Author Topic: * What Is Fascism?  (Read 8771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2012, 10:21:37 AM »
Economic Fascism


John Maynard Keynes

Economic fascism was essentially the predecessor of Keynesian ideology.

Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was published in 1936 and has today been largely regarded as the foundation of the post-War economy of the United States. However, Keynes' economic ideology is essentially the same thing as economic fascism, and indeed Keynes himself was heavily influenced by fascism, associated with fascist thinkers, and stated that the fascists were perhaps the most well suited to adopting his economic agenda (which is really because they had already developed similar programs).

Keynesianism is an attack on laissez-faire capitalism and proposes solutions to the problems posed by that model.

In relation to the State Keynes said in 1924:

    "We must aim at separating those services which are technically social from those which are technically individual. The most important items on the Agenda of the State relate not to those activities which private individuals are already fulfilling, but to those activities which fall outside the sphere of the individual, to those decisions which are made by no one if the State does not make them. The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse, but to do those things which at present are not done at all."

In the German version of the The General Theory Keynes wrote:

    I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than is the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of perfect competition and a large measure of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies my calling my theory a general theory. Since it is based on less narrow assumptions than the orthodox theory, it is also more easily adapted to a large order of different circumstances. Although I have thus worked it out having the conditions in the Anglo-Saxon countries in view - where a great deal of laissez-faire still prevails - it yet remains applicable in situations where national leadership is more pronounced.

The essence of Keynesian economic ideology is basically the use of the State to promote economic interests, the idea that the State should promote a middle class through the redistribution of wealth, and the idea of the use of State spending in order to promote employment.

The early laissez-faire economists, such as Adam Smith, believed in the liberal ideology that individuals should be encouraged to take actions that would be beneficial to society. The development of laissez-faire capitalist ideology was based on the premise that when allowing people to peruse their own private interests people would be guided by an "invisible hand" to act in the best interests of society. The foundation of laissez-faire ideology was not the pursuit of self interest for self interest's sake, but rather that through the laissez-faire process social interests would be served. As Smith put it, men would live in a system of natural liberty in which each individual would be free to pursue his own ends but would be guided as if by an invisible hand to serve the interests of others in society as the means to his own self-improvement.

By the turn of the 20th century people in all advanced capitalist societies were reaching the conclusion that Smith's vision of society was simply not being realized and that laissez-faire policy was in fact not serving the interests of society, but rather the interests of a small wealthy elite.

One of the ultimate agendas, and successes, of the fascists was to create a strong and stable middle class. They viewed the problems of Western society to be both "out of control" laissez-faire capitalism and its opposing force, Communism. The fascists correctly understood that Communism was a reaction to the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism. Thus they believed that the solution to the threat of Communism was the mitigation of the problems of laissez-faire capitalism. 



Early (1931) Nazi poster reads: "Death to Lies" with "Marxism" on the bottom and "High finance" on the top of the snake

This problem was widely recognized in the early 20th century in all Western societies. America and Britain entered the 20th century as the giants of trade and relatively laissez-faire capitalism, but it was recognized even in those countries that laissez-faire capitalism was in fact causing major problems, not only for society, which was growing increasingly fragmented with increasing economic inequality, but also for the dominant capitalists themselves who were becoming more and more interested in protectionism as opposed to free trade.

At this point it would be a good time to define what capitalism really is.  Capitalism is basically an economic system in which profits can be made through ownership of property.  To expound on that, capitalism is a system in which people privately own the "means of production" and employ others to generate profits for them.

People often get free trade tied up into the idea of capitalism, but free trade and capitalism do not directly have anything to do with each other. You can have capitalism without free trade and you can have free trade without capitalism.  In fact, you can argue that under a purely privatized capitalist system free trade could not exist because if everything were privatized then all trade would have to take place along privately owned infrastructure, which of course would mean that tolls or some form of compensation would have to be used to pay for the use of the infrastructure on a per-use basis, meaning that it would not be "free to trade", as all trade would have tolls or user fees tied to it. Free trade, however, was definitely a strong element of the development of laissez-faire capitalism, but as the Marxists pointed out, capitalism ends up creating its own obstacles as it develops.

So in fact free trade can only take place with the existence of at least some publicly owned property, which can be used as the avenue of trade.

Getting back to capitalism, capitalism is a system that revolves around the capitalist.  A capitalist is someone who makes money through ownership.  A capitalist is one who is an investor or an owner.  Support of capitalism is support of a system in which people can "earn" money without actually working, i.e. they can receive profits from the work of others by owning the property which they employ other people to use to provide goods or services.

In many cases the owner of the property, for example a barbershop, also works in the business and provides part of the labor to make the business run and operate and generate profits.  This is typically what we think of when we think of a small business.  In other cases owners or investors do not actually provide any of the labor for the business that they own. This is what is traditionally referred to as being a "capitalist", one who owns but does not labor, and this is often what we think of when we think of big business and investors.

What fascism was all about in the economic sense was ultimately the protection and regulation of capitalism, i.e. the preservation of private ownership of the means of production. Fascism sought to use the power of the State to protect and to stabilize the economic system by bringing the major capitalists into a system of cooperation with each other so that economic conflict would be reduced and through their cooperation stability would be, and was, achieved. Fascism opposed laissez-faire capitalism, but nonetheless supported capitalism in a regulated form. The Italian form of fascism was more capitalist in nature, the German form was more socialist in nature. Both supported private ownership of the means of production.

Of the three major ideologies, laissez-faire capitalism, fascism, and Marxist socialism, fascism was the only one which was objectively pro middle class. Fundamentally, laissez-faire capitalism has no goals at all, however it was apparent that laissez-faire resulted in major socio-economic stratification and promoted the interests of a small wealthy elite over everyone else. The goal of Marxist socialism/communism was the complete elimination of class and the role of private capital. The goal of the Marxists was ultimately to eliminate all traditional elements of society and create a new society founded on the principle of equality. Fascism (and Keynesianism), in the economic sense, was the middle ground between these two major competing ideologies.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2012, 12:01:23 PM »
In 1920 Adolph Hitler outlined 25 points of the NSDAP program (the program of the National Socialist Party). Among the points was:

  We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

The National Socialist Workers Party, which would eventually become known as the Nazis, was not known as a fascist party at the time, but it would later become accepted by Mussolini and others as a party who's platform was in line with the objectives of fascism.

The National Socialist platform, like other fascist platforms, called for the promotion of a middle class and for the support of small business through the power of the State.

However, once in power the fascist regimes, especially in Germany, actually supported the wealthy establishment and did not give the middle class the gains that they were hoping for.

Another major goal of fascist policy was to achieve "full employment". This was of critical importance due to the economic depression of post WWI Europe.

Part of the way that the fascists sought to do this was through the use of state spending and corporate regulations. When Mussolini came to power he, "instituted a program of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed." (Hibbert 1965)

Mussolini's policies were revolutionary at the time and they were admired by many people around the world. Through the use of these types of programs, and deficit spending, both Germany and Italy quickly rose up out of the worldwide depression and become some of the most successful countries of the time economically. Unemployment dropped dramatically and social welfare programs were instituted in both Germany and Italy. The fascists were the first to seriously call for and institute forms of social insurance. Again from Hitler's 1920 NSDAP 25 point agenda, point number 15:

    We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

In order to regulate industry and "promote the interests of society" the fascists merged the State with private industry.

Mussolini himself stated that:

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

After the war, during the Nuremberg Trials, Hermann Goering stated:

    The strange part of it all is that I don't feel like a criminal and that if I had been in the United States or South America or any other place else, I would probably be a leading figure in one of those countries. I am a capitalist and a cultured gentleman.

Fascism is essentially organized capitalism. By organizing capitalism, and tying the interests of corporations to that of the State, Mussolini was able to, in some ways, please the wealthy elite while at the same time pleasing the working classes of Italy. Mussolini promised to restore discipline to the workplace and to back up and support private industry, while at the same time removing some of the autonomy and individual power of private interests.

Elements of Mussolini's fascist system, such as the National Council of Corporations, which was to be comprised of representatives from industry, labor, and state, who worked together to settle labor disputes and guide industry, the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction, and other such state bureaucracies, regulated and administered Italy's economy. Well established big businessmen became highly involved in the state bureaucracy and the Corporate State became a tool for establishment businessmen to serve themselves.

The Italian system also subsidized and regulated agriculture as part of their program for national self sufficiency. Mussolini pushed for autarchy, economic self-sufficiency, which won popular support as a means to make Italians more independent and as a protectionist measure for Italian businesses. 

Of course another major reason for self sufficiency was Italy's military aspirations. Mussolini openly stated that fascism was anti-pacifist, and that he intended to rebuild a Roman Empire. Because of this, Italy's economy was geared towards military industry. This was true in Germany as well. Both countries began to promote science, mathematics, and engineering in school as a way to develop better scientists who could be employed to build better weapons and military corporations were given significant support from State funds. The military focus worked best in Germany, which proceeded to produce some of the most advanced technologies in the history of the world at the time, and the most advanced weapons. The military industrial complex acted as a boon to the economy by providing a large number of jobs, which made people happy and further bolstered support for the leaders. By the fact that the State played an important role in the economy, the State saw to it to protect and promote industries which were viewed as vital to State interests. However, both Italy and Germany ran up huge deficits which ended up severely hurting their economies by mid war.

Throughout World War II, Italy and Germany both suffered major economic hardship and even the citizens had very little food to eat. The concentration camps were beyond horrific, but what is less known is that the German people were barely able to feed themselves as well. On May 2, 1942, three years before the end of the war, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his personal diary:

    I received a report about the present position of German agriculture which is anything but encouraging. There is a dearth of seeds, of man power, of gasoline, of horses, of cattle, of good weather- in short of just about everything essential to guarantee sufficient food. It may be necessary next autumn to take in out belts a few more notches.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2012, 12:22:35 PM »
Social Fascism

Fascism, in the social sense, is ultimately an affirmation of "traditional values". Fascism embodied much of traditional social ideology, such as "machismo", family values, religious faith, patriotism, social structure, honor, and traditional hard work.

Asvero Gravelli, a prominent author on fascism at the time, described fascism in the following way:

    Fascism transcends democracy and liberalism; its regenerative action is based on granite foundations: the idea of hierarchy, of the participation of the whole population in the life of the State, social justice in the equitable distribution of rights and duties, the infusion of public life with moral principles, the affirmation of religious values, the prestige of the family, the ethical interpretation of the ideas of order, authority and liberty. In the light of this transcendence Europe will be able to find its way to enter a new phase of History.

Discussing the exact nature of fascist beliefs can be difficult because there is always debate about what the fascist leaders "really" believed and what they just said in order to manipulate the public. In truth there is some disconnect between the "true" beliefs of some fascist leaders and what they espoused in public, but what is actually most important is understanding the public perception of fascism because this is what determined fascist culture and this is what the public at large believed in and were drawn to. The other thing that is difficult about understanding the personal views of some of the fascist leaders is that it's very hard to separate anti-fascist propaganda from truth.

Fascism first took root as an opposition to Marxism. The core of fascist propaganda and mentality was anti-Marxist. The fascists were in a more general sense opposed to everything that was of the "Left leaning" ideology, which is to say liberalism in general, but what they had the strongest opposition to was Marxism.

The fascists talked a lot about the building of strong moral character, hard work, and family values. Fascism was an ideology of order and obedience where people were expected to fall in line with leadership, and questioning and criticizing were looked at as the qualities of the decadent "liberals". 

From a 1943 Nazi pamphlet:

    ...liberalism taught that all people were equal, that there were no value differences between the races, that external differences (e.g., body type, skin color) were unimportant. Each person, regardless of race, might be a hero or a coward, an idealist or a materialist, creative or useless to society, militarily able, scientifically able, artistically gifted. The environment and education were the important elements that made men good and valuable. If one provided the proper environment and freed people from their chains, the peoples would join together to develop their abilities in a unified humanity, and eternal peace would result. Therefore liberalism demanded equality for all, the same opportunities for everyone, in particular the Jews, equality and freedom in the economic sphere, etc.

    We Germans have seen where such doctrines lead. Liberalism tore down the structures that held races and peoples together, releasing the destructive drives. The result was economic chaos that led to millions of unemployed on the one side and the senseless luxury of economic jackals on the other. Liberalism destroyed the people's economic foundations, allowing the triumph of subhumans. They won the leading role in the political parties, the economy, the sciences, arts and press, hollowing out the nation from inside. The equality of all citizens, regardless of race, led to the mixing of Europeans with Jews, Negro, Mongols and so on, resulting in the decay and decline of the Aryan race.

Fascism is an ideology that focuses on the State, and as such the boundaries between Church and State were broken just as the boundaries between Corporation and State were broken. Just as corporations and the State were brought into mutually beneficial relationships so to were the Christian Churches and the State.

Above all, fascism was a movement that gained its support from a growing religious sentiment among the public. It is not so much a case of what certain fascist leaders believed, it was more a case of what it was that the public wanted from their leadership and the ways in which those leaders gave the public what they wanted.  What the people wanted was a religious experience and they wanted to feel a close bond between Church and State, and thus the fascist leaders identified with religious feelings in the community and used it to their advantage.

Benito Mussolini was himself not a particularly religious man, but he did cater to the religious beliefs of the public. He embraced the Catholic Church and in fact became a member of the Church. Mussolini stated, "There is no need to get all tied up with antireligiousness and give Catholics reason for unease.  A fight…between Church and State, the State would lose."

The Catholic tradition was very strong in Italy, but it had come under attack from liberals and Marxists. Mussolini knew that people were unhappy about this and instead embraced the Church as a partner of the State.

In 1929 Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with Pope Pius XI. This established Catholicism as the official religion of the State, gave the Pope increased political powers, gave papal sovereignty to Vatican City, ensured that the Catholic religion would be taught in all schools, compensated the Pope with $90 million for the loss of papal property since 1870, and cemented broad Catholic support for Mussolini.

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2012, 04:18:51 PM »

This article is a mixed bag, it has a lot of truths and a of not so truths.

A couple of the not so truths.

However, once in power the fascist regimes, especially in Germany, actually supported the wealthy establishment and did not give the middle class the gains that they were hoping for.


Quote
    ...liberalism taught that all people were equal, that there were no value differences between the races, that external differences (e.g., body type, skin color) were unimportant. Each person, regardless of race, might be a hero or a coward, an idealist or a materialist, creative or useless to society, militarily able, scientifically able, artistically gifted. The environment and education were the important elements that made men good and valuable. If one provided the proper environment and freed people from their chains, the peoples would join together to develop their abilities in a unified humanity, and eternal peace would result. Therefore liberalism demanded equality for all, the same opportunities for everyone, in particular the Jews, equality and freedom in the economic sphere, etc.




Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2012, 07:05:28 PM »
This article is a mixed bag, it has a lot of truths and a of not so truths.

A couple of the not so truths.

However, once in power the fascist regimes, especially in Germany, actually supported the wealthy establishment and did not give the middle class the gains that they were hoping for.

Good spotting, Laconas. I have noticed this as well, and I wanted to add 3 question marks in red: ??? (excuse: my sub-contractor called and we needed to drive to the construction site and then (with other things on my mind, I forgot.)  :-[
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2012, 07:08:44 PM »
Good spotting, Laconas. I have noticed this as well, and I wanted to add 3 question marks in red: ??? (excuse: my sub-contractor called and we needed to drive to the construction site and then (with other things on my mind, I forgot.)  :-[

You're not the Secretary of State and I'm not the UN ambassador. We have time for our opinions. :)
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2012, 07:28:10 PM »
I did not know that Spain produced such expensive ham. Wow, now that is overpriced!

I hope the farmers are getting some of that money.  But yeah Spain is supposed to have some of the best small producers.  & I thought Westphalian ham was pricey, local German deli sells it for $15/lb.  Very tasty, hard to resist gobbling it all up at once.  They feed the hogs acorns just like the Spanish hogs get.  Of course JMSM would never give German products any significant publicity (save for the cars).  IE once a year the WaPo wine column makes obligatory mention of German Rieslings since wine pros know riesling is the "queen of grapes" but this never filters down to public.

German wines tarred by the "sweet" epithet & public is confused since they equate sweet with cheap.  Actually the current preference for dry wines is ahistorical.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2012, 07:44:27 PM »
You're not the Secretary of State and I'm not the UN ambassador. We have time for our opinions. :)

True that.  :)
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2012, 08:01:24 PM »
I hope the farmers are getting some of that money.  But yeah Spain is supposed to have some of the best small producers.  & I thought Westphalian ham was pricey, local German deli sells it for $15/lb.  Very tasty, hard to resist gobbling it all up at once.  They feed the hogs acorns just like the Spanish hogs get.  Of course JMSM would never give German products any significant publicity (save for the cars).  IE once a year the WaPo wine column makes obligatory mention of German Rieslings since wine pros know riesling is the "queen of grapes" but this never filters down to public.

German wines tarred by the "sweet" epithet & public is confused since they equate sweet with cheap.  Actually the current preference for dry wines is ahistorical.

Calgary, Alberta was, and still is, a very good place for shopping, sooo many good choices when it comes to German butchers and bakeries, Italian stores too. Their selection is outstanding. People also pay fewer taxes in Alberta, just Goods and services tax 7%. You get everything you desire, and then some, depending upon ones pocket book. Here in BC we pay a total of 12%, which really hurts on bigger purchases.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2012, 08:03:59 PM »
Economic fascism was essentially the predecessor of Keynesian ideology.

Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was published in 1936 and has today been largely regarded as the foundation of the post-War economy of the United States. However, Keynes' economic ideology is essentially the same thing as economic fascism, and indeed Keynes himself was heavily influenced by fascism, associated with fascist thinkers, and stated that the fascists were perhaps the most well suited to adopting his economic agenda (which is really because they had already developed similar programs).

Keynesianism is an attack on laissez-faire capitalism and proposes solutions to the problems posed by that model.

In the German version of the The General Theory Keynes wrote:

    I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than is the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of perfect competition and a large measure of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies my calling my theory a general theory. Since it is based on less narrow assumptions than the orthodox theory, it is also more easily adapted to a large order of different circumstances. Although I have thus worked it out having the conditions in the Anglo-Saxon countries in view - where a great deal of laissez-faire still prevails - it yet remains applicable in situations where national leadership is more pronounced.

LaRouche often points to Keynes' introduction to the German version to show why Keynes should not be considered as a valid 'hero' of economics.  Also while Keynes endorsed deficit spending to boost demand it was an essentially monetarist central-banking approach.

This flaw reflects John Maynard Keynes’s ignorance of the role of technological progress and infrastructure development, as the only basis for raising both the real wealth and the level of productivity of an economy.

& LaRouche often points out that equating FDR credit-system with Keynes' London-imperialist central banking is a lie.  OTOH Larouche is loath to admit (both for tactical & philosophical reasons) to acknowledge any positive aspect to Nazi system.  While Nazis made some improvements, their concept was essentially everything for the State.

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2012, 08:17:42 PM »
People also pay fewer taxes in Alberta, just Goods and services tax 7%. You get everything you desire, and then some, depending upon ones pocket book. Here in BC we pay a total of 12%, which really hurts on bigger purchases.

Good grief BC even out-taxes New York State which tops out at ~10%.  But hey, BC gov't built all those beautiful mountains & lakes, that doesn't come cheap.   ;)  & jew BC tv/movie industry is whining about Ontario & Quebec snatching work away--they want even more BC tax breaks.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2012, 08:40:22 PM »
Good grief BC even out-taxes New York State which tops out at ~10%.  But hey, BC gov't built all those beautiful mountains & lakes, that doesn't come cheap.   ;)  & jew BC tv/movie industry is whining about Ontario & Quebec snatching work away--they want even more BC tax breaks.

Yeah, well, we have unprovoked wars to participate in, that costs big time, who else but us little people will pay via heavier taxation? When I came to Canada in the latter 50's this was almost paradise. Nothing ever remains the same.  :(
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2012, 09:05:31 PM »
LaRouche often points to Keynes' introduction to the German version to show why Keynes should not be considered as a valid 'hero' of economics.  Also while Keynes endorsed deficit spending to boost demand it was an essentially monetarist central-banking approach.

This flaw reflects John Maynard Keynes’s ignorance of the role of technological progress and infrastructure development, as the only basis for raising both the real wealth and the level of productivity of an economy.

& LaRouche often points out that equating FDR credit-system with Keynes' London-imperialist central banking is a lie.  OTOH Larouche is loath to admit (both for tactical & philosophical reasons) to acknowledge any positive aspect to Nazi system.  While Nazis made some improvements, their concept was essentially everything for the State.

So influential was John Maynard Keynes in the middle third of the twentieth century that an entire school of modern thought bears his name. Many of his ideas were revolutionary; almost all were controversial.

Sorry, but I don't know too much about him, but shall, if time permits find out more. Keynes became a celebrity before becoming one of the most respected economists of the century when his eloquent book ''The Economic Consequences of the Peace'' was published in 1919.

Keynes wrote it to object to the punitive reparations payments imposed on Germany by the Allied countries after World War I. The amounts demanded by the Allies were so large, he wrote, that a Germany that tried to pay them would stay perpetually poor and, therefore, politically unstable. We now know that Keynes was right, it was not all that long ago when Germany paid off the WWI debts...

Either Graybeard or Laconas mentioned this before.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2012, 10:11:46 PM »
Sorry, but I don't know too much about him, but shall, if time permits find out more. Keynes became a celebrity before becoming one of the most respected economists of the century when his eloquent book ''The Economic Consequences of the Peace'' was published in 1919.

Keynes wrote it to object to the punitive reparations payments imposed on Germany by the Allied countries after World War I. The amounts demanded by the Allies were so large, he wrote, that a Germany that tried to pay them would stay perpetually poor and, therefore, politically unstable. We now know that Keynes was right, it was not all that long ago when Germany paid off the WWI debts...

Either Graybeard or Laconas mentioned this before.

Typical Brit-zio sophistry, just like how they claim Chamberlain was duped by Hitler.  Both deals part of London-bankster strategy to let Germany rearm just enough to threaten Russia.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2012, 10:35:06 PM »
Typical Brit-zio sophistry, just like how they claim Chamberlain was duped by Hitler.  Both deals part of London-bankster strategy to let Germany rearm just enough to threaten Russia.

OK, thank you for that info and good night. More tomorrow.  :)
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #35 on: October 05, 2012, 01:09:34 AM »

On another note, yet relative to this thread is that in 1989 the same people who gave us the gift of Communist ideology declared it was officially dead. It's significant because it means this instrument is no longer useful to further social revolutions. As we all know, Fascism officially died with the fall of Hitler's and Mussolini's govts. The only thing left is the vague term "democracy," which can be anything you want it to be as long as elections are held.

Given that the ideal of Communism is dead, it's no surprise that orchestrated Wall St. protests against the ideal of Capitalism were called off--you can't have protests against something if an alternative isn't offered. What were they thinking? If Communism is dead so is Capitalism.

The capital that Wall Street uses is created by a committee known as the Federal Reserve. This is not the same as the so called capitalists of the 19th Century that created wealth and capital by creating goods and services.

The other night I watched Romney and Obama struggling to describe their ideal visions while at the same being aware to avoid the terms Communism and Capitalism. Even the epithet, "controlled economy" which is usually reserved for China was avoided. Instead they both spoke in vague terms; Romney spoke of free enterprise and Obama spoke of investments. Romney's free enterprise isn't free and Obama's investments with the people's money isn't exactly what the term means. They both agreed there needs to be regulations in the money sector without ever mention who will be doing the regulating, and they both agreed to contracting health and social services to private companies.

It's an interesting time now that we've moved beyond the 20th Century political terminology even though new terminology describing the political ideological poles haven't been created or coined yet.


Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #36 on: October 05, 2012, 04:37:15 AM »
On another note, yet relative to this thread is that in 1989 the same people who gave us the gift of Communist ideology declared it was officially dead. It's significant because it means this instrument is no longer useful to further social revolutions. As we all know, Fascism officially died with the fall of Hitler's and Mussolini's govts. The only thing left is the vague term "democracy," which can be anything you want it to be as long as elections are held.

Given that the ideal of Communism is dead, it's no surprise that orchestrated Wall St. protests against the ideal of Capitalism were called off--you can't have protests against something if an alternative isn't offered. What were they thinking? If Communism is dead so is Capitalism.

The capital that Wall Street uses is created by a committee known as the Federal Reserve. This is not the same as the so called capitalists of the 19th Century that created wealth and capital by creating goods and services.

The other night I watched Romney and Obama struggling to describe their ideal visions while at the same being aware to avoid the terms Communism and Capitalism. Even the epithet, "controlled economy" which is usually reserved for China was avoided. Instead they both spoke in vague terms; Romney spoke of free enterprise and Obama spoke of investments. Romney's free enterprise isn't free and Obama's investments with the people's money isn't exactly what the term means. They both agreed there needs to be regulations in the money sector without ever mention who will be doing the regulating, and they both agreed to contracting health and social services to private companies.

It's an interesting time now that we've moved beyond the 20th Century political terminology even though new terminology describing the political ideological poles haven't been created or coined yet.

They say that all the tenets of communism (aka the manifesto) have been achieved in the US.  Now it is only a battle between the Stausians (leo-cons), and the neo-Lenins.  Wouldn't you think that the world might be sick of jews by now?
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2012, 05:27:35 AM »
They say that all the tenets of communism (aka the manifesto) have been achieved in the US.  Now it is only a battle between the Stausians (leo-cons), and the neo-Lenins.  Wouldn't you think that the world might be sick of jews by now?

If Romney is the Strausian, and Obama is the neo-Lenin--what are their differences?
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2012, 08:45:05 AM »
On another note, yet relative to this thread is that in 1989 the same people who gave us the gift of Communist ideology declared it was officially dead. It's significant because it means this instrument is no longer useful to further social revolutions. As we all know, Fascism officially died with the fall of Hitler's and Mussolini's govts. The only thing left is the vague term "democracy," which can be anything you want it to be as long as elections are held.

Given that the ideal of Communism is dead, it's no surprise that orchestrated Wall St. protests against the ideal of Capitalism were called off--you can't have protests against something if an alternative isn't offered. What were they thinking? If Communism is dead so is Capitalism.

The capital that Wall Street uses is created by a committee known as the Federal Reserve. This is not the same as the so called capitalists of the 19th Century that created wealth and capital by creating goods and services.

The other night I watched Romney and Obama struggling to describe their ideal visions while at the same being aware to avoid the terms Communism and Capitalism. Even the epithet, "controlled economy" which is usually reserved for China was avoided. Instead they both spoke in vague terms; Romney spoke of free enterprise and Obama spoke of investments. Romney's free enterprise isn't free and Obama's investments with the people's money isn't exactly what the term means. They both agreed there needs to be regulations in the money sector without ever mention who will be doing the regulating, and they both agreed to contracting health and social services to private companies.

It's an interesting time now that we've moved beyond the 20th Century political terminology even though new terminology describing the political ideological poles haven't been created or coined yet.

Agreed, well said, Laconas! The debates between our politicians is just 'theater'. Ultimately all decisions are made by our 'friendly' buddies in the ''City'' of London (and other strategic places.)



Capitalism and Communism – Two Vehicles To The Same Destination

For the majority of the past century, a battle has been waged between two dominant ideologies – capitalism and communism.  Both competing economic systems focus on how best to allocate goods and services to the population.  Capitalism uses democracy and “free markets” to efficiently allocate capital to its most efficient use with little regard to economic equality.  Communism focuses instead on massive state run “planned” economies allocating resources equally with little regard to personal ambition or incentive.

And this leads us to the irony.  Both capitalism and communism argue that their method for allocating resources will actually achieve the same end goal – namely, a higher standard of living for every person based on ownership – more efficiently.  In a capitalistic economy, people compete in a marketplace to secure as much wealth as they can for themselves and therefore increase their standard of living. Communist societies put a higher value on equality and believe that by allocating equally, people will live at a higher standard of living.

Now that it appears that capitalism has won the battle for best method, perhaps it is time to revisit the common goal and ask if it is even possible. The ultimate common goal for both capitalism and communism was to produce enough goods for every man, woman, and child to have one.  One of everything.  Each person would have their own house, their own car, their own lawn and lawnmower. They will have their own movie theatre, perhaps their own bowling alley, or their own yacht. They would, in short, have their own “American Dream”.

News flash: There are now 7 billion people living on the earth. This is a 700% rise in population in just two centuries.  When John Locke and Adam Smith were wandering the earth, the earth’s resources seemed both mathematically and conceptually infinite. “No way could we exhaust these resources.  I mean, the economy would have to grow 63,000 times bigger than it is today for us to approach any environmental limits (US GDP has grown from $220M in 1792 to $14T in 2012),” they must have thought.  And so began the era of exponential economic growth.

So what do capitalism and communism have in common? They both assumed nature’s resources to be infinite and placed value on extracting resources at faster rates distributing them through an ownership-based model.  With infinite resources, you can meet everyone’s needs through individual ownership since there is enough, in theory, to make one for everyone. However, many (especially the youth) see the futility of the idea that nature is limitless, that the earth has an infinite capacity to absorb our pollution or hide our waste.

In a world with finite resources, the goal of one of everything for everyone is impossible – not for 7 or potentially 10 billion of us.  Therefore, just like their goal, growth-based capitalism and growth-based communism are both inherently invalid.  When the pie doesn’t get any bigger, ideologies that champion growth strategies to solve hunger and poverty issues lose their appeal.

New economic systems must emerge that allow us to share the world efficiently but also justly. A world in which some people die systematically from malnutrition while others throw away the necessary food to feed them will not work any longer. Values must change to base one’s self-worth on the quality of one’s relationships and experiences instead of the number of their possessions. Access to quality resources for all of the world’s people must take precedence over satisfying insatiable desires of the few.

These are just some of the changes that will likely result from the realization that growth cannot occur forever. At the very least, it is time to stop arguing over which map to use and instead ask ourselves what direction we are heading.

source: http://sustainableman.org/capitalism-and-communism-two-vehicles-to-the-same-destination/

Uppermost we should pay attention and make every effort to curb our population increase.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- * What Is Fascism?
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2012, 10:22:25 AM »
Also, most Royals are in cahoots. The Czar family could have easily been protected otherwise.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.