Spavined, I take exception to your implication in the OP that Monty2 is carbon-based.
Cite?
It ain’t worth it.
Let me jump in here and explain what Mr_2001 is trying to say.
One difference between Communism and Fascism is that under Communism, the means of production are owned by the state, with the state controlling all operations, collecting all ‘profit’, and then distributing it to the people as it sees fit.
Under Fascism, the means of production stay in private hands, but *control over that production is exercised by the state. Naziism is perhaps not the right example, because of the exteme psychosis of the leader and the distorting effects it had. A better example would be Fascism in Italy. Strict regulatory control over industry, industrial ‘planning’, etc.
The argument has been made by many that the modern regulatory state does not bear much resemblance to Communism, but it bears more resemblance to fascism. Corporations are privately owned, but increasing amounts of control are exerted on them by the state.
Note that this is only a ‘Democrat’ issue in the sense that the Democrats have been traditionally seen as favoring more regulatory control over business, and Republicans have staked out the ‘less regulation’ side. And this argument was really formed in the 70’s and 80’s, where there WAS a move towards nationwide industrial policies. Government was increasingly trying to direct the course of industry through tariffs, tax breaks, and outright regulation. Dairy policy, for example, was a governmental attempt to shape dairy industry in a way other than what the market wanted. There were plenty of other examples of this kind of government strong-arming of the market not to correct market failure, but to ‘guide’ the market in more ‘appropriate’ or ‘efficient’ directions. That certainly is a fascistic thing to do.
But in the last fifteen years or so, we free marketers have been winning the day. A few spectacular failures of government industrial policy helped, like the silicon valley chip consortium, Amtrak, and the like. Today, there is still a lot of manipulation of the marketplace, but it seems to me to be coming more from politicians buying the votes and campaign funds of special interests, and less a directed, widespread government ‘plan’.
And both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of the latter kind of industrial manipulation.
Oh, now you’ve gone an spoiled it, Muffin.
C’mon monty2, jig’s up. Might as well admit you’re really a tax-and-spend, pinko liberal, who was just trying to make Republicans look bad.
And you plan would have worked, too, if it hadn’t been for those darn Doper kids.
Sam, with all due respect, if you really believe that’s what monty here was trying to say, you’re hopelessly naive. You are quite capable of explaining yourself and providing reasoned (if wrong ;)) arguments to back yourself up. monty2_2001, however, is nothing like that. He apparently has neither the knowledge base nor the intellectual capacity to do so.
He reminds me in a certain way of a man I once met. A friend and I were travelling in India, and on our way from Delhi to Calcutta, we stopped in the old Moghul capital Agra to visit that stunning architectural masterpiece, the Taj Mahal. While we were in Agra, religious unrest broke out over the infamous mosque in Ayodhya. (This was not the occasion on which it was destroyed, but somewhat earlier. I expect it didn’t make many headlines in the west due to the world being a tad preoccupied with the progress of Operation Desert Shield at the time.) As Agra is home to a non-trivial Muslem minority, it was placed under curfew, and we were stuck sitting around our hotel with nothing to do. We were discussing the situation with a rickshaw driver we had hired the previous day, and he proclaimed confidently that he would explain the situation to us. Interested in hearing the opinion of a local, we encouraged him to do so. He said, “Hindu good. Muslem bad.” This, he asserted, was the root of every problem in India. Never mind that it was Hindu fundamentalists who were rioting in Ayodhya, the Muslems were the source of the problem. And the Sikhs? They’re Muslem too, hence the difficulties in that area. So he said. Having some knowledge of world religions, we tried to explain that Sikhism has practically nothing in common with Islam, and rather more with Hinduism, but he would have none of it.
monty2_2001 reminds me of that rickshaw driver, though truthfully the comparison is unfair to the rickshaw driver - his ignorance was understandable to a large extent. monty2_2001 does not have the excuse of having grown up with very little access to education.
Curiously, I agree with most of your post Sam Stone: however, your final line does not fit on “what monty2_2001 is trying to say”
My only disagreement is that bit of the government “strong-arming of the market not to correct market failure, but to ‘guide’ the market in more ‘appropriate’ or ‘efficient’ directions. That certainly is a fascistic thing to do.”
Sorry, but AFAICR the German industrialists position was a hard one before the nazi takeover: In Germany, the communists were becoming a big force in the elections, the industrialists embraced Hitler as the lesser of the evils, why wring that up?
Because the capitalists were in the end in cahoots with the government and not against it, if you still see a fascist action on the government controlling markets, your position is failing to take into account that the government (as pictured by the democrats in your view) will be AGAINST the big cats, IMHO this is also what separation of powers is all about, since the big cats of today would be against the government (and they are the ones controlling the media) everybody is constantly in their toes (like during the Clinton administration), call me a sadist, but a situation like that leads to change (overall, not bad) and not stagnation.
Right now, I see the current administration giving the American industrialists what they want; overall, I see them now laughing all the way to the banks…… overseas.
I don’t really have much to contribute to the discussion other than noting the similarity between that and “Four legs good! Two legs baaaad!”
Yowza. I hope you meant monty2_2001!
Sam, the poster in question conflated both modern American liberalism and socialism with Nazism. Whatever Nazism was, it was not socialist nor liberal by any means.
I’m not sure I agree with your characterization of fascism. You only point out one difference between fascism and communism while neglecting to mention many other differences (here’s two: fascism allows for private property ownership and does not require agricultural collectivization). In the case of Nazi Germany, at least some measure of regulation was due in part to the Nazi party’s need for rapid rearmament. In any type of war situation, an economy is going to take on some element of planning, but this does not mean that the basic underlying economic model is that of a purely planned economy. I suspect very much that the fascist economies would have devolved into crony-capitalist economies had the war-footing not been necessary. We’ll never know though, but to compare a war economy such as Germany or Italy with the current non-war US economy is not useful, IMO.
I think we also need to look at the purpose of the modern regulatory state, at least in the American sense. Currently, our regulations are designed to protect a number of different market players (large businesses, small business, individual workers, unions, consumers, etc). So, we have a mish-mash of regulations serving a number of conflicting ideologies. However, this is clearly not the same as fascist market regulation, which was designed to further one specific ideology: fascism. It’s not enough to say that both systems have regulation, and that makes them somehow equal. We need to look deeper at the purpose of the regulations and how they are used.
OH! OH! I know what socialized medicine is, Poly
Socialized medicine is when health care costs spiral out of sight, and unelected beauracrats make all our health care decisions for us.
Actually, I’m working off the theory that monty2 is living proof of the dangers of conservative talk radio.
Oops. Sorry, Mr2001.
BrightNShiny: Sure, there are other differences. I was specifically talking about the specific difference that causes some people to characterize moden statism as closer to fascism than communism. That doesn’t mean it IS fascist - just that it bears a closer relationship to it than it does to communism.
On the other hand, government movements to nationalize railroads, power plants, communication outlets and other infrastructure are closer to communism than fascism. Still far, far away from it, mind you.
Ahem.
As a Republican, I take exception to being grouped together with whatisname.
I can’t help but notice that Sam Stone somehow manages not to be “pitted for being a conservative.” Maybe Sam’s not a true conservative? 
Or maybe it’s just that he can string thoughts and facts together in sensible order and explain concept.
You sure sound like a flaming leftwinger so far… You might want to consider switching parties to match your liberalism.
Simon, et alia:
For the love of Cecil, would you please stop feeding the guy?
On a relative basis, that is. Sam gets whacked for quite a few things, but not for “being a conservative” as such, even if he sometimes says so.
I’d like to know how Monty can get away with calling someone a “jackass” in GD. Are the mods on vacation?
Look at the title of this thread, for me expressing my opinions. What else do you expect?
I expect you’re a sad little net troll who’s busily jerking off as you see all of us paying attention to you.
Real mature… This crowd is so civilized…