20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:32 pm
Oh sure, OE . . . try to ruin Okie's day with vile and unnecessary facts . . . sheesh . . .
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 12:23 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

But I will gladly await your enlightenment of translations and your opinion of the context of Mussolini's statement.


Why in God's name don't you use the one (via link) given by parados? Or why not the complete book translated online?

But since you asked for the complete context - why don't you want to discuss it in Italian?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 12:26 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Perhaps that is the better word if people are going to get all twisted up over the interpretation of social or socialism?


I beg your pardon. How did you get that?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 12:51 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The 'trouble' is that both Marx and Engels used the term "socialistic" and "communistic" synonymous during the first years.
They were only used generally different from the II. International onwards. (In Germany earlier, from the foundation of the Social-Democratic Party onwards, resp. even earlier from the foundation of the "German Workers Party onwards [1865].)

This would tend to buttress what Goldberg has written, and what I argue here, would it not, if Mussolini said he was opposite of Marxian socialism, if socialism was a word used for the extreme brand of socialism called marxism?



Perhaps you don't know when Marx/Engles lived and wrote such, when Mussolini lived and wrote what is now discussed here, when the first and second International took place and what happened there?

Besides that, some knowledge about Italy at those times could be helpful for the discussion as well.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 05:49 am
@okie,
Perhaps if you had bothered to read beyond the quote I provided okie, you would have seen how silly your contention is that Mussolini was only talking about different ends of socialism when he referred to Marxian socialism

Quote:
When the war ended in 1919 Socialism, as a doctrine, was already dead;

Quote:
Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism

Quote:
Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration-old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 05:56 am
@okie,
Quote:
This would tend to buttress what Goldberg has written, and what I argue here, would it not, if Mussolini said he was opposite of Marxian socialism, if socialism was a word used for the extreme brand of socialism called marxism?

So there are other forms of socialism okie?

Please tell us what socialism exists beyond Marxist socialism and define them and why they are bad.

Unless you want to argue that "socialism" is NOT the ownership and control of production by the state, you don't have much of an argument here okie.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 08:45 am
I think you're fighting a losing battle here Okie. I know what you're suggesting, but our more liberal friends will never accept or even allow a discussion of it. I think some probably even mean well, but they seem to be unable to focus on or grasp a principle and discuss that at face value. They seem incapable of or at least unwilling to consider any form of abstract thought.

They will continue to insist on discussing vague historical principles apart from the concept or bring in unrelated interpretations or obfusicate with illustrations intended to negate any concept that they can't understand or that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions.

I find the subject you've introduced here interesting and instructive. But I also think it is sufficiently complicated in scope and concept that you are unlikely to find enough people here who understand it or want to understand it enough to discuss it at face value. The sheer complexity of it provides too many directions for the discussion to take.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 08:48 am
Nobody prevents the discussion, no one could "not allow" it to occur, that's just more whiney bullshit. And no one is obliged to refrain from pointing out the stupidity of the thesis--and pointing it out again and again, since Okie, Ican and you are like a bunch of old dogs with a worn-out shoe that you can't let go.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 09:43 am
@Setanta,
Well, at least we're here in the good company of a very senior officer, a leading business man, and some wellknown, ummm, other persons.

But, of course, we aren't able to understand history.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 09:47 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I think you're fighting a losing battle here Okie. I know what you're suggesting, but our more liberal friends will never accept or even allow a discussion of it. I think some probably even mean well, but they seem to be unable to focus on or grasp a principle and discuss that at face value. They seem incapable of or at least unwilling to consider any form of abstract thought.

They will continue to insist on discussing vague historical principles apart from the concept or bring in unrelated interpretations or obfusicate with illustrations intended to negate any concept that they can't understand or that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions.

I find the subject you've introduced here interesting and instructive. But I also think it is sufficiently complicated in scope and concept that you are unlikely to find enough people here who understand it or want to understand it enough to discuss it at face value. The sheer complexity of it provides too many directions for the discussion to take.


Wow. Amazing how only Okie and a few others here are capable of understanding abstract ideas or principles at all. The rest of us are stuck in mundane things like facts and historical record.

If only we could liberate our minds, to understand points and concepts which are not supported by facts and history, then we could get somewhere! Somewhere, like, revising history to paint your political opponent's philosophy as the most repressive and destructive force known to mankind in the last hundred years - and, to square the circle, we would then liberate our minds to the point where we actually believed the bullshit we're slinging!

I could change my name to Cyclo Goldberg, write a book, and live off of Wingnut welfare for the rest of my life. Actually, it doesn't sound all that bad...

Cycloptichorn
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:03 am
@Cycloptichorn,
well, personally I'm glad to know our society has peeps like okie, ican and foxfyre to keep our feet to the fire when it comes to understand the world we live in. their pervasive knowledge of history and current events knows no bounds. i can now die secure in the knowledge that they will oversee americas' future.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:40 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
As ican points out, the actual practices of collectivism within the fascist idealogy............


If you're interested in "actual practices of collectivism" and if you want to use the nationalisation and control of companies by the government as a yardstick to judge whether a particular government is right-wing or left-wing, you might be interested in reading this paper:..............


OE - it is absolutely remarkable that you would expect all your readers to be too stupid to understand that the paper you cite, as well as all standard works on the subject of privatizations, reach the exact opposite conclusion than the one you claim. Here is an excerpt from the paper (p.17) that proves this very point:
Quote:
It seems clear that neither the Nazi Party nor Hitler had any ideological devotion to private
ownership.
34 In their theoretical work on the relationship between politicians and firms, Shleifer
and Vishny (1994, p. 1,015) stress that anti-market governments are compatible with
privatization, as long as they can retain control over the firms through strong regulation.


What gives, OE? You never read the paper, you read it and don't know enough about public finances to understand it, or none of the above, just an attempt to confuse and obfuscate in order to promote some leftist agenda?

The courtesy of a reply is requested.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:45 am
@Setanta,
What you call "unnecessary facts" (btw, facts are facts, they can't be "vile", that's opinion) includes the fact that Hjalmar Schacht, the greatest genius among central bankers of the 20th century, managed to privatize vast sectors of the ruined German economy during the 1930s in the teeth of Nazi ideology (see excerpt from page 17 of paper linked by OE) which was collectivist by its nature.

You want to ascertain facts? So do I. Please start by encouraging OE to reply to the obvious 3 questions at the end of my previous post. Thank you in advance.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:46 am
@High Seas,
while it's true OE is a damn alien, I am not and to imply that fascism/naitzism is is leftist rather than rightwing extremism is as intellectually absurd as implying that the USSR is an example of liberalism.
Hi Helen, I'm doing relatively well considering all the facts of my life, hope the same for you.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:52 am
@dyslexia,
Love you too, Dys, and you know I'm very glad to hear you're doing better. As to your comments on Nazis, please do not rephrase what is posted on the last couple of pages; since both OE and I provided brief direct quotes, just let him reply at his convenience.

In such cases rephrasing only generates confusion - it's that pesky second law of thermodynamics about inexorably increasing entropy Smile
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:58 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
inexorably increasing entropy
of couse when you say this (just like georgeob) I can only conclude you mean strict constitutionalists.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 11:04 am
@dyslexia,
No, it's true for everyone, progressives too.

S really does = K x Ln W
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 11:04 am
@dyslexia,
P.S. another excerpt from the same paper, this time a direct quote by Hjalmar Schacht - and take my word for it, if he didn't know German finance in the 1930s, nobody else can be said to have known:
[quote]Schacht (1949, p. 78) recalled that “Inside the party there was a strong movement to bring more and more industries into the hands of the state…[/quote]

And thank you, George, for
Quote:
S really does = K x Ln W

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 11:13 am
@High Seas,
The overriding fact here - at least in my view - is that , apart form thew maintenance and expansion of its power and primacy, the Nazi state had very few consistent policies or doctrines. Up close the relations of Hitler to his key deputies were somewhat chaotic and uncoordinated - he presided over a collection of rival gangs as much as he did a well-ordered state with a coherent doctrine or set of guiding beliefs.

This, of course, is a fact that has no place in okie's simple-minded template for understanding.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 11:13 am
Fascist and Nazist governments are collectivist and not individualist governments. Collectivism is a leftist doctrine. Individualism is a rightist doctrine. I now realize that some conservatives are collectivist and some are individualist. I am a conservative individualist.

FASCISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=fascism&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: fas•cism
...
1 often capitalized : the principles of the Fascisti; also : the movement or governmental regime embodying their principles
2 a : any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition
b : any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control (as over others within an organization) <the nascent fascism of a detective who is not content merely to do his duty -- George Nobbe> <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.W.Aldridge> <a kind of personal fascism, a dictatorship of the ego over the more generous elements of the soul -- Edmond Taylor>

NAZISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=nazism&x=16&y=5
Main Entry: na•zism
...
1 : the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer : German fascism
2 : a Nazi movement or regime

COLLECTIVISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=collectivism&x=11&y=6
Main Entry: col•lec•tiv•ism

1 a : a politico-economic system characterized by collective control especially over production and distribution of goods and services in contrast to free enterprise <forces that have led to individualism have in the last fifty years been successfully opposed by the forces of collectivism -- M.R.Cohen> b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism) c : a doctrine or system that makes the group or the state actively responsible for the social and economic welfare of its members
2 : a social theory or doctrine that emphasizes the importance of the collective (as the society or state) in contrast to the individual and that tends to analyze society in terms of collective behavior …

INDIVIDUALISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=individualism&x=21&y=7
Main Entry: in•di•vid•u•al•ism

1 a (1) : the ethical doctrine or principle that the interests of the individual himself are or ought to be paramount in determination of conduct : ethical egoism; also : conduct guided by the principle (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals and that the community or social whole has no value or ethical significance not derived from its constituent individuals b (1) : the doctrine which holds that the chief end of society is the promotion of individual welfare and the chief end of moral law is the development of individual character; also : conduct or practice guided by such a doctrine (2) : a theory or policy having primary regard for individual rights and especially maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual or maintaining the independence of individual initiative, action, and interests (as in industrial organization or in government); also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory or policy -- compare COLLECTIVISM, PATERNALISM, SOCIALISM c : any vigorous and independent striving toward an individual goal or any markedly independent assertion of individual opinions especially without regard for others or in defiance of an institution or larger authority …

CONSERVATISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=conservatism&x=23&y=8
Main Entry: con•serv•a•tism
...
1 a : the disposition in politics to preserve what is established <twentieth century politics of New Jersey has continued to be dominated ... by the natural conservatism of the industrial and business interests -- American Guide Series: New Jersey>
b : a political philosophy based on a strong sense of tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established institutions (as religion, property, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development with preservation of the best elements of the past to abrupt change <political conservatism in the United States ... has become identified with the business interests -- Francis Biddle>
2 usually capitalized a : the principles and policies of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom <the fundamental and distinct tenets of Conservatism -- R.A.Butler> b : the Conservative party or its members <whether Conservatism enjoys a long tenure of office -- L.D.Epstein>
3 a : the tendency to accept an existing fact, order, situation, or phenomenon and to be cautious toward or suspicious of change : extreme wariness and caution in outlook <acquired conservatism which normally increases with increasing age and sagacity -- H.G.Armstrong> <conservatism in banking practices> <conservatism in interpreting data> b : strong resistance to innovation : relative freedom from change <the conservatism of the area ... has helped to preserve the evidences of its past -- R.W.Southern>; specifically : the tendency of certain plants or animal groups (as the brachiopods) to remain narrowly adapted to a particular environment and undergo minimal evolutionary change or differentiation
4 : CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 10:01:23