Winston Churchill on bailouts

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

You mention "exactly what is happening across the West today. From Ireland to California", then; "it is now seen as the government's role to bail out institutions that made bad business decisions, and to rescue individuals who borrowed more than they could ever rationally hope to pay back" and name it as "this incipient socialism".

I agree with you that the risk has been socialised. This however, is not for the benefit of the people, or even the state, but for private individuals. This is not "incipient socialism."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cavedave

Here is the cartoon version of what I was warning about earlier. How state intervention could lead to extreme authoritarian results.

I think that CiaranC and Donegalfella disagreement comes from is different understanding of the word socialist. Most Irish people (and possible Nordic people) regard it as something close to Gandhi here. Whereas many libertarians regard it as something closer to Stalin.


but i don't want to put words in either of your mouths so feel free to correct me and then tell me to shut the hell up.

CiaranC

I dont have any magical solution.

I really believe that socialising risk and leaving the profit motive in place is the road to hell.

Its like saying to an A.N.Capitalist: "Sure try and get rich and do it whatever way you want. Ignore the law, we wont regulate you sure, and if it fails the gob****es working for you will pay for it". In that sense, I agree with donegalfella that A.N.Capitalist should be allowed to fail, and fail hard.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well my point was merely that we are not actively moving to a system in which the state controls the means of production, we are leaving the means of production in the hands of capitalists and removing the risks for them.

Maybe you could posit an opinion on this one donegalfella:

Why is it that the banking sectors in countries like the US, Ireland, the UK and Iceland, Eastern Europe are in trouble, while countries like France and Germany seem more stable?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

I agree that it is not sustainable, but id strongly disagree that socialising risk destroys the profit motive. If anything, judging by the evidence of what has happened in this country, it actually exacerbates it.

You talk as if the likes of the Golden Circle types are some kind of Randian idealists instead of merely greedy, opportunistic criminals.

nesf

cavedave wrote: »

I think that CiaranC and Donegalfella disagreement comes from is different understanding of the word socialist. Most Irish people (and possible Nordic people) regard it as something close to Gandhi here. Whereas many libertarians regard it as something closer to Stalin.


but i don't want to put words in either of your mouths so feel free to correct me and then tell me to shut the hell up.

While some of us would consider both Stalin and Gandhi as socialists, it being as broad and varied a church as capitalism.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then you will, of course, accept Hitler as a capitalist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Keep em coming!! You are doing more damage to the ideology of the right by your self, no need to even argue with you...

Hitler AND Stalin as socialists. You couldn't make it up.

With respect, you personify the spoilt brat element of the Irish policitcal right. Its not deregulated capitalism thats caused this mess, its the government. Right wing political parties bailing out their builder chums is socialist and now Hitler, who got into power because the business classes supported his attacks on the left, rounded up socialists and gassed them, is a socialist.

Take some responsibility, you would be more credible.

cavedave

OhNoYouDidn't

Keep em coming!! You are doing more damage to the ideology of the right by your self, no need to even argue with you...

Hitler AND Stalin as socialists. You couldn't make it up.

With respect, you personify the spoilt brat element of the Irish policitcal right. Its not deregulated capitalism thats caused this mess, its the government. Right wing political parties bailing out their builder chums is socialist and now Hitler, who got into power because the business classes supported his attacks on the left, rounded up socialists and gassed them, is a socialist.

Take some responsibility, you would be more credible.

Generally libertarians class any government that goes out of its way to tell them what to do as a socialist. When it comes down to it there is not much difference between Stalin and Hitler (national socialist) they were both authoritarian dictators who sent millions of people to die in camps and who told everyone else what to make and how to run their lives.

I don't like using the term socialist for such types as the socialist church include Gandhi and sweden and such so maybe a catch all "fascist" term for those who go off the authoritarian deep end?

OhNoYouDidn't

cavedave wrote: »

Generally libertarians class any government that goes out of its way to tell them what to do as a socialist. When it comes down to it there is not much difference between Stalin and Hitler (national socialist) they were both authoritarian dictators who sent millions of people to die in camps and who told everyone else what to make and how to run their lives.

I don't like using the term socialist for such types as the socialist church include Gandhi and sweden and such so maybe a catch all "fascist" term for those who go off the authoritarian deep end?

I don't think Stalin was a socialist myself, but as someone of the left, I at least have to acknowledge his existance as a dictator of what purported to be a communist regieme.

But to claim Hitler is a socialist is infantile refusal to acknowledge what can happen to the right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Marx?

But you still sound like a child.

"I don't like socialsits. I don't like Nazis. Therefore Hitler is a socialist".

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you still sound like a child.

If you continue to attack the poster and not their post in this forum I'll permanently remove your ability to post here. You've been warned several times about this and banned for it before and I'm rapidly losing patience.

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

If you continue to attack the poster and not their post in this forum I'll permanently remove your ability to post here. You've been warned several times about this and banned for it before and I'm rapidly losing patience.

Its an infantile position and taken in conjunction with his opinion on what constitutes the 'right' on the other thread, he has opened himself wide open to ridicule.

But I'll accept that you are the law and watch how I say it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So a quote from Engels out of context with jingoistic overtones means Hitler is a socialist?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is absolutely no correlation between what you wrote and that article.

Smashing trade unions, attacking left wing parties, violently attacking workets communes as existed in Germany in the 30's was not socialistic.

He rose to power because big business backed his right wing agenda as it secured their positions while socialists were loaded onto trains for the camps.

You have to be on a wind up?

SkepticOne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There is absolutely no correlation between what you wrote and that article.

Smashing trade unions, attacking left wing parties, violently attacking workets communes as existed in Germany in the 30's was not socialistic.

These groups would have been seen as threats to his power and would have been extinguished for this reason rather than pure ideological differences.

I would agree with Edward Feser quoted above that he was a "third way" advocate.

He rose to power because big business backed his right wing agenda as it secured their positions while socialists were loaded onto trains for the camps.

You have to be on a wind up?

Again, getting into bed with big business doesn't mean he was pro-capitalist but merely that he saw these groups as useful to his agenda.

One group is useful, the other group is a threat.

In any case big business has no particular political ideology and will back any party that it sees as furthering the goal of making profit depending on the circumstances.

OhNoYouDidn't

SkepticOne wrote: »

These groups would have been seen as threats to his power and would have been extinguished for this reason rather than pure ideological differences.

I would agree with Edward Feser quoted above that he was a "third way" advocate.Again, getting into bed with big business doesn't mean he was pro-capitalist but merely that he saw these groups as useful to his agenda.

One group is useful, the other group is a threat.

In any case big business has no particular political ideology and will back any party that it sees as furthering the goal of making profit depending on the circumstances.

Hitler saw socialism as a Jewish conspiracy to weaken Germany and set the SS and SA about Marxist groups.

Unions were attacked and socialists rounded up for ideological and practical reasons.

Perhaps calling Hitler a capitalist was loose terminology, but capital backed him. They did so because they prefered him to socialism.

To call Hitler and the Nazi's socialist is to deliberately ignore his pro business bias and try to sanitise the right. Its not acceptible.

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Perhaps calling Hitler a capitalist was loose terminology, but capital backed him.

Loose terminology? Capitalist would infer that Hitler was in favour of low Government intervention and free markets which he most certainly was not. Whether capital backed him or not is irrelevant to the question of whether Hitler was a capitalist.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

To call Hitler and the Nazi's socialist is to deliberately ignore his pro business bias and try to sanitise the right. Its not acceptible.

What "right" is being sanitised here?

SkepticOne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

To call Hitler and the Nazi's socialist is to deliberately ignore his pro business bias and try to sanitise the right. Its not acceptible.

They called themselves socialist.

OhNoYouDidn't

SkepticOne wrote: »

They called themselves socialist.

So do Labour.....

Irrelevant. They gassed socialists ffs.

Does it not strike you odd that it is the left who are most opposed to fascism and Nazism?

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

Loose terminology? Capitalist would infer that Hitler was in favour of low Government intervention and free markets which he most certainly was not. Whether capital backed him or not is irrelevant to the question of whether Hitler was a capitalist.

Not necessarily. Capitalists are in favour of making money, and in an environment like 1920's Europe, fascism offered the best means to do that.

Hitler was an anti-left wing who cosied up to big business who were happy to fund him. It makes him dramatically more capitalist than socialist.

nesf wrote: »

What "right" is being sanitised here?

Donegalfella is at it on another thread, redefining what is 'right wing' to fit his narrow political beliefs. Hitler does not fit his 'version' of right wing, so is crudely presented as a socialist.

If it wasn't a bit sinister it would be funny

cavedave

OhNoYouDidn't

Hitler saw socialism as a Jewish conspiracy to weaken Germany and set the SS and SA about Marxist groups.

Unions were attacked and socialists rounded up for ideological and practical reasons.

Perhaps calling Hitler a capitalist was loose terminology, but capital backed him. They did so because they prefered him to socialism.

To call Hitler and the Nazi's socialist is to deliberately ignore his pro business bias and try to sanitise the right. Its not acceptible.

Scapegoating is step 12 in the dictators handbook

The Strongman getting the backing of the planners (and the wealthy and church) as they think they can then control him later is step 10 in same handbook.

Forcing agreement (banning unions etc) is step 6 and a few of the later ones.

Again i think people are talking about two different things. "Capitalists" to some mean those who support and create the free market. However if you look at how capitalists (big businesses) actually act it is to create monopolies, buy politicians and do all sorts of things to avoid a free market. Maybe instead of capitalists we refer to business men, who may be in a free market but would prefer not to be (they'd rather they controlled all the supply and maybe some of the demand also) and free marketeers. Free marketeers are those who prolestize for the powers and benefits of the free market. Free marketeers might be wrong but I think they are in a whole different ballgame to business men who support a dictator to increase their profits.