Power is in fascism. Absolute power is in free market fascism.

D

dimaniac

New Member
Power is in fascism.
Absolute power is in free market fascism.

>Free market capitalism provides fastest economic growth possible. However free market capitalism is "unfair", leads to extreme income inequality and destroys jobs through automation. Economic cycles produce unemployment which can lead to revolution, or redistribution of capital by the democratic government to create demand for excess human supply (e.g. The Great Depression). If being poor and unemployed was a crime then revolutions/redistribution of capital wouldn't happen. The first country to adopt free market fascism will experience huge economic growth because the bourgeoisie will be able to accumulate capital exponentially, and replace obsolete human workers with machines without any government intervention to protect the proletariat. In the end, such an economy will attain 90-95% of the world GDP. Everyone else will become mere natural resource exporters because keynesian/socialist/marxist economies won't be able to compete with free market fascism.

>Free market fascism comprises 3 social classes:
>The 1st class(fascists) consists of people who guard and regulate the system, and protect the capitalists from jealous proletarians (the artificially created middle class in the USA). If there are elections within this system, then only members of this class can vote. Though consulting the capitalist class is still possible. 1 to 10 million people are needed for this class. Tax revenue (approximately 10% of the GDP) from exploitation of capitalists is distributed more or less equally among members of the ruling class. They are the shareholders.
>2nd class("haves"): capitalists, entrepreneurs, investors, speculators, lenders, rentiers, etc. Up to 1 million people.
>3rd class("have-nots"): proletarians, including highly skilled workers, scientists and intellectuals. They are needed in the beginning, but most of them will eventually be replaced with machines and AI. Up to 100 million people.

>Japan and Germany have huge economies, yet relatively small territories (less than 400,000 km2). In free market fascism a large population won't be needed either. A territory of similar size can be created (sea platform/artificial island), or the population of a country that nobody cares about can be displaced (Somalia, Colombia, Uganda, etc.)

TL;DR Free Market Fascism is based on inverted Luddism, inverted Marxism, Malthusianism and technological singularity, it leads to fastest technological progress, economic and military power.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
See Cuba for an excellent example of this simple truth.
Click to expand...
Cuba is not a consumer economy. Cuba is socialist and despite the crippling embargo that the US has imposed on that nation for decades, they still have a far healthier population than the US. You would know that if you spent a fraction of the time that you spend creating spam threads and trolling a cannabis growing forum instead on actually learning something. Your throat is a fucking exhaust pipe.
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Cuba is not a consumer economy. Cuba is socialist and despite the crippling embargo that the US has imposed on that nation for decades, they still have a far healthier population than the US. You would know that if you spent a fraction of the time that you spend creating spam threads and trolling a cannabis growing forum instead on actually learning something. Your throat is a fucking exhaust pipe.
Click to expand...
Yeah Cuba is so awesome lets jump on the poverty bandwagon and make it cool. Dude you're so fucking delusional it's hilarious. What next are you going to be telling us how North Korea is awesome if you can over look starving to death?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
Yeah Cuba is so awesome lets jump on the poverty bandwagon and make it cool. Dude you're so fucking delusional it's hilarious. What next are you going to be telling us how North Korea is awesome if you can over look starving to death?
Click to expand...
I never said anything about North Korea, cool strawman.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Cuba is not a consumer economy. Cuba is socialist and despite the crippling embargo that the US has imposed on that nation for decades, they still have a far healthier population than the US. You would know that if you spent a fraction of the time that you spend creating spam threads and trolling a cannabis growing forum instead on actually learning something. Your throat is a fucking exhaust pipe.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know. There is nothing to consume and nothing to buy consumables with if there was something to consume. Socialism/communism is the equal distribution of poverty, unless you are in the politburo.

Cuba lived off of Soviet welfare until the Russians collapsed under the weight of their failed socialist/communist experiment.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
You again demonstrate your stupidity in matters which you presume to understand. Socialism is not synonymous with communism. I'll quote George Orwell:

Socialism is usually defined as ‘common ownership of the means of production’. Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc. etc.) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it.
In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.
However, it has become clear in the last few years that ‘common ownership of the means of production’ is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class-system. Centralized ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. ‘The State’ may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money.
But what then is Fascism?
Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.
Click to expand...
As for your contention that there has ever been Soviet socialism, Another Orwell quote:

Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class.
Click to expand...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
Cuba is not a consumer economy. Cuba is socialist and despite the crippling embargo that the US has imposed on that nation for decades, they still have a far healthier population than the US. You would know that if you spent a fraction of the time that you spend creating spam threads and trolling a cannabis growing forum instead on actually learning something. Your throat is a fucking exhaust pipe.
Click to expand...
Now you're endorsing social Darwinism. cn
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Cuba is not a consumer economy. Cuba is socialist and despite the crippling embargo that the US has imposed on that nation for decades, they still have a far healthier population than the US. You would know that if you spent a fraction of the time that you spend creating spam threads and trolling a cannabis growing forum instead on actually learning something. Your throat is a fucking exhaust pipe.
Click to expand...
Americans would be far healthier if they had less wealth. Our biggest problem in this country is how easy it is to access substantial quantities of food.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
Expound.

How is it that I am endorsing Social Darwinism (which can be embodied in the phrase "Survival of the fittest") by pointing out that A SOCIETY MORE EGALITARIAN THAN OURS HAS BETTER HEALTH?
Click to expand...
The survivors are the healthy ones. Their society has the age-old Leninist formula for equality. Nothing is more equal than poverty. cn
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Some more Orwell:
What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism – that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit – does not work. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point. Argument and propaganda got one nowhere. The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top