Capitalism, Socialism or Fascism?

[Ufo Believer]

From: Washington's Blog

What is the current American economy: capitalism, socialism or fascism?

Socialism

Many people call the Bush and Obama administration's approach to the economic crisis "socialism".

Are they right?

Well, Nouriel Roubini writes in a recent essay:

This is a crisis of solvency, not just liquidity, but true deleveraging has not begun yet because the losses of financial institutions have been socialised and put on government balance sheets. This limits the ability of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest...

The releveraging of the public sector through its build-up of large fiscal deficits risks crowding out a recovery in private sector spending.

Roubini has previously written:

We're essentially continuing a system where profits are privatized and...losses socialized.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb says the same thing:

After finishing The Black Swan, I realized there was a cancer. The cancer was a huge buildup of risk-taking based on the lack of understanding of reality. The second problem is the hidden risk with new financial products. And the third is the interdependence among financial institutions.

[interviewer]: But aren't those the very problems we're supposed to be fixing?

NT: They're all still here. Today we still have the same amount of debt, but it belongs to governments. Normally debt would get destroyed and turn to air. Debt is a mistake between lender and borrower, and both should suffer. But the government is socializing all these losses by transforming them into liabilities for your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. What is the effect? The doctor has shown up and relieved the patient's symptoms – and transformed the tumour into a metastatic tumour. We still have the same disease. We still have too much debt, too many big banks, too much state sponsorship of risk-taking. And now we have six million more Americans who are unemployed – a lot more than that if you count hidden unemployment.

More here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/capitalism-socialism-fascism-or.html

[MARAB0D]

Economically and politically USA is Imperialism, the intermediate formation between Capitalism and Socialism. There is certainly no Fasciesm, as it suggests full national unity and a totalitarian system.

[acidhead]

'the merger of state and corporate powers is Fascism' --Benito Mussolini

--the author of the article tiptoes around calling a spade a spade... more spin for the bailouts and buyouts.

[acidhead]

Economically and politically USA is Imperialism, the intermediate formation between Capitalism and Socialism. There is certainly no Fasciesm, as it suggests full national unity and a totalitarian system.

-patience... the next bubble is coming.

[MARAB0D]

-patience... the next bubble is coming.

Fasciesm is impossible in the multicultural and multiethnic societies, at least all cases of Fasciesm we saw, were happening in monoethnic states - Italy, Spain, Portugal... Fasciesm is a political system, practically indifferent to the forms of property, society has and its economic system. The latter is its difference with Nazism, as this one is a nationalistic form of government for a Socialist state. Nazism is also impossible in USA. Ethnic diversity of USA actually resembles ethnic diversity of USSR, so if US completely changes economy to State Capitalism (aka "Socialism"), then one may rather fear some Soviet-type political system, than Fasciesm. EDIT: not in full though, as in USSR the minorities were living on their own historical lands and were blending mainly in Russia only, while in USA they are already blended. EU has more chances to become like USSR.

Edited October 26, 2009 by marabod

[+DieChecker]

Imperialism has nothing to do with Capitalism, Socialism or Communism. It is the process of trying to control your neighboring nations using military or political power.

The USA is clearly Socialist. There are no true Democracys or Communist states in existance. All are some form of socialism that ranges in between. The US lies to the right of the middle of socialism, and China is to the left, but both are tending toward the center now.

I'd rather live in a capitalist tending economy rather then a communist tending one. People under communist rules tend to only work hard enough to just get along, while those in capitalist societies tend to struggle and work to get ahead. It is the unfairness and struggle that breed the strength that drives people to work hard. The more entitlements there are the less hard people will feel they have to work.

[+DieChecker]

Fasciesm is impossible in the multicultural and multiethnic societies, at least all cases of Fasciesm we saw, were happening in monoethnic states - Italy, Spain, Portugal... Fasciesm is a political system, practically indifferent to the forms of property, society has and its economic system. The latter is its difference with Nazism, as this one is a nationalistic form of government for a Socialist state. Nazism is also impossible in USA. Ethnic diversity of USA actually resembles ethnic diversity of USSR, so if US completely changes economy to State Capitalism (aka "Socialism"), then one may rather fear some Soviet-type political system, than Fasciesm. EDIT: not in full though, as in USSR the minorities were living on their own historical lands and were blending mainly in Russia only, while in USA they are already blended. EU has more chances to become like USSR.

Believing something is impossible is the root of allowing that thing to happen. No one thought Hitler could do what he did. Germany was beat down and had submitted to the US and Briton after WW1. But, they came up fighting anyway didn't they? The power of National Fear is an unreasoningly super powerful monster. Just look at how many people are following Glenn Beck!! All he professes is Fear and Anger.

[MARAB0D]

Imperialism has nothing to do with Capitalism, Socialism or Communism. It is the process of trying to control your neighboring nations using military or political power.

The USA is clearly Socialist. There are no true Democracys or Communist states in existance. All are some form of socialism that ranges in between. The US lies to the right of the middle of socialism, and China is to the left, but both are tending toward the center now.

I'd rather live in a capitalist tending economy rather then a communist tending one. People under communist rules tend to only work hard enough to just get along, while those in capitalist societies tend to struggle and work to get ahead. It is the unfairness and struggle that breed the strength that drives people to work hard. The more entitlements there are the less hard people will feel they have to work.

I am not going to argue about this, as you sure were never reading Lenin's economical articles, but what Marxism calls "Imperialism" is a socio-economic formation of the latest stage of Capitalism. This term has nothing to do with politics, wars, relationships between the countries, but only with economy. It is called like that because during Imperialism the previously small capitalist businesses merge into large industrial Empires, monopolies, which control large parts of the market, which practically eliminates the main feature of Capitalism - competition. The features of Imperialism include developed social security, elements of planned economy, gradual increase of the role of the Government and the market losing its property to be "free". The late phase of Imperialism is State-Monopolistic Capitalism, in which the Government has considerable share in most of the banks and businesses, and because of it starts to plan their activities; USA at the moment is close to this phase to occur. The next anticipated stage od State-Monopolistic Capitalism is when the Government makes itself a 100% shareholder of the entire economy, and this is what USSR had in reality, just calling it "Socialism" for ideological purposes. They knew that Marxist "socialism" is technically impossible already in mid-1920s.

[acidhead]

Fasciesm is impossible in the multicultural and multiethnic societies, at least all cases of Fasciesm we saw, were happening in monoethnic states - Italy, Spain, Portugal... Fasciesm is a political system, practically indifferent to the forms of property, society has and its economic system. The latter is its difference with Nazism, as this one is a nationalistic form of government for a Socialist state. Nazism is also impossible in USA. Ethnic diversity of USA actually resembles ethnic diversity of USSR, so if US completely changes economy to State Capitalism (aka "Socialism"), then one may rather fear some Soviet-type political system, than Fasciesm. EDIT: not in full though, as in USSR the minorities were living on their own historical lands and were blending mainly in Russia only, while in USA they are already blended. EU has more chances to become like USSR.

interesting opinion Marabod... those years in mother-russia were quite the experience, eh?

As a side note... I know you realize the Mussolini quote was intended primarily for the bankster bailout scheme.

What happens next could give rise to a new name for the governing order... hey!!! I know a good one... how about the NWO...lol

[MARAB0D]

Believing something is impossible is the root of allowing that thing to happen. No one thought Hitler could do what he did. Germany was beat down and had submitted to the US and Briton after WW1. But, they came up fighting anyway didn't they? The power of National Fear is an unreasoningly super powerful monster. Just look at how many people are following Glenn Beck!! All he professes is Fear and Anger.

I was speaking about Economy and its phases of development, trying to explain position of marxist school. This scool does not operate with the terms like "fear", "beat down", "monster" as it is an exclusively an economic teaching, which derives the trends of political changes from the changes in the forms of property, dominating the economy.

Your post suggests to turn conversation into emotional discussion of goods and bads, so I cannot participate in it. In my view if you disagree with my statement that Fasciesm is impossible in a multiethnic society, you simply need to present a historical example when it existed in such society, as I am not interested in your emotional perception of the events.

[MARAB0D]

interesting opinion Marabod... those years in mother-russia were quite the experience, eh?

As a side note... I know you realize the Mussolini quote was intended primarily for the bankster bailout scheme.

What happens next could give rise to a new name for the governing order... hey!!! I know a good one... how about the NWO...lol

NWO is a specifically-American concept; I mean when someone talks about NWO it suggests a system in which US and allies dominate the world. NWO can be only achieved via WW3, so I do not think any country is capable to establishing it at the moment. What disturbed me a bit recently, as that Ahmad recently used the term NWO when addressing his Russian and Chinese counterpart, as this may mean those are also preparing to install NWO.

As for what would be specifically in US - I do not expect any rapid changes. Banks bailout is understandable - during Imperialism the ruling elite makes so-called Financial Oligarchy, the social group which controls the financial system. All US politicians of all parties must belong to or work for this Olygarchy, so when the banks collapse, their personal wealth collapses - hence they bail them out, but this increases government share in them, and objectively forces the government to plan their further operations.

I think the trend would be slowly progressing until USA becomes more or less like USSR. This can be accompanied by some social tensions, or not followed, depending on the actual circumstances. Both ruling parties may probably merge into one - or they may remain separate, again depends on circumstances, they are anyway doing the same when in power.

But as soon as I was watching the "socialism" in a real-time mode, I can assure you that there is no such thing from economic point of view. All the economic laws, working within USSR were absolutely the same as in any Capitalist society - so the feasibilities and business plans I am occasionally doing now are not anyhow different from those I was making in the "socislist" system, they are the same. USSR economy was using money and targeting profits - this alone tells the lot. US would become the same government controlled economy, maybe naturally and without social cataclysms - USSR was enforcing it too early, therefore the revolution was needed... In short we won't die!

[acidhead]

NWO is a specifically-American concept; I mean when someone talks about NWO it suggests a system in which US and allies dominate the world. NWO can be only achieved via WW3, so I do not think any country is capable to establishing it at the moment. What disturbed me a bit recently, as that Ahmad recently used the term NWO when addressing his Russian and Chinese counterpart, as this may mean those are also preparing to install NWO.

As for what would be specifically in US - I do not expect any rapid changes. Banks bailout is understandable - during Imperialism the ruling elite makes so-called Financial Oligarchy, the social group which controls the financial system. All US politicians of all parties must belong to or work for this Olygarchy, so when the banks collapse, their personal wealth collapses - hence they bail them out, but this increases government share in them, and objectively forces the government to plan their further operations.

I think the trend would be slowly progressing until USA becomes more or less like USSR. This can be accompanied by some social tensions, or not followed, depending on the actual circumstances. Both ruling parties may probably merge into one - or they may remain separate, again depends on circumstances, they are anyway doing the same when in power.

But as soon as I was watching the "socialism" in a real-time mode, I can assure you that there is no such thing from economic point of view. All the economic laws, working within USSR were absolutely the same as in any Capitalist society - so the feasibilities and business plans I am occasionally doing now are not anyhow different from those I was making in the "socislist" system, they are the same. USSR economy was using money and targeting profits - this alone tells the lot. US would become the same government controlled economy, maybe naturally and without social cataclysms - USSR was enforcing it too early, therefore the revolution was needed... In short we won't die!

-more interesting points!... you've got me smiling today!... bravo!

just curious...

In your first paragraph...

What disturbed me a bit recently, as that Ahmad recently used the term NWO when addressing his Russian and Chinese counterpart, as this may mean those are also preparing to install NWO.

Are talking about Iran's Ahmadinejad? where can I find this article?

As you know I've had a suspicious feeling about Iran, China and russia becoming the asian union - in a global governance take over through the U,N.'s Copenhagen Treaty.

BTW, what you opinion on the copenhagen treaty/conference?.... Do you think Iran and Venezuela will sign it?

Edited October 26, 2009 by acidhead

[MARAB0D]

Are talking about Iran's Ahmadinejad? where can I find this article?

As you know I've had a suspicious feeling about Iran, China and russia becoming the asian union - in a global governance take over through the U,N.'s Copenhagen Treaty.

BTW, what you opinion on the copenhagen treaty/conference?.... Do you think Iran and Venezuela will sign it?

yes, there is a thread here about this meeting in yekaterinburg, I think this was during Iranian electoral riot... Ahmad left amid the shooting and flew to Urals, just to say this about NWO...

I do not know much about this Copenhagen. You can see, AGW is just a smoke screen; they talk about something else there, as there is no such thing as "stupid politician". They negotiate some tributes or ransoms the countries pay to each other - and some probably refuse to pay. When one country pays tribut to other country, they cannot call it "tribute", as they need to specify the budget article for transaction send/receive, they probably use this AGW as such. I do not take the things from politics at face value, as they have to use euphemisms of all sorts. So its hard to predict who signs it up from developing countries - depends on how good their defenses are

[danielost]

well in the final war. it is supposed to be the dragon east, the bear north and the lion south vs isreal who would be defended from the west. europe is too weak and (sorry) wimpy to stop anyone. except britian who will back the only power who can stand against the dragon and the bear. the lion isn't that big of a threat.

the lion has always been thought to be egypt, who has been rather quiet as far as isreal is concerned for a while.

[acidhead]

yes, there is a thread here about this meeting in yekaterinburg, I think this was during Iranian electoral riot... Ahmad left amid the shooting and flew to Urals, just to say this about NWO...

I do not know much about this Copenhagen. You can see, AGW is just a smoke screen; they talk about something else there, as there is no such thing as "stupid politician". They negotiate some tributes or ransoms the countries pay to each other - and some probably refuse to pay. When one country pays tribut to other country, they cannot call it "tribute", as they need to specify the budget article for transaction send/receive, they probably use this AGW as such. I do not take the things from politics at face value, as they have to use euphemisms of all sorts. So its hard to predict who signs it up from developing countries - depends on how good their defenses are

tribute -I like your useage of the word.. it fits perfectly for a transparent payoff.

Edited October 27, 2009 by acidhead

[MARAB0D]

tribute -I like your useage of the word.. it fits perfectly for a transparent payoff.

LOL - we are certainly kept away from the transactions details, but I read once that Russia actually SELLS her unused emission quotes to those who emit more. Given that Russia is one of 5 WW2 winners and UN founders, I can suggest that the other 4 probably do the same At least within the frames of Kyoto protocol - this one is dead now (the vassals refuse to pay?), so instead Copenhagen protocol is intended to persuade them somehow, or to drop the "protection fee" to a reasonable level. No wonder UK is ahead of the train whistle, as physically speaking it is probably the weakest of the group of 5,

[preacherman76]

well in the final war. it is supposed to be the dragon east, the bear north and the lion south vs isreal who would be defended from the west. europe is too weak and (sorry) wimpy to stop anyone. except britian who will back the only power who can stand against the dragon and the bear. the lion isn't that big of a threat.

the lion has always been thought to be egypt, who has been rather quiet as far as isreal is concerned for a while.

If you are talking about biblical prophecy, Israel wont be defended by anyone. It says the whole world is gathered together against her. Its says that if not for the intervention of God directly, all of Israel would fall.