News Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg: A Comparative Analysis

[WheelsRCool]

Who are the historians who agree that liberalism is fascism?

Well what the term "liberalism" today applies to is not the same as what the term classical liberalism applied to. But look at the Democrats today; some want nationalization of the oil industry, nationalization of healthcare, etc...or large government regulation. The Republicans, albeit being big-spenders, have in general been against this. Jimmy Carter started up a multitude of government agencies. I would suggest reading the books by Milton Friedman, also check the books by Ludwig Mises for better understanding. Also the ones I listed above.

Mussolini was also favored by the land owners and capitalists:

Yes, many businesspeople and middle-class folks did see Mussolini as a savior. Fascism sounded great. But in practice, it worked horribly. I do not understand where that article makes the claim that Mussolini gave "free-rein" to businesses, when multiple other sources say the exact opposite.

But also, look at nations today that allow the free-market to work as a free-market. They are the most prosperous in the world. It wouldn't have made sense for this not to occur in Italy if he did this also.

In fascism, unions are curtialed, like they are in capitalism and were in Reaganism as well.

Well that link also states the following:

"In 1927 he drew up a labor charter that promised workers new rights as well as new responsibilities to the state. Though the Fascist state outlawed strikes, it recognized the right of its official trade unions to bargain collectively and it barred employer lockouts."

So I think it depended on the fascism. I would imagine Mussolini and Hitler viewed it that the State itself would play the role of the unions, looking out for workers.

I will check all the sources you recommend, as the truth is one or the other, or somewhere in-between.

I find some the things you say about fascism very interesting with regards Hitler and Mussolini, because there are multiple books saying the exact opposite, and I doubt either view's authors all just made the stuff up off the top of their head.

 

[BWV]

Wheels 'R' cool and BMV are taking Hitler's propaganda and anti-jewish nonsense and propaganda at face value, which is pretty bad.

So incapable of addressing any of the points made, or for that matter maintaining any sort of rational discussion, you resort to trying to slur me with "taking Hitler's anti-Jewish nonsense at face value"? Where, other than in your pathetic attempt to paint us as Nazis, did the subject of Hitler's anti-semitism come up? (of course anti-capitalism is the stock & trade of the anti-semite, what with global Jewish banking conspiracies and whatnot). Von Mises himself (who I quoted, not Wheels 'R' cool) was an Austrian Jew himself, so spare me your idiotic Nazi-baiting tactics which are a simple a transparant and feeble attempt to cover your mindless sloganeering here

 

[WheelsRCool]

From everything I've read, I would have to say Parenti is wrong. The minimum wages were not undone, nor was regulation. And there is no such thing as a "worker controlled factory," at least in the socialist sense. That is the utopian ideal of the fascists, communists, etc...a factory is either privately-owned by a few owners, or publicly-owned by shareholders. However, certain companies allow workers to own stock in the company, in which case, those companies are literally "owned by the workers" in a sense.

 

[WheelsRCool]

These are Hitler's private conversations and assurances to big business; that's why they're published in books such as "Hitler's Table Talk" and in letters to the leader's of industry.

Wheels 'R' cool and BMV are taking Hitler's propaganda and anti-jewish nonsense and propaganda at face value, which is pretty bad.

Hitler may well have said those things to Big Business, what I am talking about is the actual outcome. When you for the most part de-regulate a market economy, it prospers. Yes, it occasionally needs a few tweaks here and there, but otherwise, it always prospers, as long as the financial system is sound and the rule of law pervades (many Third World nations lack the rule of law or a sound financial system, so capitalism tends to fail in them).

When you heavily regulate business, monopolies and oligopolies form. We have empirical proof for all of this, from different countries, to different industries in the U.S. itself.

As for my name, "WheelsRCool," well it was formed at a car forum, Mr. "OrbitalPower" :)

 

[OrbitalPower]

First of all, I already did address the points.

I provided sources and quotes from political scientists noting Hitler's privatization practices. Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany is a peer-reviewed study, citing dozens of other peer-reviewed studies and books, on Nazi Privatization that is summed up in that Parenti quote about.

Second, his mainstream propaganda was indeed anti-Jewish, and he viewed Marxism and democracy as "Jewish conpsiracies."

I'm not the one buying into Nazi propaganda here, as Russ claims, nor am I the one quoting Von Mises.org blogs and junk scholarship like Hayek who advocated his own version of fascism.

Believing Hitler actually stood for equality, democracy, and socialism, all about the same thing, is akin to believing Bush is fighting for "democracy" in Iraq. Some people are more suspectible to propaganda than others.

And this insinuation that Hitler's public propaganda is to be believed is what's ridiculous. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes:

In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nsdap.html

Hitler viewed socialism and liberalism as "Jewish conspiracies" and clearly used "socialism" to get a modest amount of support that was needed for him to gain power.

Hitler used propaganda because he saw that it was impossible to gain power by a radical, right-wing revolution:

"If out-voting them takes longer than out-shooting them, at least the result would be guaranteed by their own constitution...Any lawful process is slow...Sooner or later we shall have a majority — and after that, Germany." (Bullock 130)

The Nazi Party 25 point plank was never implemented (Grunfeld, Frederic V. The Hitler File: A Social History of Germany and the Nazis, 112), so to insinuate they were is more von Mises junk scholarship.

Hitler's meaning of the word "socialism" was about nationalism, not worker control: "Hitler's meaning of socialism, therefore did not refer to a specific economic system, but to an instinct for national self-preservation..." Fischer, Klaus P. Nazi Germany: A New History. New York: Continuum, 1995.

This means their use of the term was entirely opposed to the Marxian concept.

Please check out some real sources instead of (1) Hitler propaganda, and (2) a von Mises blog, the Austrians being so crazy even economists can see it.

 

[OrbitalPower]

From everything I've read, I would have to say Parenti is wrong. The minimum wages were not undone, nor was regulation

Parenti is correct here. MSN Encarta, the peer-reviewed study, and so on, all say the same thing.

The only thing you're able to provide is a time magazine article and a bunch of quotes you've obviously lifted from a von Mises blog.

This is like your incident in the gun thread where you lifted quotes from the founders that obviously contained a few manufactured quotes.

Please provide some sources, with page numbers, as I've done above, backing up your arguments. And by sources I do not mean Mises "Human Action" or Hayek's "Road to Serfdom," or a Time Magazine article floating around.

 

[WheelsRCool]

First of all, I already did address the points.

I provided sources and quotes from political scientists noting Hitler's privatization practices. Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany is a peer-reviewed study, citing dozens of other peer-reviewed studies and books, on Nazi Privatization that is summed up in that Parenti quote about.

Privatization doesn't make it capitalist. Privatization is simply one element required for capitalism.

Second, his mainstream propaganda was indeed anti-Jewish, and he viewed Marxism and democracy as "Jewish conpsiracies."

Yes, capitalism too. The Jews were who owned many of the businesses in Germany at the time. This conspiracy still prevails, with people claiming that the Jews secretly "rule the world."

I'm not the one buying into Nazi propaganda here, as Russ claims, nor am I the one quoting Von Mises.org blogs and junk scholarship like Hayek who advocated his own version of fascism.

Hayek won the Nobel Prize in economics. He is hardly a "junk scholar."

Believing Hitler actually stood for equality, democracy, and socialism, all about the same thing, is akin to believing Bush is fighting for "democracy" in Iraq. Some people are more suspectible to propaganda than others.

Hitler never stood for democracy, or socialism. He did not like inequality in classes though.

And this insinuation that Hitler's public propaganda is to be believed is what's ridiculous. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes:



http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nsdap.html

Hitler viewed socialism and liberalism as "Jewish conspiracies" and clearly used "socialism" to get a modest amount of support that was needed for him to gain power.

He disdained both capitalism and socialism.

Hitler used propaganda because he saw that it was impossible to gain power by a radical, right-wing revolution:

"If out-voting them takes longer than out-shooting them, at least the result would be guaranteed by their own constitution...Any lawful process is slow...Sooner or later we shall have a majority — and after that, Germany." (Bullock 130)

Yes, Hitler craved power. In order to gain power, one must oftentimes create a scapegoat, which Hitler used the Jews for.

BTW, you just quoted from one of the same authors as me in a previous post.

the Austrians being so crazy even economists can see it.

The economics profession, when Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom," thought he was crazy. He later won the Nobel Prize in it, as I said. Austrians aren't considered crazy by any means. One cannot deny that big government regulation causes monopolies and oligopolies in industries, and that limited government and free-market capitalism creates great prosperity.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Privatization does make an economy policy capitalist. Privatization means allowing resources to be controlled by corporations who make a profit off of other people's labor.

Capitalism means to make "capital" off of someone else's labor. They are the same thing.

Yes, capitalism can exist under fascism, as it did in Nazi Germany, or it can exist under social democracies, but the overall concepts behind it: acception of inequality, anti-democracy, pro-nation state, and so on, are closer to fascism than to socialism or democracy.

The only thing the Bullock quote shows is that indeed, Hitler supported privitaization. Bullock was a biographer of Hitler, however; he wasn't really trianed to making a political science analysis, which is why he mostly refrained from making them.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Parenti is correct here. MSN Encarta, the peer-reviewed study, and so on, all say the same thing.

Just because it is peer-reviewed does not make it correct.

The only thing you're able to provide is a time magazine article and a bunch of quotes you've obviously lifted from a von Mises blog.

What I have provided are quotes from a variety of book on the subject, one of the authors you yourself just used.

This is like your incident in the gun thread where you lifted quotes from the founders that obviously contained a few manufactured quotes.

Those gun quotes were not manufactured at all. Much was made of them in the Heller Amicus Curiae briefs. You can also find them through Googling.

Please provide some sources, with page numbers, as I've done above, backing up your arguments. And by sources I do not mean Mises "Human Action" or Hayek's "Road to Serfdom," or a Time Magazine article floating around.

Go back and read my previous posts.

 

[OrbitalPower]

As for Hayek, it does not matter he won a Nobel Prize in economics. Economics does not qualify someone to be making any kind of historical or political science analysis, as these social studies are based on classifications, sorting out primary sources, and so on, whereas economics is mostly concerned with profit analysis etc.

Furthermore, the Austrian school is indeed universally rejected, regardless of whether Friedman or Hayek won Nobel Prizes or not.

"I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." --Paul Samuelson, quoted on wiki.

The problem with Austrians is that, like Hitler, and unlike other economists, they expected you to believe their assumptions, guesstimates, and "self-proving axioms" at face value, even though other social sciences like archeology oppose them.

In any case, they are not historical sources on the Third Reich.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Just because it is peer-reviewed does not make it correct.

The Parenti article was a summation that was relevant because it summed up a peer-reviewed article I was talking about nicely, his comments were not likely peer-reviewed. However, at least he actually has trained in political science.

Those gun quotes were not manufactured at all. Much was made of them in the Heller Amicus Curiae briefs. You can also find them through Googling.

One of the "quotes" was from Alexander Hamilton, supposedly in the Federalist, supporting gun ownership. The quote you provided does not exist.

If it does, please show where it exists in the Federalist.

Go back and read my previous posts.

They are dubious because they do not back up your overall arguments at all that liberalism is fascism, and so on.

If anything the Bullock quote supports my position.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Privatization does make an economy policy capitalist. Privatization means allowing resources to be controlled by corporations who make a profit off of other people's labor.

That alone isn't capitalist.

Capitalism means to make "capital" off of someone else's labor. They are the same thing.

There are different definitions of it, just as there are different definitions for a "capitalist." A capitalist can be someone who supports the system of free-market capitalism, or simply someone in control of a large amount of capital.

Yes, capitalism can exist under fascism, as it did in Nazi Germany, or it can exist under social democracies, but the overall concepts behind it: acception of inequality, anti-democracy, pro-nation state, and so on, are closer to fascism than to socialism or democracy.

That's impossible. Capitalism can only exist when the price system is allowed to naturally fluctuate, something that was not permitted in Italy or Germany at the time, making it ultimately a form of socialism.

And capitalism has never been about inequality or anti-democracy or pro-nation state. First of all, how do you define "inequality" or "equaliy?" Are you talking about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Because in a capitalist system, everyone, for the most part, starts off equally. yes, someone born into a good neighborhood has more benefits than someone born into a ghetto, but overall, they all have an equal opportunity to rise up.

Equality of outcome seeks for an equal outcome, which often means discrimination against the more successful people to make the less success people equal with them.

So be careful how you define terms like equality. Like "social justice," it can mean entirely different things to different people.

The only thing the Bullock quote shows is that indeed, Hitler supported privitaization. Bullock was a biographer of Hitler, however; he wasn't really trianed to making a political science analysis, which is why he mostly refrained from making them.

Political science, history, economics, etc...they all intertwine. One cannot write about one without making inroads somewhat into the others.

 

[BWV]

So here is more on Nazi motivation for controlling the private sector:

Nazi policy was heavily dependent on Hitler decisions. Hitler’s did not make specific
comments on nationalization or denationalization in Mein Kampf. Even if Hitler was an enemy of
free market economies (Overy ,1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer of
economic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642). The Nazi regime
rejected liberalism, and was strongly against free competition and regulation of the economy by
market mechanisms (Barkai, 1990, p. 10). Still, as a social Darwinist, Hitler was reluctant to totally
dispense with private property and competition (Turner, 1985a, p. 71; Hayes, 1987, p. 71). Hitler’s
solution was to combine autonomy and a large role for private initiative and ownership rights
within firms with the total subjection of property rights outside the firm to state control. As
pointed out in Nathan (1944a, p. 5) “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the
framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided
profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur
was narrowly circumscribed.” In other words, there was private initiative in production process,
34 According to Stolper (1940, p. 231), “this program has remained the spiritual foundation of the movement. It is
being taught in every school, referred to in all training courses of all the various units of the party. It constitutes,
together with Mein Kampf by Hitler, the directing force of the intellectual concept and trend of the party”
15
but no private initiative was allowed in the distribution of the product. Owners could freely act
within their firms, but they were extremely restricted in the market.
Given this combination of private ownership within firm and extreme state control outside the
firm, the core question here is whether Hitler was against public property or ideologically
favorable to privatization. On this issue, it is interesting to note two interviews in May and June
1931, in which Hitler explained to Richard Breiting, editor of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, his
aims and his plans on condition of confidentiality (Calic, 1971, p. 11). With respect to his position
with regard to private ownership, Hitler explained that “I want everyone to keep what he has
earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the
individual. But the state should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of
the State….The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.” (Calic, 1971,
p. 32-33). Another indication of Hitler’s position on the state ownership of the means of
production is found in Rauschning 35 (1940, pp. 192-3), that reports the following answer by Hitler
when questioned on socialization: “Why bother with such half-measures when I have far more
important matters in hand, such as the people themselves?. . .Why need we trouble to socialize
banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
It seems clear that neither the Nazi Party nor Hitler had an ideological devotion to private
ownership. 36 In his theoretical work on the relationship between politicians and firms, Shleifer and
Vishny (1994, p. 1,015) have stressed that anti-market governments are compatible with
privatization, as long as they can retain control over the firms through strong regulation. Nazi
privatization in the middle thirties is consistent with Shleifer and Vishny’s proposition 15 (1994, p.
1,021). As suggested in Temin (1991), property ownership was instrumental for Nazis. Hence, it is
not likely that ideological motivations played a relevant role as a rationale for Nazi privatization.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID895247_code373322.pdf?abstractid=895247&mirid=1

 

[OrbitalPower]

Again, you're making "Austrian like" assumptions that the true "price system" can only exist under your form of hierarchical capitalism, even though it exists under all forms of capitalism. And socialism has nothing to do with any price system; no socialist system is built on controlling a price system, but is a different way to control resources.

I suggest you study some of the social science that is antrhopology and realize humans existed far longer without a "price system" than with it.

This ridiculous political line that "my capitalism is the only thing that exists, and everybody else is a socialist" has no merit and is clearly devoid of any intellectual or rational analysis.

 

[BWV]

That alone isn't capitalist.


That's impossible. Capitalism can only exist when the price system is allowed to naturally fluctuate, something that was not permitted in Italy or Germany at the time, making it ultimately a form of socialism.

And, if I may add, the Roosevelt administration attempted to assert government control over the price system with the National Recovery Administration but was thwarted by the supreme court in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US

 

[OrbitalPower]

LOL. Did you even read the study?

"Even if Hitler was an enemy of
free market economies (Overy ,1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer ofeconomic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642)."

That study is REJECTING your own von Mises arguments, which is that they were socialist, what that von Mises idiot claimed.

It was a totalitarian system of government control within the
framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management.

If you guys are going to make my arguments for me, I guess I can take a break.


Furthermore, reading the PDF, we have:

It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).1

Which supports Parenti's argument.

We also have this interesting tidbit:

"The Nazi government may have used privatization as a tool to improve its relationship with big industrialists and to increase their support for Nazi policies. Privatization was also likely used to enhance more general political support to Nazi party. Finally, financial motivations did play a central role in Nazi privatization. The proceeds from privatization in 1934-37 had relevant fiscal significance: Not less than 1.37 per cent of total fiscal revenues were obtained from selling shares in public firms. Moreover, the government avoided including a huge expenditure in the budget by using outside-of-the-budget tools to finance the public services franchised to Nazi organizations."

Which supports the Jewish Virtual Library entry.


Further studies by economists actually show the Nazi regime had less social spending than that of the US.

All of this supports my conclusion that they allowed mostly a free-enterprise system with minor regulations here and there, as has existed under all capitalist systems.

 

[OrbitalPower]

And, if I may add, the Roosevelt administration attempted to assert government control over the price system with the National Recovery Administration but was thwarted by the supreme court in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US

Which proves absolutely nothing. Hong Kong has implemented price control like schemes and all corporations owe and alligence to the government, and the government regularly intervenes in order to keep prices as high as the cartels want them, and yet, they are regularly regarded as one of the "freest economies" according to the CATO institute.

That does not prove that Roosevelt was basing his policies off of Nazism, especially when Reagan's "corporatism" is a hell of a lot closer to Nazism anyway.

 

[WheelsRCool]

The Hamilton quote is at 184-188.

 

[BWV]

LOL. Did you even read the study?

"Even if Hitler was an enemy of
free market economies (Overy ,1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer ofeconomic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642)."

That study is REJECTING your own von Mises arguments, which is that they were socialist, what that von Mises idiot claimed.

It was a totalitarian system of government control within the
framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management.



All of this supports my conclusion that they allowed mostly a free-enterprise system with minor regulations here and there, as has existed under all capitalist systems.

No if you read the study it discussed that Privatization was able to raise substantial sums for the government and given the high level of state control over the economy, there was no dimunitition of government power. There is no inconsistency with the Mises article as it made exactly the same statement as to the state control of prices, which I post again here:

The difference between the systems (Naziism and communism) , wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

However you read it, Mises is saying the same thing as the Germà Bel article on SSRN. Mises states explicity that Nazism "maintains private ownership of the means of production" but controls the economy through the same mechanisms listed in the Bel paper.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Again, you're making "Austrian like" assumptions that the true "price system" can only exist under your form of hierarchical capitalism, even though it exists under all forms of capitalism. And socialism has nothing to do with any price system; no socialist system is built on controlling a price system, but is a different way to control resources.

You are showing a severe lack of understanding of basic economics here. Saying that the price system must regulate resources by itself is not some radical Austrian theory. It is a proven fact. Prices are how information is communicated throughout an economy, socialist or capitalist. But in a capitalist economy, the price system fluctuates itself. In a socialist economy, the price system is centrally controlled, because the central government rations resources.

This is impossible to do. When one price changes, million of other prices must change accordingly. For a central government, that task is impossible. With a capitalist system, the prices fluctuate naturally.

This ridiculous political line that "my capitalism is the only thing that exists, and everybody else is a socialist" has no merit and is clearly devoid of any intellectual or rational analysis.

If the government controls the price system, and thus rations resources, it is a variant of socialism. That is a proven fact. And the government is horrible at rationing resources.

I also do not get how you can consider capitalism "hierichical." Capitalism only has hierachy in individual businesses, but not the economy as a whole. One can work hard and rise up. There is no glass ceiling, like with socialism.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Which proves absolutely nothing. Hong Kong has implemented price control like schemes and all corporations owe and alligence to the government, and the government regularly intervenes in order to keep prices as high as the cartels want them, and yet, they are regularly regarded as one of the "freest economies" according to the CATO institute.

Hong Kong's free-market economy has been damaged and hampered by the Chinese government. And you cannot artificially raise prices without causing a surplus of the product. As for cartels, cartels cannot form unless you have extensive government regulation.

The railroads formed a cartel after the Interstate Commerce Commission was created. The meat-packing industry formed a cartel after the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug act. The cigarette industry got themselves a cartel with the legislation increasing regulation and taxes on them. The drug industry has a cartel thanks to the FDA, etc...

That does not prove that Roosevelt was basing his policies off of Nazism, especially when Reagan's "corporatism" is a hell of a lot closer to Nazism anyway.

Reagan was about as far from Nazism as one could get, as Reagan was completely opposed to price controls, wage controls, infringing on free trade, etc...

 

[OrbitalPower]

The Hamilton quote is at 184-188.

There are different publishers of the "Federalist Papers." 184-188 is meaningless, and why would a quote take five pages to cover? What is he doing, taking a word from each page and meshing it together? The Federalist Papers are online so show me where it is there.

You two are absolutely hilarious.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The article doesn't support the conclusions of the von Mises homepage. First of all, von Mises says that socialism is Nazism; the article disagrees in the abstract.

Second, it says that Nazism operated under the framework of privatization. This is not at all what you two were claiming earlier, so the article doesn't support your conclusions. Nowhere in the article does it say a substantial portion of a majority of corporations' profits were transferred to the Nazi government; and the Nazi government had less social spending than the US.

The Nazis did not stand for "price controls"; they stood for protected private property at the barrell of a gun (anybody who questioned it was sent to a concentration camp), they stood for imperailism, they stood for war mongering, prejudice, and racism, and favortism to the rich.

Again, from my reading, this is closer to Reaganism than an FDR, who was the opposite of corporatism, rich favortism, and so on.

 

[WheelsRCool]

There are different publishers of the "Federalist Papers." 184-188 is meaningless, and why would a quote take five pages to cover? What is he doing, taking a word from each page and meshing it together? The Federalist Papers are online so show me where it is there.

I highly doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would use a fake quote in their analysis. That is the page number (s) listed if you Google the quote. However, the Federalist papers can be read online, so one can check them as well.

 

[OrbitalPower]

You are showing a severe lack of understanding of basic economics here. Saying that the price system must regulate resources by itself is not some radical Austrian theory. It is a proven fact.

LOL. This has to be one of the funniest claims in here, as economics can't prove anything. History has proven that the greatest progress has come when many resources were controlled by the government, or had a government hand helping along the market.

It's ridiculous to assert that one's own rules are just "the way things ought to be," with, of course, no evidence, and that this system is the most free, even though the problems with capitalism are well known and there are people in poverty around the world now than ever, with capitalism having supposedly "won out."

 

[WheelsRCool]

Second, it says that Nazism operated under the framework of privatization. This is not at all what you two were claiming earlier, so the article doesn't support your conclusions.

Since when did I ever claim Nazism didn't operate with privatization? That is the primary reason it was despised by the Marxists.

Nowhere in the article does it say a substantial portion of a majority of corporations' profits were transferred to the Nazi government; and the Nazi government had less social spending than the US.

The Nazis did not stand for "price controls"; they stood for protected private property at the barrell of a gun (anybody who questioned it was sent to a concentration camp), they stood for imperailism, they stood for war mongering, prejudice, and racism, and favortism to the rich.

They stood for price controls; it was a modified version of socialism. Favoratism to the rich requires socialist, big government policies. Capitalism is hostile to the rich, because their businesses are subject to competition, which can fail. It isn't like socialism, where once the rich control an industry, it is permanent.

Again, from my reading, this is closer to Reaganism than an FDR, who was the opposite of corporatism, rich favortism, and so on.

I would say you are right in that FDR was, as a person, for the little guy. He was no favorer of the rich. But the symptoms of his policies cause favoratism to the rich because they allow big business to take over markets.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would use a fake quote in their analysis. That is the page number (s) listed if you Google the quote. However, the Federalist papers can be read online, so one can check them as well.

It's possible they either made a mistake, or a conservative is lying they ever said it. That's around "Federalist 29," which makes absolutely no sense because it's about regulating the militas.

If it truly exists, it should be easy enough to find the quote online, in an online copy, such as here:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

 

[OrbitalPower]

Favoratism to the rich requires socialist, big government policies. Capitalism is hostile to the rich, because their businesses are subject to competition, which can fail. It isn't like socialism, where once the rich control an industry, it is permanent.

Comedy gold.

Socialism means worker controlled factories; a capitalist by definition is a "rich person."

You've lowered this argument down to arguing with the dictionary.

 

[WheelsRCool]

LOL. This has to be one of the funniest claims in here, as economics can't prove anything. History has proven that the greatest progress has come when many resources were controlled by the government, or had a government hand helping along the market.

HAH? Let's see, Soviet Union, about 100 million people at least starved to death, with billions more in poverty; the agricultural industry was so bad when collectivized in the Soviet Union that it was the one industry they partially privatized; millions starved in Communist China, with many more stuck in poverty. North Korea, a horrible dictatorship. Cuba, a horrid dictatorship. Socialist East Germany had to put up a wall to stop people from escaping to capitalist West Germany, etc...what's so difficult to understand about these?

It's ridiculous to assert that one's own rules are just "the way things ought to be," with, of course, no evidence, and that this system is the most free, even though the problems with capitalism are well known and there are people in poverty around the world now than ever, with capitalism having supposedly "won out."

People are people. Socialism fails for the same reasons capitalism works. Each system just provides different incentives and different ways to ration resources. And yes, capitalism is the most free. No other system has even provided the level of freedom of capitalism. You are free to go and do and become whatever you want. You are typing on a computer on the Internet, with access to tremendous wealth in this nation, from food to clothing to homes to information to music, whatever, it's available. You can sip a cappacino while watching a video on your computer, and listen to Beethoven. That is an amazing thing, considering humanity's history.

The reason there is so much poverty in the world has nothing to do with capitalism, but because capitalism has no succeeded in most of the rest of the world, which is because capitalism itself can't work without a proper legal system, financial system, political system, etc...all of these things must be in place.

It took America over 100 years to get things down right.

Look at how resource use has skyrocketed. Why? Because China and India, now adopting capitalism, have a thriving middle-class forming, which wants the same things we in the Western world use.

The parts of the world stuck in poverty are mostly socialist, or quasi-capitalist, in that they tried switching to capitalism without having a proper legal, financial, and political system, which is very harmful.

Read the book: The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else

 

[OrbitalPower]

There was never any "100 million people" who starved to death in the Soviet Union.