Comments for C’est what redux: Jindal parroting new party line? at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 25 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Sat, 18 May 2013 12:49:03 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25451 "But actually, you can f*** off." You're a man of letters. A real enlightened soul. - ragin_cajun Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:58:46 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25437 Geez, you interpret just about everything the wrong way. The main reason I put that quote was the "authoritarian regimes who had crushed left-wing opposition began a transition to neoliberal economic policies." It's partly interesting because of the term neoliberalism, which I'm hoping you are familiar with. The Friedman thing was just icing. Neither the wiki entry nor I said that Friedman was an autocrat, central planner, or involved in Pinochet's government. The Chicago Boys being influenced by Friedman is not an indictment of Friedman. Wow, wasn't there some other point I was trying to make along that same line? Why, yes! Other governments being influenced by Marx does is not an indictment of Marx. As I've said before, ragin, subtlety eludes you. It's all got to be spelled out in black and white for your narrow mind. My position is NOT that Marx had no influence or bearing on violent, authoritarian regimes. My position is NOT what you so poorly described. I hoped by now that you would appreciate that there exists more complex, nuanced views that don't fit into the shallow labels and slogans being throw around these days. You say I have no trouble labeling others, but ask yourself this. Have I ever labeled you? "real analysis and discussion of broader concepts and worldviews" Ha, coming from you that's a riot. I engage in plenty of those with people much more open minded and with a much broader knowledge base than you possess. When a subject is broached that you either don't know about or doesn't fit with your worldview, you proceed to disparage the idea or person and cast it into your little box of labels. You know, I had considered telling you that I'd like to maybe exchange email addresses (by sending an email to Walter and asking that he give my email address to you if you agree) and have discussions outside of the comments. But actually, you can f*** off. Hard to believe, but I think you're actually MORE close-minded than the people I used to work with. - Resident Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:39:34 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25424 Go read her book, Resident. The point I'm making is this -- while you go around insisting that no one "label" you, or pin you down to a specific ideology, you have no trouble doing it to everybody else. But, now, when some real analysis and discussion of broader concepts and worldviews goes on, you turn out to be a VERY predictable and unimaginative ideologue. There's no better example of a simplistic and inaccurate "talking point" than the decades old attack on Milton Friedman's economic policies based on his supposed "support" of Pinochet. Among US and European leftists, it's become more myth than fact, closer to conspiracy theory than history, and Naomi Klein's book is the latest revival of the tale. That you would trot that out in this discussion speaks volumes. Go read her book and see for yourself how flakey the whole narrative really is. Milton Freidman was NOT an autocrat, not a central planner, and not involved in Pinochet's government. The people who WERE involved in Pinochet's government, the "Chicago Boys", were not Free Marketeers. So looking at the last two centuries of world history, your position is that the problem is the US, business, and Milton Friedman. Karl Marx, on the other hand, who EXPLICITLY and OPENLY called for violent overthrow of most governments and institution of classless societies through authoritarianism (HIS words, NOT mine) does not really mean what it actually said -- violent and authoritarian regimes. - ragin_cajun Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:22:12 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25420 What the heck are you talking about? Have you been drinking? Hopefully you at least read that wiki entry since your knowledge of violence and oppression seems extremely lopsided. - Resident Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:29:54 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25419 You're quoting Naomi Klein at me, now?! That's hilarious! I've lost all respect for you, resident. Shock Doctrine.....that's weak. Have you actually read that book? C'mon, man. I should start posting quotes from prison planet now. You'd be better off reading Cosmo...,Damn!!! - ragin_cajun Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:29:16 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25417 "If, by "right-wing" ideology, you mean Individual Rights, Capitalism, and Limited Government, then I think you'd be hard pressed to show where THAT'S oppressed anyone. Would you call Ron Paul, for example, a "right-winger"?" I would not call Paul a right-winger for two reasons. 1) he defies labels and 2) individual rights and limited government are not properties of the right. As a primer on right-wing governments and their form of oppression why don't you look at US-Latin America relations in the 20th century. And I'll emphasize that many of the actions of the US government were on behalf of corporations and their private ownership of lands in those countries (which itself bred many acts of violence and oppression). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America–United_States_relations#1970s:_the_era_of_the_juntas Here is an interesting quote that ought to get your gears turning: "Placing their own actions within the US doctrine of "National Security" against "internal subversion", the authoritarian regimes who had crushed left-wing opposition began a transition to neoliberal economic policies. Chile thus became one of the laboratory of shock therapy, under the supervision of the Chicago boys influenced by Milton Friedman's monetarism." Maybe, finally, by now you can start to see why I don't accept your equivocation of violent, oppressive regimes with leftist or Marxist ideology. Now I'm tired of this thread. - Resident Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:37:22 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25384 "Now you have to concede that Marxism is not fascism" Marxism is a socio/political program, and an economic system, that proposes abolition of private property, and state control of the means of production. Marx proposed violent overthrow of existing social systems. Marx wanted state control of the individual, primacy of the collective will over the individual will, sublimation of individual will into the collective good. Fascism, along with socialism, communism, social democracy, and fabianism, are all variants on Marx's original idea, so they all have the same root -- Marxism. That is explicitly stated by one of the authors in the book that you posted up here in your comment. The central idea in all these leftist political systems is taking ownership and control of property out of the hands of the individual, and moving that control to the state. This is common knowledge. For that reason, I correctly group all these political systems together. Most reasonable political scientists would do the same. So, to say that Marxism is not fascism is much like saying a Chihuahua is not an Irish Setter. They are both dogs, and they have more in common with each other than they do with cats or people. And, evolutionally (?) speaking, they have a common ancestor. Likewise, though Fascism is not Marxism, it is inspired by and has much in common with Marxism. It is emphatically and diametrically opposed to Capitalism, Freedom, and Individualism. As for the bigger argument that you want to counter...violent and oppressive regimes ARE a product of Marxism. Here's why. In order to take people's property and eradicate private ownership and individual freedom, you MUST, as Marx plainly stated and I quoted above, have violent and oppressive authoritarianism. How can the government take what a person has earned WITHOUT oppression, violence, or the threat of violence? What can be more oppressive than "you will work, and we will decide"? Marxism, and its variants, are inherently oppressive, authoritarian, and violent because that's what it requires. Now, if you want to "broaden the debate", and use "looser meanings" of words, that's OK, but only as long as you tell me what you mean by "right-wing" ideologies. If, by "right-wing" ideology, you mean Individual Rights, Capitalism, and Limited Government, then I think you'd be hard pressed to show where THAT'S oppressed anyone. Would you call Ron Paul, for example, a "right-winger"? - ragin_cajun Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:37:56 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25373 Sure, MARXISM is opposed to capitalism. You said that if you have FASCISM, then you do not have capitalism. You seem to be assuming that Marxism=fascism. According to my reference, that is not true. I will concede that fascism by dictionary definition does not allow for capitalism. Now you have to concede that Marxism is not fascism (nor is communism or social democracy). I will stand by my position that the corporatism we have been practicing for the past few decades has brought reductions in consumer rights and therefore civil liberties. Corporate/government collusion has eroded foundations of our free society. Some of our corporate entities like IBM worked closely with the Nazi regime and indeed lauded praise on it. We could call many things "fascist" with a looser meaning of the word. I think much of what has been done since 9/11 regarding civil liberties and war has been fascist. Hell, the Congress just tried to pass a bill that would have allowed the military to detain American citizens indefinitely. What do you call that? The bigger argument that I wanted to counter was your continued insistence that violent and oppressive regimes are a product of Marxism or the "left." If you know anything of central/south American history, you should be aware of the various right-wing governments (usually installed by the US) that routinely murdered political opposition and practiced oppression. Our own neoconservatism is violent and oppressive. "You don't agree that Marxism spawned a whole host of socio-political systems that were instituted by force all over the world?" No, I take issue with your obsession with Marx or the "left," when right-wing ideologies have done just as bad. - Resident Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:02:02 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25341 Resident - Quoting from wikipedia....."and holds a distinctive opposition to capitalism" So, in your zeal to "counter my argument", you post a link to a site that proves my original point--specifically, I wrote here, "If you have fascism, then you do not, by definition, have capitalism. Your statement conveys a profound misunderstanding of at least one, if not both, of the concepts. " That is what you originally objected to. Do you now concede that I was correct in my statement, and that your objection to it was incorrect? As for your other quotes from Wikipedia....this is just too good. You really should read what you cite before you get all excited and post stuff up here that you THINK proves me wrong. So, I actually went through "Laqueur, Walter, Fascism - A Reader's Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography"... First of all, it's a collection of essays from different authors on the subject. Let me quote a few things FROM THE BOOK!!! "the founder of the first non-Italian fascist movement, Le Faisceau, to define the idea in which the substance of the phenomenon was contained: 'Nationalism + socialism = fascism'" -- page 321 Quoting further..."Some years later Sir Oswald Mosley picked it up in his turn: 'If you love our country you are national, and if you love our people you are socialist.' It was a powerfully clear and simple idea......shared by all the European fascist movements" Here's another quote from the same book, which YOU posted up here...."it's ideological roots in fact go back to the years 1880-1890, when an alliance sprang up between theories deriving from one or another type of socialism-whether non-Marxist, anti-Marxist, or indeed post-Marxist-and from nationalism." -- page 321 So I have NOTHING to take up with that reference because it supports what I've been saying. Thanks for the information. On page 322 of same book, the author says that Darwin can't be blamed for the Social Darwinism touted by the generation that came after him...that is close to what you said about Hitler, isn't it? Maybe you should have put it in quotes? But further down on that page the book says "though philosophers and scientists cannot be held responsible for the uses made of their teachings, ....... IT WAS NEVERTHELESS THEIR TEACHINGS which ..... shaped a new intellectual climate." The first half of that is also something you said....hmmmmm.. You know, as I read through this, I can't help but think you read all these pages, too, and just intentionally held back exculpatory evidence, Resident. Because I'm reading things in this book that are similar to what you typed in your comment above -- without any quotation marks. tsk, tsk, tsk... "I don't buy your apparent inference that every oppressive regime of the last century was because of Marx." Now, who exactly are you implying likes "to dismiss information that contradicts their beliefs"? You don't agree that Marxism spawned a whole host of socio-political systems that were instituted by force all over the world? Is that not historically accurate? You're gonna tell me that Marx just noticed Socialist and Communist stages of society but didn't really advocate a violent and active push to move society into those stages--against people's will? Read the quotes I pasted above from Marx. The man was openly advocating violent social upheaval, and the abolition of property rights. That means violently taking away people's freedom. Some things really are simple and clear, Resident. "Simplistic notions of left vs. right do no good." No, but clear and concise language about the exact nature of the belief systems and world views that motivate tyrrany and oppression ARE good, and NECESSARY. I've written here A LOT of information about Socialism, Fascism, Communism and Capitalism. I've shown the inherent violence that Marx himself recognized and advocated. I think it's all been well explained and documented. Reading all that (I assume you read it), you come up with "simplistic notions of left vs. right" because I used "left" once or twice as a shorthand for the political ideologies I was comparing/contrasting? I don't think what I've written here indicates a "simplistic" understanding of the ideologies discussed at all. No, I think YOUR COMPREHENSION of what I wrote is what is simplistic. - ragin_cajun Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:44:38 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25309 Ragin, something you might want to consider. Hitler was influenced by Darwin's revolutionary ideas about natural selection, and this played a part in his notion of a superior race. However, this does not mean that Darwin was the force behind the Holocaust. Hitler twisted and bastardized Darwin's findings. If the leaders of violent regimes read Marx, that does not mean that Marx was the cause. It's the actual PEOPLE that carry out the violence and oppression, that twist ideas that might otherwise have merit. And who knows what other literature may have influenced them? I don't buy your apparent inference that every oppressive regime of the last century was because of Marx. And if you are saying that fascism is strictly a product of the "left," that is absurd. Fascism can come from anywhere and anyone. In fact, let's get some information here. Looks like a lot of directly contradicts what you've been saying. "Fascism opposes class-based identity and society, it is thus both anti-bourgeois and anti-proletarian; and individualist based identity and society. It is opposed to many ideologies, including conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism: communism and social democracy. In economics, fascists oppose economic liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being class-based movements." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Wow, that's not what you've been saying. Now I know some like to dismiss information that contradicts their beliefs, but I hope that is not you. If you believe the information is wrong, take it up with the references. "Laqueur, Walter, Fascism - A Reader's Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976) pp. 16-17. Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper. The Social Science Encyclopedia, Volume I, A-K. 3rd ed. Routledge, 2004. Pp. 349. WLaqueur, Walter, Fascism - A Reader's Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, 1st ed., paperback (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978) p. 338." My aim is not to defend Marx. I think it's dangerous to pin all the violent, oppressive regimes of the past century on one philosophy, because it ignores so many other factors and beliefs that played a part. Simplistic notions of left vs. right do no good. Left/right does no good in answering your question of whether we are more free or less free. Restrictions on liberty come from people associated with both left and right. James Melancon acts as if it's all "progressives." What about right-wing evangelicals who would use federal government to dictate their version of moral behavior? What about the war on drugs, criminalizing what we put into our own bodies? What about the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and a host of other transgressions on civil liberties? Right-wing types eagerly support these things (so does Obama, it seems). - Resident Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:07:09 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25292 "Its fun sparring with you." I'm glad to hear it, I love it, too. I know I sound pretty angry when I write, and I do get frustrated by the disagreement on the meaning of words sometimes, but I really appreciate the debates we have here. And I DO appreciate your intellect and writing skills as well as those of several of the regular commenters here. As for the article you posted.....yet another profound misunderstanding of Capitalism and "markets". It is very disturbing to me to see just how widespread this ignorance of Capitalism is. The author of your article is every bit as guilty of "saying the words, but not hearing the music" when it comes to Capitalism as she claims postwar socialists were with socialist revisionism. I say this because in her conclusion, she states several times that markets decimate "communities, traditions, and cultures". That ignores what markets actually are. Markets transmit knowledge about the world and society in almost real time between the individuals in a society. Markets cannot function without healthy "communities, traditions, and societies". These kinds of misunderstandings are one reason why Socialists/Communists/Fascists/Social Democrats/Collectivists have all missed the boat for centuries, as the author or the article points out. This discussion of markets is explained by Milton Friedman, Hayek, Adam Smith. As for my original comment on Fascism, you can hear Robert LeFevre discuss Fascism, what it is, and explain how it is a branch of Socialism, and how it is anti-thetical to capitalism and free markets....right here....http://mises.org/media/subjects/125/Intellectual-History/4 Listen to "The Fascists and the Fabians".... - ragin_cajun Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:57:05 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25274 Sounds good RC. Some day I'll get to a full reading of Marx above snippets. No doubt the peasant class and factory worker class was pushing a violent revolution at that time. It worked in America, it worked, disastrously in France, and it swept Europe mid 19th century. The world at that time had not yet come up with non-violence. Gandhi pioneered that some time later. It is certainly more admirable and noble. Some question whether it is always most appropriately suited to the challenge. I feel no one is going to achieve liberty and justice in America with violence. The state has too much power for people to resist it with violence. However, non-violence does not mean working within the system to produce change. I would still disagree that Social Democracy is not Fascism or Communism. Found this article on google from professor at Columbia to be illuminating. http://www8.georgetown.edu/centers/cdacs/bermanpaper.pdf Perhaps I was referencing Bernstein without knowing it. Social Democracy is an evolutionary legacy of Marxism, that took non-revolutionary approach and a "cross class" alliance with non-workers to achieve through political means the changes desired. It did not philosophically wait for, or strive to end capitalism, choosing to manage the economy and capitalist excesses. Sounds like I need to read up on materialism as well and class struggle. That is what Bernstein and Social Democrats rejected. Professor in the piece indicates that Mar figured capitalism would fail on itself over time. Perhaps the writings you are referencing RC are from a different period in his life and viewpoint? People do change over time, and their writings can inspire the views of a diverse set of people intellectually. Such was said about Emerson. My inference from this paper is that Modern Libertarians are same as Classical Liberals. Modern "Liberals" were Social Democrats, but are now just really confused Democrats. Mainstream Republicans, well I think they stopped being Radicals for a while, but now, I wouldn't know what to make of them. They sure do exploit populism well. Lucky for America we are not a nation of Nationalist fever. We are not nearly homogenous enough ethnically for that to fly. I know this, men sure do like political argument for more than women I have noticed. Or are more willing to engage in it. Please forgive my stereotypical assumptions if these are off-base. Its fun sparring with you. - Unempirical Observer Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:03:54 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25273 Quoting: "If government starts controlling economics, incentivizing certain groups, discouraging others, that's well outside of the limits placed on it by the Framers, and the beginning of the end for Free Society and Free Markets -- Capitalism as it's more commonly called." -------------- unfortunately "capitalism" has evolved into a "cut throat all out money grubbing greed" by corporate america and wall street which unless controlled will destroy america - wall street and corporate americas use of its massive wealth accumulation as "legal bribERY" controls the political process and controls the legislative and the executive branches of government - the average middle and lower class americans receive negligible representation as a result - the greatest "wealth transfer" (thievery) in history from the bottom and middle to the affluent occurred during the previous 8 years of the bush administration and continues with the gouging of the consumer by the corporate titans in banking - in oil -in insurance - and in medical - and then these "capitalists" who championed "limited government" -"free markets" and "deregulation" - the deregulation which led to the economic collapse - tossed aside these talking points in panic as thru their influence they managed to have the "government they despised" and the tax payer to cover their losses - AIG, and all the Wall Street entities should have been forced into bankruptcy and the stockholders should have taken their losses , which is what "free markets" means - you make bad investments you lose - "Occupy Wall Street" results from the "corporateism" which has evolved and is a movement which will possibly explode and among other things bring about the needed change of - taking out of the political process "legal bribery" - - gmbo Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:16:28 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25269 by ragin_cajun "would you say that the US is becoming more free or less free right now?" -------------- Less free. The U.S. Constitution, for the most part, states in a negative way the limits of government. The first ten amendments are about what the government can not do. Progressive types feel the government needs to inject itself into individual activities to protect us. There are cases were this is correct, for example the mentally ill. Nevertheless, government control is a slippery slope. One of the worst laws was prohibition which was thankfully repealed. A law widely supported by progressive types. - James Melancon Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:40:47 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25258 "Political states have two poles, state control or individual liberty" Sometimes I see it that way, but other times I think that people can either be free or not. Like being pregnant or not. It seems like a pretty obvious answer that everybody can agree upon--does your government protect your rights or try to limit them? If you see it as a continuum, though, then you must also see the government in question moving in a direction on that continuum. So, for example, would you say that the US is becoming more free or less free right now? - ragin_cajun Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:51:09 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25254 by Farrow "Fascism is one "ism" that is compatible with capitalism." ---------------- Political states have two poles, state control or individual liberty. Fascism, Communism, Socialism, pick your ism, in practice contain elements of free markets. Today Communist China allows free markets and some guarantee of private property. Russia, a/k/a USSR, under communism had limited private property, e. g. small farms and a black market. Today, the exception is North Korea, which comes close to the perfect totalitarian state with the perfect totalitarian results. - James Melancon Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:55:34 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25253 UO -- Do you people not READ the crap you write, or the people that you write about?! Seriously?! I REFUSE to let you people sweep under the rug the true aims and intentions of the ideology that you defend here. Karl Marx DID intend a violent overthrow of the existing social order. That is exactly what the world got in China, Russia, Germany, and numerous places all over South and Central America and Asia. To say now that those were aberrations from the true meaning of Marxism is either honest ignorance or an intentional lie--so which is it? You said "Marx is remembered most for the Stalinist and Maoist political systems of USSR and Communist China. These did not uphold what he may have intended in mid 19th century as an economic and social order change to the states of that era " But, Karl Marx actually WROTE... "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution." "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." "The revolution made progress, not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but by the creation of a powerful, united counter-revolution, an opponent in combat with whom the party of overthrow ripened into a really revolutionary party" "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists." " Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." I know that many here just abhor certainty in anything, but there can be no doubt that Karl Marx was advocating a violent and bloody overthrow of the existing social order, and on a global scale. He plainly stated that the whole project required dictatorship. For you to imply that Communism/Socialism/Fascism is really a peaceful advancement of society and that all the blood and violence was just a mistake is flat wrong. So, would you like to join me and Resident's book club? We'll add Karl Marx to the reading list. - ragin_cajun Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:53:53 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25244 One of the political derivations of Marxist thought are all the modern Social Democracies of Western Europe re-established after World War II (see West Germany, France, Spain at times, and the UK). Doesn't seem that they have been responsible for deaths and oppression. An author was being interviewed on NPR last week that spoke to this effect about the irony that Marx is remembered most for the Stalinist and Maoist political systems of USSR and Communist China. These did not uphold what he may have intended in mid 19th century as an economic and social order change to the states of that era which were dominated by the landed aristocracy, some of them liberal reformers. Those states at that time were not nearly as socialist oriented as the trade union movement in the UK or the Spanish socialists who resisted dominance of the Franco forces, or more early the French changes to the republics which came to being after the final Napoleonic empire passed on mid 19th century. Of course, Germany and Italy were not nearly unified into a single state until around 1870. Socialist movements in those countries, particularly Germany resisted the central power of the Kaiser and the bourgeois class which dominated social and political affairs. Sadly, in those latter two countries, this evolved into a radical group of cultists who were expert propagandists and imagery manipulators, who rose to power during and after economic collapse that partly an intentional effect of war reparations, partly a collapse of the global economic system, and partly an induced crisis in Germany. The Nationalist-Socialists aka Fascists, were anything but communitarian or libertarian-socialists, or liberals. They did use state power to support preferred corporate actors. I think Americans are disgusted right now, that in the alternative, corporate actors are the tail that wags the dog, and that the public through its political institutions really aren't getting the same compact we have come to expect since the Great Depression and the boom of prosperity after World War II because our political institutions aren't truly independent of the influence of corporate and individually wealthy money biasing power in its favor. If Andrew Jackson were here, he might be leading a revolting rural populist movement back into the White House. - Unempirical Observer Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:40:19 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25201 "Anyone who does not endorse your narrative has "profound misunderstandings," eh?" I could almost have written your response for you, Resident. I KNEW that you'd chime in with a personal attack against me, a half-baked idea of what the words mean, and then a re-hash of the leftist paranoia about corporations. Here's the thing. To have capitalism, a society MUST have individual freedom, must uphold individual property rights, and CANNOT have an authoritarian form of government. That's not a narrative, that's the facts. If a goverment allows individuals and companies complete freedom to do as they will with their profits, to grow/not grow their business as they see fit, how can you say that it's fascist? The economic system REQUIRES a free society, free people, and a limited government--all things that Fascism is not. Therefore, capitalism is incompatible with Fascism. "I'd say that the market is not free as long as corporate powers can virtually write the law, legally stifle competition, and erode consumer rights." I would agree with that entirely. The presence of corporations does not necessarily mean free markets, or capitalism. That is why limited government is SO important. If government starts controlling economics, incentivizing certain groups, discouraging others, that's well outside of the limits placed on it by the Framers, and the beginning of the end for Free Society and Free Markets -- Capitalism as it's more commonly called. I think you should read Milton Friedman or FA Hayek. Let's start a book club! - ragin_cajun Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:39:47 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9463-cest-what-redux-jindal-parroting-new-party-line#comment-25200 Ragin, you act as if your your narrative is the holy grail. Anyone who does not endorse your narrative has "profound misunderstandings," eh? You do a great job at convincing yourself. I agree with Farrow that capitalism is one -ism that is compatible with fascism. Comparing capitalism to fascism, as you do, totally misses the point. Fascism has to do with government while capitalism is an economic system. One is not the other. That's why being "compatible" is possible. Individual freedom is not guaranteed by capitalism. It's guaranteed by federal government. Corporate powers do not care what form of government is in practice, as long as it can be bought. And I'd say that the market is not free as long as corporate powers can virtually write the law, legally stifle competition, and erode consumer rights. (hint: that's what is going on now) Although Luntx is a schmuck and a doublespeak propagandist, I'm not surprised that a lot of people think of capitalism as immoral. The way we have practiced capitalism has indeed brought affronts to human rights, not to mention the environment that sustains us. The pure, unbridled pursuit of money can render certain qualities of life obsolete because they are not quantifiable in the monetary sense. - Resident Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:56:08 +0100