Too much ice

Fascism as you noted started as a sect of Socialism. I think you're ignoring that the ideological changes it underwent took it from leftist to rightist.
It's not my personal definition, it's general consensus, yesterday and today. In my UT days it was dogma in the Economics Department that Fascism was and is rightist.
In the 40's Fascists including Nazis were strongly anti-Bolshevik / Communist and that's still the case. Do you think Reds are right wing?
So, your argument is still an appeal to consensus, as opposed to history?

And the interesting thing is that you accuse me of changing definitions to support my argument while you seem to do so by needlessly limiting the definition of "socialism". If you were to use a less narrow definition, you're actually admitting that they implemented socialism--you just excuse the reason they implemented socialism:

To be picky it's the means of production that's key in the distinction. The government did control production to an extent as happens in wartime but with some exceptions it didn't own the means of production as in Socialism. As a matter of fact the major industrialists made out quite well with the influence they gained from their bailout of the Nazi Party in the early 30's and very favorable government policies implemented thereafter.


From Britannica:

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

So, it sounds like from your very post, you admit they implemented socialism, you just make an excuse for why they implemented socialism.



This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.

Interestingly, Fascists claimed to be opposed to Communism, but their policies were very similar to communism--save the Nationalist part, which is really the only issue they had with Communism.


They controlled everything about production and the economy, and "allowed" private property but in name only, as it was to be taken if not used according to the state's wishes. They controlled product prices, salaries, home construction, sales and prices. Gov't-controlled production by controlling collectivist unions, even if some businesses were (in name) privately owned.


Policies, as stated in their Manifesto of Verona:

As concerns social issues, we propose:

9.
That the foundation and the main goal of the Italian Social Republic be work—manual, technical, intellectual—in all its manifestations;

10. That the State guarantee private property, which is the fruit of individual labour and savings as well as an extension of the human personality. Private property, however, must not be permitted to have a disintegrative effect on the physical and moral personality of other individuals by way of the exploitation of their labour.

11. That in the domain of the national economy, the State's sphere of action encompass everything that extends beyond the individual interests or within the domain of collective interests, whether due to scale or function.

Public services and, in most cases, armament industries, must be managed by the State through parastatal agencies.

12. That in every factory (whether industrial, private, government-controlled, or state-owned) representatives of technicians and workers must collaborate closely—to the point of having direct knowledge of the factory's management—in setting fair wages and in equitably distributing profits between reserve funds, stockholder dividends, and worker profit shares.

In some factories this measure will be implemented by expanding the powers of the existing factory commissions. In others, the current management will be substituted by a managing council made up of technicians, workers, and a state representative. In others still, a parasyndical cooperative will be set up.

13. That in the domain of agricultural production, landowner's private initiative shall be curbed whenever and wherever initiative itself is lacking.

Expropriations of uncultivated lands may lead to their being parceled out among farm workers (who thereby become farmer-landowners). Similarly, badly managed businesses may be transformed into parasyndical or parastatal cooperatives, depending upon the needs of the agricultural economy.

Since current laws already provide for these sorts of measures, the Party and various syndical organizations are now hard at work on their implementation.

14. That farmers, craftsmen, professionals, and artists be fully entitled to pursue their vocations individually, for their families or other nucleus. However, they are subject to legal obligations to deliver to the masses those quantities of produce that are set forth by the law and to regulation of fees for services.

15. That home ownership be treated not just as an extension of property rights but also as a right. The Party's platform proposes the creation of a national agency for popular housing that will absorb the existing institute and greatly enhance its effectiveness. Its aim will be to make home ownership available to families of all categories of workers via the construction of new homes or the gradual repurchase of existing ones. To this end, the general principle that rent payments ought to go towards purchase of a home, once capital has been paid off in full, must be adopted.

The first duty of this agency will be to address the war's detrimental effects on housing by expropriating and distributing empty buildings and by erecting temporary structures.

16. That workers automatically become members of the syndicate regulating the category to which they belong, but that this membership must not preclude transfer to another syndicate if all requirements are met. All the trade syndicates are gathered together under the umbrella of a single confederation comprising all workers, technicians, and professionals (but excluding landlords, who are neither managers nor technicians). This umbrella organization will be named the General Confederation of Labour, Technology, and Arts.

Like other workers, employees of state-controlled industries or public services are integrated into syndicates as a function of their category.

The imposing complex of social welfare institutions created by the Fascist regime over the past twenty years remains intact. Consecrated by the 1927 Charter of Labour, its spirit will inform all future developments.

17. That the Party considers a salary adjustment for all workers an urgent necessity. This can be effected by adopting a nationwide minimum wage (with prompt regional adjustments). The need is particularly great among lower-echelon and middle-echelon workers, both in the public and private sectors. Part of the salary should be paid in foodstuffs (at official prices) so that this measure not prove ineffective or harmful for all parties concerned. This can be accomplished by means of cooperatives and factory stores, by expanding the "Provvida's" responsibilities, and by expropriating stores that have broken the law and placing them under state or cooperative management. This is the best way to contribute to the stabilization of prices and the lira's value as well as to the market's recovery. As concerns the black market, speculators must be placed under the authority of special courts and made subject to the death penalty, just like traitors and defeatists.

18. That with this preamble to the Constituent Assembly, the Party offers proof that it is not only reaching out toward the people but also is one with the people.

On the other hand, the Italian people must realize that it only has one way to defend its past, present, and future achievements: to reject the enslaving invasion of the Anglo-American plutocracies whose sole aim, confirmed by a thousand precise signs, is to make the lives of Italians more cramped and miserable.

There is only one way for us to accomplish all our social goals: to fight, to work, to triumph.


Again... Your education and assurances aside, they were a bunch of socialists who implemented nationalistic socialism, as designed by a Communist. Just because they disagreed with how other socialists... er.. socialist-ed... doesn't mean they were right wing.

On April 22, 1945 in Milan, the Fascist leader would declare the following:

“Our programs are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor State. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the working class in struggle for life and death, against capitalism. We are the revolutionaries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourgeoisie by waving the red peril is an absurdity. The real scarecrow, the real danger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capitalist bourgeoisie as an ally against the threat of the red peril, even at best it would be an unfaithful ally, which is trying to make us serve its ends, as it has done more than once with some success. I will spare words as it is totally superfluous. In fact, it is harmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutionaries of whatever hue, with the man of reaction who sometimes uses our very language.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
This is one reason I took a 2? year break from VNP. The ignorance on display is breathtaking at times.
Safe travels to Costa Rica or wherever you're off to. When there maybe take a break from the board, meet some locals, and pray the dollar doesn't tank.
Not sure if you were calling my post ignorant, but no worries either way. I'll toast to you nonetheless. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
Abolish ICE is a popular message right now, particularly on the left, but the DNC is getting everybody in line to stay away from that messaging.

Obama grew ICE a bunch. Then an insane person with dementia inherits ICE and turns the country upside down, but no way is the DNC about to surrender any federal power that they could later wield.

Red flags should be popping off for you freedom > security peeps

 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
where did I say the government needs to take care of the needy per the bible? You are just lying about what I am saying, and I am pretty sure this isn't the first time, but I could have you confused with someone else.

In the cases I mentioned, they came into the country legally - and then literally overnight Trump changes their status from being legal, to being illegal. not due to entry issues, or overstaying visas or whatever. They had legal status until Trump changed it. that's crap. You don't have any justification for Trump taking away the swearing in ceremony. thats wrong to the point of it not being worth more consideration until it is fixed.

the government is saying EVEN IF you do everything correctly. you entered legally, you are 100% legal, you go thru 100% of the process, haven't broken ANY laws (including border control), the government will still reject you from citizenship. and there isn't even a clause about them doing something "traitorous" or tying it to the protests, its a blanket suspension of the swearing in ceremony.

Cities have nothing to do with the legal path to citizenship. that is 100% a federal issue. you are making up fears that don't exist.


China has ‘bought off’ some of the US ‘elites,’ author argues​

‘The Invisible Coup’ author Peter Schweizer says the Chinese government is engaging in ‘civilizational warfare’ on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’
 
We on the side of the constitution or the feds?

 
"The world is watching"
They are, and what are they learning?


Obviously Trump bird dogging immigrants, valid answer. But what else? That you can come here, cut deals with local politicians and change your families lives. I'm not even really mad at them, I'm mad at our politicians, not just those in Minneapolis. This is the standard fare, sell us out for their own interests.
 
Last edited:
You need to take your knee pads off and stop slurping up the Democrat talking points. You are crazy if you don’t think Dems are fascist
I don't know what to tell you Bud, except that there are no kneepads or slurping, I don't follow Democrat talking points, and whether Dems are Fascist or not hadn't even been mentioned until you just did it. In other words, stop with the straw man trash.
 
So, your argument is still an appeal to consensus, as opposed to history?

And the interesting thing is that you accuse me of changing definitions to support my argument while you seem to do so by needlessly limiting the definition of "socialism". If you were to use a less narrow definition, you're actually admitting that they implemented socialism--you just excuse the reason they implemented socialism:






So, it sounds like from your very post, you admit they implemented socialism, you just make an excuse for why they implemented socialism.





Interestingly, Fascists claimed to be opposed to Communism, but their policies were very similar to communism--save the Nationalist part, which is really the only issue they had with Communism.


They controlled everything about production and the economy, and "allowed" private property but in name only, as it was to be taken if not used according to the state's wishes. They controlled product prices, salaries, home construction, sales and prices. Gov't-controlled production by controlling collectivist unions, even if some businesses were (in name) privately owned.


Policies, as stated in their Manifesto of Verona:




Again... Your education and assurances aside, they were a bunch of socialists who implemented nationalistic socialism, as designed by a Communist. Just because they disagreed with how other socialists... er.. socialist-ed... doesn't mean they were right wing.

On April 22, 1945 in Milan, the Fascist leader would declare the following:
That's a whole lot of dancing to go nowhere. Fascism is right wing, full stop. It takes major twists of history and logic to arrive at the conclusion that it's to the left. It's clear that you're eager to take those twists to get to your preferred conclusion. That doesn't earn any credit though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11

Golder talked about her "business" of helping illegal immigrants get jobs as well as navigate the US immigration system, and that she gets kickbacks from their paychecks at jobs.

"They need jobs. I just get them jobs, they find way to go work. Hospital pays $24 an hour, I pay $20. Every $4 off of every hour is mine," she said. "That's how I get my pay."

Golder later admitted that she will go to immigration judges in Ohio in order to pay them bribes.

"If I can get to the judge," Golder said in the video. "You know, that's the only person you want to talk to is the judge." Golder added that she will try to run into the judges at places such as the bar. "I make conversation with them. You say, 'I have this boy there and I need help. You work that day?'"

If the judge says they are working that day, Golder said she will give him $50,000 and then "send everybody to you." When asked if the judge would actually take the bribe, Golder said, "He ain't scared of nothing. How they live, they pay bills just like me and you. C'mon, man."

She then explained in the video that she will go to the illegal immigrants, asking them for money to pay the bribe, and splitting it up among a number such as 40 people. The payments are routed through online services like payonlime.com, which is in the UK, in order to hide the payments.


Golder also claimed that lawyers will also take bribes because they can talk to the judge.

"You get the lawyer and you say, 'Okay, we have this sheet of paper. I need you to ask the judge how much to carry these people two more year in this country? Probably until we get this project done.' He say, 'Okay, give me $50,000.'"

Rico anyone?
 
Yeah the facts matter as do rule of law, warrants, law enforcement adherence to the Constitution, etc.
I know you don't and that's of course up to you. What do you think it indicates though when an ally halfway across the world is reporting how disfunctional our Administration is?
No one...and I mean NO ONE...cares what Third World countries think.

And yes the facts matter, which is why I know the difference between right and wrong with LEO
 

Advertisement



Back
Top