but in p
> ctice totalitarianism. The public don't really have any practical rights to c
> trol industry, commerce and production. This is the kind of sophistry that al
> ws North Korea to proclaim itself Democratic. I mean, the ruling dynasty is t
> head of the people, right? Some of Hitlers writing sounded positively Marxis
> but there was never any real Socialism, only the propagandist elements of ant
> Capitalist thought.

Socialism and, especially its cousin Communism, are only socialism on paper
also. In practice, they are also usually totalitarian and certainly are not
really the will of the people. North Korea is a good example. The
Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, and Venezuela are also good examples.

* SLMR 2.1a * Her voice rings in his ears like the music of the spheres

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sat Jul 23 2022 06:52 am

> I'd argue that no State represents the will of the people, and therefore,
> any Socialist State does not represent the will of the people either.
> Therefore, according to your logic, Socialism is not Socialism (which is
> absurd).
>
> Fascism didn't make a flag from authoritarism. It made a flag of principles
> such as not leaveing anybody behind, organizing strategic industries in
> Unions in order to preserve everybody's rights, and improving the standing
> of everybody by improving the standing of the nation (because the nation is
> the people).
>
> Spanish Fascism stablished lots of Socialists programs still in use today,
> such as Social Security and State funded housing for the poor, because
> General Franco was the benevolent overseer who ensured not one of us was
> left behind.
>
> Of course, if you disliked Franco or the vertical Unions, you disliked Spain
> and therefore you disliked every Spaniard. As such, you were a Communist
> traitor and we had to shoot you in order to protect our rights.
>

I stated that there were different types of Socialism which are in detail, quite different systems. I never said that Socailism MUST be state based. State based "Socialist" systems exist, as well as Anarchist Socialist systems. Much in the same way that you can have State sponsored Capitalism or Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism, Capitalism without a state. Different systems, but both Capitalists.

Neither did I say I endorse all "Socialism", many forms, such as Marxism I do not endorse at all. Some forms of economic arrangement can be classed as Socialist and Capitalist at the same time. A system of universal self employement, as I have described, fits the definition of Capitalism, as the means of production are privately owned.

Your confusion comes from accepting the Socialist/Capitalist gradient, that one is either one or the other. The matter of state control is seperate to the matter of autonomy which is seperate to the matter of ownership. We really need to move away from the very limiting language, which muddies discussion and creates confusion.

The desire to label things in broad categories really stifles understanding.

So I'll repeat again, the terms "Socialism" and "Capitalism" in their broadest sense cover a range of systems, some of which, lumped together, are mutually exlusive! Socialism, as it is used by Capitalism is used specifically to refer to Marxism, where as Capitalism, is either used by the Left to refer to the current system, or by the Right to refer specifically to a system of free markets, primacy of capital, employement and minimal state power.

As to what Fasicsm stood for, well, EVERY pathological system makes those claims. It's propaganda.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Dumas Walker to BORAXMAN on Sat Jul 23 2022 10:02 am

> Socialism and, especially its cousin Communism, are only socialism on paper
> also. In practice, they are also usually totalitarian and certainly are not
> really the will of the people. North Korea is a good example. The
> Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, and Venezuela are also good examples.
>

Well Capitalists argue that Capitalism is only Capitalism on paper, and in practice, doesn't exist. Dr What said precisely just that, that there are no actual Capitalist countries now and he is a Capitalist.

The point is these terms aren't useful, because they can be so broadly applied, and so narrowly applied at the same time, that only confusion results. Discussion can only really be productive if one describes the system by its details.

It would be like me talking about 'cats', and you imagining house cats when I'm referring to Lions and Jaguars.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sun Jul 24 2022 11:45 am

>
> I stated that there were different types of Socialism which are in detail, q
> t you can have State sponsored Capitalism or Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitali
>

The discussion here is whether Fascism is Socialist in nature, since somebody
else said it was and your answer was, as far as I remember: "WTF?!"

I am pretty aware that there is more to socioeconomic models than the
Capitalist-Communist spectrum, but if you mention political systems which are a
reminiscence of political systems known to be Socialist, it should not come as
a surprise that people accuse you of promoting Socialism.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

> It would be like me talking about 'cats', and you imagining house cats when I'
> referring to Lions and Jaguars.

You would have to be talking in very broad terms for someone to make that
mistake, though.

* SLMR 2.1a * Wind in my hair - shifting and drifting...

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP