Left / Right Socialism/Fascism

Kama

Who are you directing that comment to? I for one have never given approval, tacit or otherwise, to "coercive authoritarianism."

Well, there was a tagteam Hayekian lovefest going on, while bellowing about the inherently authoritarian dangers of socialism and the inherently non-repressive nature of liberal capitalism, in context of which Hayek and Thatchers lovefest for Pinochets brutal repression of communities, churches, social groups, and so on, seems more than relevant. Historically, the acceptance of capitalism has not always been a tidy and pure libertarian consensual wet-dream, but involved significant levels of force and coercion, of which Chile is but a medium-recent example. September11 is't just 911, you know...

What is your opinion on Hayeks support for authoritarian liberal-constructivist regimes? Do you see this as contradictory in any way to his thought?


More basically, when someone tries to call someone else a 'facist', its usually a rhetorical ploy rather than an accurate and analytic statement. Opinions differ on the essential characteristics of facism; its problematic for sheep-and-goats Left-Right dichotomies since it was a 'Third Way' movement between the 'excesses' of capitalism and communism (which you determinedly conflate with socialism).

Frankly, the same nonsensical argumentative tactic gets thrown the other way; capitalists are all 'facist pigs', don't you know? It's unhelpful eitherway.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well, there was a tagteam Hayekian lovefest going on, while bellowing about the inherently authoritarian dangers of socialism and the inherently non-repressive nature of liberal capitalism, in context of which Hayek and Thatchers lovefest for Pinochets brutal repression of communities, churches, social groups, and so on, seems more than relevant. Historically, the acceptance of capitalism has not always been a tidy and pure libertarian consensual wet-dream, but involved significant levels of force and coercion, of which Chile is but a medium-recent example. September11 isn't just 911, you know...

What is your opinion on Hayeks support for authoritarian liberal-constructivist regimes? Do you see this as contradictory in any way to his thought?


More basically, when someone tries to call someone else a 'facist', its usually a rhetorical ploy rather than an accurate and analytic statement. Opinions differ on the essential characteristics of facism; its problematic for sheep-and-goats Left-Right dichotomies since it was a 'Third Way' movement between the 'excesses' of capitalism and communism (which you determinedly conflate with socialism).

Frankly, the same nonsensical argumentative tactic gets thrown the other way; capitalists are all 'facist pigs', don't you know? It's unhelpful eitherway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Studied that particular nonsense for my thesis. Weber in his proddy ethic laid the foundations of bureourcratic oppression in capitalist society as we know it today. I seem to recall from reading that book that he advocated the idea that in order to make the working class work harder and more efficient they need to have the constant threat of being sacked hanging over them. Yet, for the civil service (a primarly middleclass occupation) to work effectively then the must be given job impunity and independance from authority.

Weber did not believe in a fair or equal society, yet his bible is the rockstone of capitalism today.

Perhaps you would like the read the book I linked earlier from Steven Lukes. Might open up your mind a bit.

Deep Easterly

Soldie wrote: »

Marxist drivel. Capitalism doesn't aim, promote or seek to do anything.

Think I will take this a bit further as contradiction abounds in your posts. You say that Capitalism does not promote or seek anything. Then you say it promotes the accumulation of private wealth? What's the story man?

I notice that rather than addressing the claim I made that capitalism, like facsism, believes that power should be held in the hands of the few, you just come out with the term "Marxist Drivel" by way of answer. Are you denying that power is unevenly distributed in capitalist society?

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A totally twisted post. The only rheroric I see going on here is between yourself and you kindred "Soldie". It was he who first started calling ideas "warped" and "drivel" . Get your facts straight before coming out with stupid and misleading claims like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What, no counterclaims?, just little irrelevent soundbites? surprise surprise. . You coming across as someone who has very limited knowledge of political theory to be honest. You are just repeating the same nonsense and robotic views.

Me, I am just warming up. :P

Soldie

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Think I will take this a bit further as contradiction abounds in your posts. You say that Capitalism does not promote or seek anything. Then you say it promotes the accumulation of private wealth? What's the story man?

Where did I say that?

I notice that rather than addressing the claim I made that capitalism, like facsism, believes that power should be held in the hands of the few, you just come out with the term "Marxist Drivel" by way of answer. Are you denying that power is unevenly distributed in capitalist society?

You're criticising me for not addressing your point? My initial claim was that Socialism and Fascism are not too far removed in that proponents of both seek to utilise the state in an attempt to homogenise people. Your response to this was that "Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other.", and then you proceeded to go off on a tangent about how Capitalism and Fascism are similar. You didn't address my point at all. Also, if you read my subsequent replies you'll find that I gave examples of private clubs and societies, so your point about Capitalism "destroying" the collective is utter nonsense.

Soldie

Kama wrote: »

Fixed it for you, in the interests of intellectual honesty...the problem with collapsing the authoritarian axis to conflate socialism with facism is a studied ignorance to the more facist trends in ones own ideology. Facism, like many 'Third Way' approaches, was necessarily an ideological motley, seek and ye shall find, and vice versa: ignore and you shall remain pleasantly ignorant.

Kama wrote: »

Well, there was a tagteam Hayekian lovefest going on, while bellowing about the inherently authoritarian dangers of socialism [...]

I can only assume you're referring to me, and I wasn't conflating Fascism with Socialism. I explicitly said that the end goal is different (cultural homogeneity versus economic homogeneity). Despite this, history has shown that Fascist regimes (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Ireland under de Valera :pac:, etc.) tend to encroach upon the economic sphere, too.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

As I said, Comrade! The end justifies the means, and once we are over the hill of bloodshed we shall arrive in Paradise...just so long as that paradise is of the (constructivist) liberal form. For if the economic indicators increase, then coup and bloodshed is not just moral but necessary. Bloodshed is but a fungible input-factor, and the cost-benefit analysts tell us the necessary pain shall be more than outweighed by the pleasures of the future!

The entire thrust of Hayek's thought was oriented towards freedom. He understood that the nature of the Chilean reforms would eventually undermine authoritarianism of all kinds—as they did—and create a strong, free, prosperous, democratic country.

Better to say Hayek had a particular interpretation of freedom; freedom from democracy, if it gave the wrong answer.

A full analysis of the economic costs and benefits of Pincohets regime, again, is less clear-cut than you represent it as; foreign debt increased 300% from '74 to '88, inflation doubled from its Allende-era peak, and the critical copper industry remained nationalized, and a precedent was set that, I would have thought, should be worrying for liberals and other opponents of coercive statism: the combination of free market reform with authoritarian and repressive state social control, including but not limited to torture and the targeted assassination of political opponents, in context of the overthrow of a democratic government by an unelected junta.


But rather than attempt external refutation, I'll swerve immanent:

The argument made is that if authoritarian, coercive, freedom-restricting policy may produce a greater freedom in the future, then it is moral and right to sacrifice the now, the present, in pursuit of this goal, 'eventually undermining authoritarianism'; if the future is one of freedom, the present can be sacrificed in slavery and serfdom.

Which is a precisely a rational-constructivist project quite contradictory to the principles he generally seems to espouse; serfdom, here, is a valid measure, if it produces a future yeoman, the liberal 'New Man', who will be conditioned and tutored into his future 'freedoms'.

Which was my point, requiring no personal attacks or recriminations, sideways barbs at brian, complaints that 'teh socialistz r killing 2 so stfu' or any such argumentative distractions; is Hayeks support for Pinochet consistent with his avowed principles, specifically the opposition to constructivism?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

DF, for someone unwilling to answer a direct question, you're always quite eager to receive a reply. Your unwillingness to follow a point to its conclusion speaks volumes, as does your voluble support for the Pinochet regime.

As can be seen from your replies, you support constructivist planning and coercive statist action when it is in the service of your ideals, and so are no different in this from the authoritarians you claim to revile; yet it appears that what you revile is not the authoritariianism, or the bloodshed, but economic policies with which you disagree.

You argue above a rational-constructive instrumentalist utilitarianism, while claiming that symmetrical arguments by socialists are a sin against human freedom, autonomy, and the natural processes of self-organization. As elsewhere, your attitude is a 'heads I win tails you lose' asymmetry; what surprised me was such open ends-means justification.

You state 'a coup was inevitable', making it appear an endogenous affair, again quite contradictory to recorded history of economic warfare and blockade, that 'not a nut or bolt will reach Allende', to 'make the economy scream'. Chile was a 'rotten apple', and as ever, the powers that be lacked your faith that it would fail endogenously, and applied exogenous shocks.

Longstoryshort, it seems clear that you will willingly support authoritarian, coercive, constructivist regime, as did your intellectual parent Hayek, so long as they institute policies you approve of. I have seen nothing from you to dissuade me from this conclusion, so will accept it in lieu of a direct answer.

To answer your questions, for all that you have refused or evaded to answer mine:

I am not a supporter of Castros Cuba; Cuba is too politically repressive a state for me to support it. On balance I am a supporter of Chavez, though I would not be if he had assumed power under a military coup, as he first attempted to. Coherently enough, I support the legitimacy of regimes which come to power democratically, and tend not to support those which do not, all other things being equal. The 'other things' generally being the slaughter of citizens.

Your support appears based less on democracy than adherence to your ideology; there are 'good coups' which are capitalist, and 'bad coups' which are socialist, 'good liquidations' such as Operation Condor, and 'bad liquidations', such as the Soviets. Your principled objections to coercion and statism ring most hollow on this point.

Authoritarian capitalism rules ok, tbqfh. I believe I have my answer and am satisfied as to its veracity, though disappointed in its incoherence with your stated principles.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

Soldie, rather than once again bringing up my "rant against capitalism" as you put it, could you actually answer the question I put to you?

I asked if you deny that capitalism, like fascism, endorses and insists on absolute power being placed in the hands of the few? and if so, could you explain why you think so.

Ta muchly.

Soldie

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Soldie, rather than once again bringing up my "rant against capitalism" as you put it, could you actually answer the question I put to you?

I asked if you deny that capitalism, like fascism, endorses and insists on absolute power being placed in the hands of the few? and if so, could you explain why you think so.

Several times now I've very cleary stated that Capitalism doesn't "endorse" anything. Just how many times do I need to repeat this? It is a system whereby property is privately owned -- not an omnipotent force that seeks to consolidate wealth.

Now that I've answered your question repeatedly, do you care to flesh out your initial statement at least once? You claimed that "Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other.". Can you expand upon this instead of merely stating your opinion as though it is fact?

Deep Easterly

Soldie wrote: »

Several times now I've very cleary stated that Capitalism doesn't "endorse" anything. Just how many times do I need to repeat this? It is a system whereby property is privately owned -- not an omnipotent force that seeks to consolidate wealth.

Now that I've answered your question repeatedly, do you care to flesh out your initial statement at least once? You claimed that "Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other.". Can you expand upon this instead of merely stating your opinion as though it is fact?

Sorry, but you have not answered my question at all. I would say that your response is a 'nice try', but it isn't even that. Are you capable of answering a simple question? A bit like your ignorant in arms, Donegalfella in that regard..

But I will ask it in a way you will understand. Do you deny that capitalism, as a "system" :rolleyes: is not unlike fascism in that the reign's of power are in the hands of the very few, while the very many, the majority if you like, are simply there to obey, to consume and so forth.

Thanks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MG

Communism isn't all bad

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/this-week-in-pictures-1900801.html?start=3

Soldie

MG wrote: »

Communism isn't all bad

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/this-week-in-pictures-1900801.html?start=3

They're usually pretty good at parades: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/10/china_celebrates_60_years.html

Too bad that's all they're good at.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really DF, is that the best you can do...?

In the meantime though, it seems I am still waiting for an answer to a very simple question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Capitalism is a junk term by now as it means different things to different people. Also people like Greenspan and Bush will "say" they are/want free market capitalists/ism but again their policies are in many cases contractictory.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What term you "prefer" to use is of little relevance to be honest. Liberalism/Free Market Economy/ Captialism, all the same thing...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really?

Soldie wrote: »

Several times now I've very cleary stated that Capitalism doesn't "endorse" anything. Just how many times do I need to repeat this? It is a system whereby property is privately owned -- not an omnipotent force that seeks to consolidate wealth.

Seriously, have you actually any idea what you are on about?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let us go back to the words of the great thinker of Liberalism himself. The one and only Adam Smith himself, in his "Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations":

Adam Smith wrote:

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

The seeds of Liberalism sown nicely...;)

Since my original question has yet to be answered (yet again). I shall still wait for an answer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the 2nd time you have blurted out the "oh horror" I am so sarcastic thing when I have mentioned that the founders of liberalistic thought actually endorsed and encouraged gross inequality in capitalistic society. I have noticed though that you have yet to refute those claims though which is speaks volumes.

Since I have yet to get an answer to my question, one I have asked countless times by now I can only assume that those who defend liberalistic thought on this thread are incapable of answering (all I get is contradictory and totally pointless comments back) and do agree, if silently, that fascisim and capitalism are more closely connected than some of us would like to acknowledge.

Anyway, Donegalfella, why are you twisting Adam Smith's words? Your interpretation of them don't make sense. Smith spoke of the protection of the rich against the poor, those with property. How then does capitalism benefit those with no property of worth? What does liberalism, the ideology you claim grants freedoms all round, do for them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Since I have yet to get an answer to my question, one I have asked countless times by now I can only assume that those who defend liberalistic thought on this thread are incapable of answering (all I get is contradictory and totally pointless comments back) and do agree, if silently, that fascisim and capitalism are more closely connected than some of us would like to acknowledge.

the introductory video lays this out simply , fascism rates high on gov. regulation , low on gov ownership of the means of production and low personal freedoms, capitalism sits in the middle ranging from Sweden to Hong Kong and true Libertarians would like to see much smaller gov and more personal freedom. Your term "connected" seems meaningless tbh. except to the extent that countires like the US are relatively less liberal in economic today then they were was a century ago

Deep Easterly wrote: »

How then does capitalism benefit those with no property of worth? What does liberalism, the ideology you claim grants freedoms all round, do for them?

Property starts your freedom as a person, each person is unique no? Having assets or not doesnt change the rights to keep your income, you'll have to talk to the socialist side of the fence as to why income is taxed. Otherwise , given that a market economy provides the best opportunity to provide freedom and economic opportunities what more can anyone expect?