What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Capitalism on its way out?

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
Right, you were banned when I went on that bit of a rant about how Trump pretty much just looks fascist. Here's a Slate article from a historian on the matter, concluding that he puts on much of the appearances of Fascism, but lacks key dangerous factors, most especially in that the Republicans have been extremely individualist while Fascism runs on collectivism.
Quite honestly I don't put stock into what Liberals think, the Republican Party easily fits every criteria laid out by Umberto Eco, you're welcome to argue counter but please make your arguments your own, and I have to ask what definition of "Collectivist" you're using if you think the Nazis were collectivists.

One, that's a single state, so you only have offered evidence for the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Yes, the parties are divided at the state level, they're not monoliths, the Democratic Party of California is worlds apart from the Democratic Party of Mississippi. Two, it is not actually Fascist to disempower the government in response to losing elections. That's just being a very nasty sort of sore looser.
Since someone already covered this I'll simply let their arguments stand, but it's evidenced to be a GOP tactic. And yes, yes rampant authoritarianism and voter disenfranchisement is a hallmark of a Fascist state that still feigns free elections.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
I have to ask what definition of "Collectivist" you're using if you think the Nazis were collectivists.
Ignoring the first part for being nothing but sectarian insanity, so I'll tackle this bit. Collectivist does not mean equality. It is actually contradictory to equality. Collectivism holds nationalism as a subset, as the only requirement for collectivism is to place the Group, whatever it may be, over the Individual. This is literally the mainstream definition of the term. Every form of nationalism is collectivist, but so is all the race-bait the left has been using lately. Intersectionality is entirely collectivism. Collectivism exists all over the place in the political spectrum. Pretty much the only political ideologies that explicitly exclude collectivism are the various forms of liberalism and some variants of anarchism.

And yes, yes rampant authoritarianism and voter disenfranchisement is a hallmark of a Fascist state that still feigns free elections.
Well, can you point at conclusive evidence of Republicans being authoritarian? Because I constantly hear complaints about them reducing the power of the government, in regards to business regulations and lowing taxes.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
Ignoring the first part for being nothing but sectarian insanity, so I'll tackle this bit. Collectivist does not mean equality. It is actually contradictory to equality. Collectivism holds nationalism as a subset, as the only requirement for collectivism is to place the Group, whatever it may be, over the Individual. This is literally the mainstream definition of the term. Every form of nationalism is collectivist, but so is all the race-bait the left has been using lately. Intersectionality is entirely collectivism. Collectivism exists all over the place in the political spectrum. Pretty much the only political ideologies that explicitly exclude collectivism are the various forms of liberalism and some variants of anarchism.
But Fascism isn't collectivist, because it puts Party above the rest of the nation and even goes on to exclude members of the collective from the nation and collectivist organizations were not only curtailed in many cases they were outlawed, for example unions were banned.


Well, can you point at conclusive evidence of Republicans being authoritarian? Because I constantly hear complaints about them reducing the power of the government, in regards to business regulations and lowing taxes.
Is it your belief that authoritarianism is counter-indicative of economic liberalism?
 

Morphile

Well-known member
But Fascism isn't collectivist, because it puts Party above the rest of the nation and even goes on to exclude members of the collective from the nation and collectivist organizations were not only curtailed in many cases they were outlawed, for example unions were banned.
...Again, collectivist means putting Group above Individual, and is not a type of thing innately cooperative between different examples. Collectivist ideologies actually tend to be virulently hostile to other collectivist ideologies. Ethnonationalists are mutually hostile as a rule, "normal" nationalists tend to be vocally competative with eachother, the many components of intersectionality have come into conflict with eachother and find issue with many other sorts of collectivist... Unions generally aren't collectivist until things are already at borderline Communism, as Unions generally take the form of the group advocating on behalf of the individual.

With the Nazis, it was Germany above its people. The oppression of the German people was justified by it being necessary to improve Germany the nation. The Nazi party was placed above the rest of the country because their ideology was that the Nazi party was the instrument of Germany's power. In collectivist ideologies, the individuals comprising "the group" are of less importance than "the group" as a whole, whether that be an ethnicity, nationality, religion, class or even sexuality and gender.

Is it your belief that authoritarianism is counter-indicative of economic liberalism?
Yes, actually, it usually does go hand in hand that increased authoritarianism means decreased economic liberalism. Authoritarianism means the government has immense control over the affairs of the country it governs. Economic liberalism means that people have control over the raw wealth of the country.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
...Again, collectivist means putting Group above Individual, and is not a type of thing innately cooperative between different examples. Collectivist ideologies actually tend to be virulently hostile to other collectivist ideologies. Ethnonationalists are mutually hostile as a rule, "normal" nationalists tend to be vocally competative with eachother, the many components of intersectionality have come into conflict with eachother and find issue with many other sorts of collectivist... Unions generally aren't collectivist until things are already at borderline Communism, as Unions generally take the form of the group advocating on behalf of the individual.

With the Nazis, it was Germany above its people. The oppression of the German people was justified by it being necessary to improve Germany the nation. The Nazi party was placed above the rest of the country because their ideology was that the Nazi party was the instrument of Germany's power. In collectivist ideologies, the individuals comprising "the group" are of less importance than "the group" as a whole, whether that be an ethnicity, nationality, religion, class or even sexuality and gender.
This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of collectivist I don't knew where to begin. For example your definition of intersectionality is literally the opposite of what the term means: intersectionality is how multiple factors intersect to create unique situations that both sects need to work together to combat. It's a means of diffusing sectionalism.


Yes, actually, it usually does go hand in hand that increased authoritarianism means decreased economic liberalism. Authoritarianism means the government has immense control over the affairs of the country it governs. Economic liberalism means that people have control over the raw wealth of the country.
This is an ahistorical interpretation you have.
 
Last edited:

Ravan

Gone
...Again, collectivist means putting Group above Individual, and is not a type of thing innately cooperative between different examples. Collectivist ideologies actually tend to be virulently hostile to other collectivist ideologies. Ethnonationalists are mutually hostile as a rule, "normal" nationalists tend to be vocally competative with eachother, the many components of intersectionality have come into conflict with eachother and find issue with many other sorts of collectivist... Unions generally aren't collectivist until things are already at borderline Communism, as Unions generally take the form of the group advocating on behalf of the individual.

With the Nazis, it was Germany above its people. The oppression of the German people was justified by it being necessary to improve Germany the nation. The Nazi party was placed above the rest of the country because their ideology was that the Nazi party was the instrument of Germany's power. In collectivist ideologies, the individuals comprising "the group" are of less importance than "the group" as a whole, whether that be an ethnicity, nationality, religion, class or even sexuality and gender.


Yes, actually, it usually does go hand in hand that increased authoritarianism means decreased economic liberalism. Authoritarianism means the government has immense control over the affairs of the country it governs. Economic liberalism means that people have control over the raw wealth of the country.
Umm... every US supported dictator in South America since the start of the cold war begs to differ on the “economic liberalism vs authoritarianism”
 

Morphile

Well-known member
his is such a fundamental misunderstanding of collectivist I don't knew where to begin. For example your definition of intersectionality is literally the opposite of what the term means: intersectionality is how multiple factors intersect to create unique situations that both sects need to work together to combat. It's a means of diffusing sectionalism.
Sectionalism is a subset of nationality focused on specific regions of a country, instead of the country as a whole, so you're misusing or ass-pulling terminology again. I think you mean "sectarianism", conflict between subsets of a group, which is much more in line with intersectional rhetoric, but they're far worse with it than anyone else. Given the treatment of TERFs, "white feminists", the existence of the "get the T out of LGBT" and so on, intersectionality is an extremely sectarian monolith that reacts with hostility to any noticed divergence. If you step out of line with any point, the whole movement goes at you with hostility. It's not smoothing over the issues so there isn't active conflcit, it's demanding monolithic support of everything with no exceptions.

Mind describing what you think collectivism means? Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about it:
Definition of collectivism
1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution
also: a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

Umm... every US supported dictator in South America since the start of the cold war begs to differ on the “economic liberalism vs authoritarianism”
This still follows "tends to". The trend remains that authoritarianism usually means a decline in economic liberties. The reason for such standouts can be closely tied to the fact that the US's support rested on the economic liberalism, while the authoritarianism was, bluntly, largely needed to keep a stable government with economic liberalism at all. With Pinochet, it really was either him or full-on socialists. As in "things are currently being nationalized en mass, including large foreign industries". The Chilean economy was already falling apart when he came into power because of the rampant nationalization of businesses. I'm just noting the circumstances of the US supporting him, here.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
Why are you talking to this idiot fascist
Well I just got back and I kinda wanted to test out my belief that open dialogue with conservatives while attempting to remain cordial is meaningless to remind myself why the Free Marketplace of Ideas is a joke.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
Well I just got back and I kinda wanted to test out my belief that open dialogue with conservatives while attempting to remain cordial is meaningless to remind myself why the Free Marketplace of Ideas is a joke.
It only works when people are willing to change their minds. The central problem is that there is no mechanism to force this, and it may indeed be impossible to make such a mechanism.
 

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
You didn't have to actually post at him to figure that out, just read his screeds on how homosexuality should go back in the DSM.
 

Ravan

Gone
The free market of ideas is like the free market. It only works right when there’s someone with a club smacking down the power players anytime they set even a single toe out of line, and chasing out the snake oil salesmen.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
You didn't have to actually post at him to figure that out, just read his screeds on how homosexuality should go back in the DSM.
...Because the DSM includes really petty shit of extremely low impact already and the arguments against it are "but it hurts their feelings/gives bigots an excuse!"? Hell, transgenderism is still in the DSM, it just got shifted from the mental disorder category to the sexual disorder category. Why shouldn't abnormalities be tracked as such in official documentation? Being abnormal can be perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tracked as a disorder. Disorder literally just means something's not normal. I have some pretty hefty mental illnesses that amount largely to personality traits gone to the point of problem-causing, and I find zero issue with those traits of mine being considered mental illnesses. No, seriously, it's actually somewhat difficult for me to hold a conversation purely due to my attention span, before autism enters the picture.

The free market of ideas is like the free market. It only works right when there’s someone with a club smacking down the power players anytime they set even a single toe out of line, and chasing out the snake oil salesmen.
Pretty much, yes. Though not quite so strict, you can get amazingly far in an economic free market with pretty basic market share and competition limits, and a lot of the abuses can be solved by taking away the foundation of them. Such as the forms of abuse modern works get being largely solvable by the government taking up the reigns of stuff corporations offer to workers at the moment, such as instituting UBI via negative income tax and getting some kind of public healthcare system working.
 

Ravan

Gone
...Because the DSM includes really petty shit of extremely low impact already and the arguments against it are "but it hurts their feelings/gives bigots an excuse!"? Hell, transgenderism is still in the DSM, it just got shifted from the mental disorder category to the sexual disorder category. Why shouldn't abnormalities be tracked as such in official documentation? Being abnormal can be perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tracked as a disorder. Disorder literally just means something's not normal. I have some pretty hefty mental illnesses that amount largely to personality traits gone to the point of problem-causing, and I find zero issue with those traits of mine being considered mental illnesses. No, seriously, it's actually somewhat difficult for me to hold a conversation purely due to my attention span, before autism enters the picture.


Pretty much, yes. Though not quite so strict, you can get amazingly far in an economic free market with pretty basic market share and competition limits, and a lot of the abuses can be solved by taking away the foundation of them. Such as the forms of abuse modern works get being largely solvable by the government taking up the reigns of stuff corporations offer to workers at the moment, such as instituting UBI via negative income tax and getting some kind of public healthcare system working.
I meant strict enforcement in the first part and flatout bans for things like altmed (actual markets) and theocracy/ethnic nationalism/nationalism/populist bullshit (ideas)
 

Balerion

Well-known member
I meant strict enforcement in the first part and flatout bans for things like altmed (actual markets) and theocracy/ethnic nationalism/nationalism/populist bullshit (ideas)
So what would happen to Ed Milliband's "Controls on Immigration" pledge, which he carved into stone in the 2015 election? Or Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of Austria? Or heck much of the actual political spectrum since this amounts to "only Californian Millennials should have a voice EVER!"
 

Ravan

Gone
So what would happen to Ed Milliband's "Controls on Immigration" pledge, which he carved into stone in the 2015 election? Or Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of Austria? Or heck much of the actual political spectrum since this amounts to "only Californian Millennials should have a voice EVER!"
Which parts? I’m pretty sure that the majority of people aren’t white nationalists, nor theocrats nor blood and soil nazis. If you mean populism, that’s literally just snake oil in verbal form. It’s lies that the liar knows are impossible from the start.
 

Balerion

Well-known member
Which parts? I’m pretty sure that the majority of people aren’t white nationalists, nor theocrats nor blood and soil nazis. If you mean populism, that’s literally just snake oil in verbal form. It’s lies that the liar knows are impossible from the start.
And what is the Technocrat who plunged most of Southern Europe and Latin America into Penury? Failed Experiments? The populist emerges because of the failed Technocrat.
 

Ravan

Gone
And what is the Technocrat who plunged most of Southern Europe and Latin America into Penury? Failed Experiments? The populist emerges because of the failed Technocrat.
The populist emerges because whenever ANYTHING goes wrong, people will follow someone who gives them someone to blame. Anything to avoid admitting it was themselves or society at large causing the bad thing. And South America happened because the US murdered or deposed all the democratically elected leaders and handed the place over to murderous autocrats for generations.


And what technocrats are you even talking about? Chavez in Venezuela was a populist cult leader as much as Trump is.
 

Balerion

Well-known member
The populist emerges because whenever ANYTHING goes wrong, people will follow someone who gives them someone to blame. Anything to avoid admitting it was themselves or society at large causing the bad thing. And South America happened because the US murdered or deposed all the democratically elected leaders and handed the place over to murderous autocrats for generations.


And what technocrats are you even talking about? Chavez in Venezuela was a populist cult leader as much as Trump is.
I was talking about the IMF and how they screw over countries for their pound of flesh. But it's all in the name of the numbers and numbers never lie. This ranges from Failures in Argentina, Russia and Spain to Extreme Failure like in Greece.
 

Ravan

Gone
I was talking about the IMF and how they screw over countries for their pound of flesh. But it's all in the name of the numbers and numbers never lie. This ranges from Failures in Argentina, Russia and Spain to Extreme Failure like in Greece.
Okay, so literally none of those have been run by technocrats, unless that word has literally no meaning. And the IMF also has nothing to do with what sort of ideas need to be kept out of politics. It isn’t even relevant to anything I’ve posted here.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top