Was FDR a fascist?

[gonzojournals]

Will the Conditions of Servitude, and The Rights of the Wealthy be two separate documents?

Servitude? I don't see any servants...only industrious citizens freed from the false reality and hope of class warfare.

Oh no, I've done gone and looked like homophobe. Whatever shall I do? Keep kicking your ass I guess.

I guess you never learned much about "ethos"...come to think of it, you haven't ever heard of "logos" either. Hopefully that pathos will keep on working, but with your lack of charisma you might have some rough times ahead.

 

[TRGLDTE]

You weren't even born yet...never mind your professors told you so...right?

FDR was just a 'War President' at the end of the 'Great Depression'...what would you have done?...Criticisim is easy after the fact...'Arm Chair Quarterbacking' and all! FDR was in the era of the last of the conservative democrats...not socialist...it was not even fad then!

Shut up dummy.

Calling FDR a socialist SOB led to my grandfather (a son of the revolution) being investigated by the FBI; thus proving that FDR was a fucking fascist.

 

[gonzojournals]

Calling FDR a socialist SOB led to my grandfather ( a son of the revolution) being investigated by the FBI; thus proving that FDR was a fucking fascist.

No, all it proves is that he was a totalitarian socialist. Epicurus, do you see the kind of shit I have to deal with? I don't think even the communists have to explain themselves as much.

 

[Timshel]

Wrong again. Fascism is a rejection of Marxism, communism, and socialism. There may be some overlap and some shades of grey involved, but they are separate systems.

I am giving specifics, you are talking vague nonsense.

No, it doesn't. There is no redistribution of wealth in Fascism.

Huh? Well, at least here you are specific, but horribly wrong.

http://www.jstor.org/view/01497952/ap050066/05a00040/0

Mussolini instituted social insurance and child and maternal welfare programs.

And these are just the redistribution to the lower classes which is what you mean. Redistributions in the form of corporate welfare are key to fascism.

The differences in ownership of property do not exclude it from the definition of socialism I presented from Wiki/EB.

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Ownership really means a right to control and use. The massive central planning of fascist state takes away the meaningful aspects of control and use. The primary thing left private is the responsibilities of ownership.

The private owners in the fascist state are kind of like a child owning his room. The child can do with his room it whatever his parents say he can, but the child better keep it clean. That is, the child does not really own it.

The rest of your posts here are either more vague assertions or misunderstanding of my point. I have given you specifics please respond in kind or don't bother.

 

[Litmus]

Servitude? I don't see any servants...only industrious citizens freed from the false reality and hope of class warfare.

And made hip to the real reality of perpetual slavery? No thanks.

You see, the perpetual cronyism you seek is a net disservice to humanity as a species, as true talent is no longer rewarded.

I guess you never learned much about "ethos"...come to think of it, you haven't ever heard of "logos" either. Hopefully that pathos will keep on working, but with your lack of charisma you might have some rough times ahead.

You're an idiot.

 

[TRGLDTE]

No, all it proves is that he was a totalitarian socialist. Epicurus, do you see the kind of shit I have to deal with? I don't think even the communists have to explain themselves as much.

I used fascist in the broader modern context of "dictatorial bastard" as opposed to its more literal socio-political sense.

 

[gonzojournals]

I am giving specifics, you are talking vague nonsense.




Huh? Well, at least here you are specific, but horribly wrong.

http://www.jstor.org/view/01497952/ap050066/05a00040/0

Mussolini instituted social insurance and child and maternal welfare programs.

And these are just the redistribution to the lower classes which is what you mean. Redistributions in the form of corporate welfare are key to fascism.

The differences in ownership of property do not exclude it from the definition of socialism I presented from Wiki/EB.

You are just trying to weasel out of the situation you got yourself into-- you know as well as I do that you were not referring to "social insurance" or corporate welfare...you were referring to redistributed wealth (i.e. persecution of the upper class) as you would see in communism or socialism. Just because Fascism is not anarcho-capitalism does not mean that it is socialist, as nasty as that may seem to your delicate libertarian sensibilities.

Ownership really means a right to control and use. The massive central planning of fascist state takes away the meaningful aspects of control and use. The primary thing left private is the responsibilities of ownership.

Not really. While heavy industry is monitored for the welfare of the State, we also have yet to see a fascist government not involved in war. Really there is not enough evidence of how a fascist state would function for you to be able to make such assertions.

The private owners in the fascist state are kind of like a child owning his room. The child can do with his room it whatever his parents say he can, but the child better keep it clean. That is, the child does not really own it.

No. More like an apartment building or a homeowner's association. You may do whatever you want with your property or personal space so long as it does not conflict with a pre-existing agreement or with the rights of others.

The rest of your posts here are either more vague assertions or misunderstanding of my point. I have given you specifics please respond in kind or don't bother.

What specifics? You are just trying to cover your ass for looking absolutely ignorant. You are certainly right for not thinking that Fascism is unhindered capitalism, but it is not socialism or communism. If it were, communists and socialists would not be the enemies of fascists.

 

[gonzojournals]

And made hip to the real reality of perpetual slavery? No thanks.

You see, the perpetual cronyism you seek is a net disservice to humanity as a species, as true talent is no longer rewarded.

Same old same old from the crazy dude. Keep throwing out those anarchist, crazy-as-fuck hippie buzzwords, they aren't going to save you.

You're an idiot.

What does that make you?

 

[Timshel]

Vague claims like "Fascism is just a type of socialism"?

You are the one that should be defending statements in this thread, not me.

I gave you specifics about how and why it is essentially socialist. The fact that you cut out of you response does not change that. All you responded with is I a claim that I am ignorant of some difference. What difference??? You never say.

And you are ignoring the massive success of their economies, if you must know. Do you think America could have pulled out of the massive inflation of post-WWI Germany or fight WWII against the same odds that Germany did?

That has nothing to do with the current discussion of the systems essntial nature.

EDIT: By the way, that post took 30 minutes to write?

So what? I am working and I actually put some thought in to my posts and try back them up with support, unlike you. If I wanted to go substanceless, I could post in a couple seconds too.

 

[Litmus]

Same old same old from the crazy dude. Keep throwing out those anarchist, crazy-as-fuck hippie buzzwords, they aren't going to save you.

WHich word was the hippy buzzword?

What does that make you?

Not an idiot.

 

[gonzojournals]

I gave you specifics about how and why it is essentially socialist. The fact that you cut out of you response does not change that. All you responded with is I a claim that I am ignorant of some difference. What difference??? You never say.

I have already stated the difference. Fascism embraces social class while communism and socialism reject it. Furthermore, Fascism has no qualms with religion, whereas communism and socialism are decidedly atheist.

Socialism only evolved as a term because the English communists did not want to be associated with the Roman Catholic Church (apparently they felt it was too close to communion). However, the two ideas are essentially the same.

That has nothing to do with the current discussion of the systems essntial nature.

Oh, I see. The success of fascist economies has nothing to do with the failure of one "fascist" policy that you find in FDR's multitude of socialist policies.

So what? I am working and I actually put some thought in to my posts and try back them up with support, unlike you. If I wanted to go substanceless, I could post in a couple seconds too.

Wow, I didn't expect that edit to come back to haunt me an hour later. Try to focus on getting skewered.

 

[gonzojournals]

WHich word was the hippy buzzword?

"Cronyism" "Military Industrial Complex" "Mercantile Slavery"...you basically just sound like an aging hippie that hasn't gotten wise to the fact that the hippie movement failed and was built on an unrealistic dream in the first place.

Not an idiot.

It makes you a sub-idiot. If my intelligence is low, then you are barely sentient.

 

[Litmus]

"Cronyism" "Military Industrial Complex" "Mercantile Slavery"...you basically just sound like an aging hippie that hasn't gotten wise to the fact that the hippie movement failed and was built on an unrealistic dream in the first place.

I never said "mercantile slavery". Now you're just making things up. The other terms are valid with legitimate meanings. The dictionary is your friend, monkey-brain.

 

[gonzojournals]

I never said "mercantile slavery". Now you're just making things up. The other terms are valid with legitimate meanings.All those words are valid and have meanings. The dictionary is your friend, monkey-brain.

They have meanings...but you are just using them as anti-establishment jargon designed to make your arguments look more valid. I don't blame you, as you are only a couple steps away from being a Scientologist.

I have the complete Oxford English Dictionary next to my computer on my desk...I really don't need any help from you.

 

[Timshel]

You are just trying to weasel out of the situation you got yourself into-- you know as well as I do that you were not referring to "social insurance" or corporate welfare...you were referring to redistributed wealth (i.e. persecution of the upper class) as you would see in communism or socialism. Just because Fascism is not anarcho-capitalism does not mean that it is socialist, as nasty as that may seem to your delicate libertarian sensibilities.

I am not weasiling out of anything. Corporate welfare is redistributed wealth. So is social insurance.

Not really. While heavy industry is monitored for the welfare of the State, we also have yet to see a fascist government not involved in war. Really there is not enough evidence of how a fascist state would function for you to be able to make such assertions.

Fascism does not include economic central planning? Whatever.

No. More like an apartment building or a homeowner's association. You may do whatever you want with your property or personal space so long as it does not conflict with a pre-existing agreement or with the rights of others.

BS! There was no concern that the "agreements" (government dictates) preexist ownership. They regimented the economies and told them what the fuck to do. Same thing with the NRA.

What specifics? You are just trying to cover your ass for looking absolutely ignorant. You are certainly right for not thinking that Fascism is unhindered capitalism, but it is not socialism or communism. If it were, communists and socialists would not be the enemies of fascists.

I have mentioned numerous programs that fit the fascist models. I have also given specifics on how fascism fits under the definition of socialism. Apparently, your definition of fascism is includes some requirement that there be no distribution of wealth to the poor. Unfortunately for you, you are about the only person that agrees with this strange definition. The fascist themselves engaged in social welfare programs.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120941.html

 

[gonzojournals]

I am not weasiling out of anything. Corporate welfare is redistributed wealth. So is social insurance.

I am not aware of any corporate welfare, even though that isn't even what you meant. Could you provide some sources?

Fascism does not include economic central planning? Whatever.

Economic planning=/= communism/socialism.

BS! There was no concern that the "agreements" (government dictates) preexist ownership. They regimented the economies and told them what the fuck to do. Same thing with the NRA.

No, they looked after key industries (mostly because of the massive war being waged) and offered incentives for certain types of production.

I have mentioned numerous programs that fit the fascist models. I have also given specifics on how fascism fits under the definition of socialism.

No, you have tried to misrepresent fascism by comparing it to socialism and by ignoring the fact that by your definition of socialism our own country is socialist, when I think we can all agree that America is not a Marxist/communist/socialist country.

Apparently, your definition of fascism is includes some requirement that there be no distribution of wealth to the poor. Unfortunately for you, you are about the only person that agrees with this strange definition. The fascist themselves engaged in social welfare programs.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120941.html

Social welfare programs are a far-cry from socialism and communism. You are just playing dumb at this point. There is a vast difference between helping the needy and attempting to destroy social class so that all wealth is shared by the entire populace.

 

[Timshel]

I have already stated the difference. Fascism embraces social class while communism and socialism reject it. Furthermore, Fascism has no qualms with religion, whereas communism and socialism are decidedly atheist.

Really? You should talk to Bellamy and other American socialists on the religion aspects.

A primary attack used by Hitler against the Jews was their wealth.

Socialism only evolved as a term because the English communists did not want to be associated with the Roman Catholic Church (apparently they felt it was too close to communion). However, the two ideas are essentially the same.

No. Socialism predates communism. Your own source for this claim (the wiki article on socialism) makes that clear.

Oh, I see. The success of fascist economies has nothing to do with the failure of one "fascist" policy that you find in FDR's multitude of socialist policies.

I gave you several examples, and NO, the success (which I am not conceding) of other fascist policies is absolutely irrelevant to the nature of the philosophy and ideas backing the policy.

 

[Timshel]

I am not aware of any corporate welfare, even though that isn't even what you meant. Could you provide some sources?

I have done so.

No, you have tried to misrepresent fascism by comparing it to socialism and by ignoring the fact that by your definition of socialism our own country is socialist, when I think we can all agree that America is not a Marxist/communist/socialist country.

LOL, aren't you saying FDR was a socialist? The main program he instituted that is not still around is the one you seemed to agree was decidedly fascist.

Ownership is still fairly real here but the dividing line is not crystal clear.

Social welfare programs are a far-cry from socialism and communism. You are just playing dumb at this point. There is a vast difference between helping the needy and attempting to destroy social class so that all wealth is shared by the entire populace.

Wait a minute. It is you who has argued that the main difference between fascism is a lack of class warfare and therefore FDR qualifies as a socialist due to his social welfare programs. I merely pointed out that the fascist carried out the same types of programs. When did FDR attempt to completely destroy social classes?

For once nAHZi is right. You are an idiot. I have no clue what your definition of fascism is, but it apparently meets no accepted one.

 

[gonzojournals]

Then why is there no source online that equates Fascism to Socialism?

EDIT: Also, I'm going to bed. I'll be back in the morning.

 

[Timshel]

Now if the NRA had continued, we WOULD be a socialist nation. Well, we'd probably have imploded by now but...