Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

MAGA and the New Fascism

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

23 Sep 2020, 4:03 pm

Fnord wrote:
I have to wonder what, exactly, is so wrong about workers owning all of the shares in a company for which they work?

Workers usually don't like taking losses when company is not doing well.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Sep 2020, 4:04 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
By the current metric, I'm sure Orwell was a Fascist, too.


Orwell is a well-known socialist and well-respected by most on the left. :wink:


Oh, the right tries to claim Orwell, too, conveniently forgetting that he was a socialist.


I'm well aware, I just like to ensure his political leanings are noted. The real irony is Orwell went to Spain to fight the radical right; he's never going to be their mascot no matter how many times they try to claim him.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Sep 2020, 4:05 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
By the current metric, I'm sure Orwell was a Fascist, too.


Orwell is a well-known socialist and well-respected by most on the left. :wink:


Oh, the right tries to claim Orwell, too, conveniently forgetting that he was a socialist.


I'm well aware, I just like to ensure his political leanings are noted. The real irony is Orwell went to Spain to fight the radical right; he's never going to be their mascot no matter how many times they try to claim him.


But they try, and try, and try.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

23 Sep 2020, 4:06 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The sizeable leap is between social democrat and democratic socialist, because the former does not have communism as the end goal.


Social democrats aren't really socialists, ultimately what they're after is a variation on the same mixed-market economy as liberals and conservatives support.

I'm not sure why Sanders refers to himself as a democratic socialist, because he's only ever advocated for social democracy. Social democracy is the main ideology of the American left, even among people who outwardly identify as socialists. American media has used the term socialism so imprecisely for so long that lots of 'socialists' and lots of 'anti-socialists' both have no clue what it actually means.


Coming as I do from a country and city long steeped in Social Democracy (for better and for worse), I'd suggest not calling for Socialism when you mean Social Democracy. Probably garner a lot more support from people people who don't want socialism.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

23 Sep 2020, 4:07 pm

Orwell was absolutely on the left. And 1984 was still absolutely a criticism of far-left authoritarianism.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

23 Sep 2020, 4:09 pm

Fnord wrote:
I have to wonder what, exactly, is so wrong about workers owning all of the shares in a company for which they work?


Absolutely nothing, but don't expect a company to thrive without outside investment. No one should see anything wrong with outside investment either.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

23 Sep 2020, 4:11 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
Orwell was absolutely on the left. And 1984 was still absolutely a criticism of far-left authoritarianism.


Every time I hear far-left radicals speak, I'm reminded of Orwell and 1984.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Sep 2020, 4:17 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
The sizeable leap is between social democrat and democratic socialist, because the former does not have communism as the end goal.


Social democrats aren't really socialists, ultimately what they're after is a variation on the same mixed-market economy as liberals and conservatives support.

I'm not sure why Sanders refers to himself as a democratic socialist, because he's only ever advocated for social democracy. Social democracy is the main ideology of the American left, even among people who outwardly identify as socialists. American media has used the term socialism so imprecisely for so long that lots of 'socialists' and lots of 'anti-socialists' both have no clue what it actually means.


Coming as I do from a country and city long steeped in Social Democracy (for better and for worse), I'd suggest not calling for Socialism when you mean Social Democracy. Probably garner a lot more support from people people who don't want socialism.


Considering we're discussing American politics it makes sense to at least understand and bear in mind the way the term is used in the place we're discussing even we agree that the term is used in an overly broad way in that place.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

23 Sep 2020, 4:32 pm

Sure, but how far do we extend that? Because I've seen american leftist proudly proclain that they're Communists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists and so on. It seems a big ask that it just be assumed that they actually mean something much less malevolent.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Sep 2020, 4:37 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
Sure, but how far do we extend that? Because I've seen american leftist proudly proclain that they're Communists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists and so on. It seems a big ask that it just be assumed that they actually mean something much less malevolent.


Those terms mostly refer to more specific socialist ideologies so it would make sense to assume the person means them at face value until it becomes clear they don't. If someone insists on calling themselves a social democrat, they probably are and don't need to clarify.

If someone insists on calling themselves a socialist you're not being unreasonable to ask them to clarify instead of assuming they mean it in the way you understand it when it's not understood to mean the same thing when they typically encounter it.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

23 Sep 2020, 4:39 pm

Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have to wonder what, exactly, is so wrong about workers owning all of the shares in a company for which they work?
Absolutely nothing, but don't expect a company to thrive without outside investment. No one should see anything wrong with outside investment either.
Investment comes from returning profit to the company, and not to outside investors.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

23 Sep 2020, 4:56 pm

Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have to wonder what, exactly, is so wrong about workers owning all of the shares in a company for which they work?
Absolutely nothing, but don't expect a company to thrive without outside investment. No one should see anything wrong with outside investment either.
Investment comes from returning profit to the company, and not to outside investors.


You can reinvest your profits into company growth. Or you can sell shares of your profits to outside investors and use the money from that sale to invest into company growth. Which strategy do you think is more successful in growing companies? (hint: it's the one used by just about every successful company).


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

23 Sep 2020, 5:04 pm

Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have to wonder what, exactly, is so wrong about workers owning all of the shares in a company for which they work?
Absolutely nothing, but don't expect a company to thrive without outside investment. No one should see anything wrong with outside investment either.
Investment comes from returning profit to the company, and not to outside investors.
You can reinvest your profits into company growth. Or you can sell shares of your profits to outside investors and use the money from that sale to invest into company growth. Which strategy do you think is more successful in growing companies (hint: it's the one used by just about every successful company).
Sure, outside investment makes more companies successful, and makes that success come quicker -- there is no denying that fact.

But there is also the fact that once profits leave that company, those profits are gone and cannot be used to increase the worker's pay or enhance corporate growth.  Sadly, this is the basis for the mantra "Profit is Theft".

Also employee-owned (Socialist) corporations make the most profit for their worker/owners when they are sold to bigger, investor-owned (Capitalist) corporations, provided those bigger corporations don't drive them into bankruptcy first.

So in this context, which is more evil: Capitalism or Socialism?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

23 Sep 2020, 5:31 pm

Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have to wonder what, exactly, is so wrong about workers owning all of the shares in a company for which they work?
Absolutely nothing, but don't expect a company to thrive without outside investment. No one should see anything wrong with outside investment either.
Investment comes from returning profit to the company, and not to outside investors.
You can reinvest your profits into company growth. Or you can sell shares of your profits to outside investors and use the money from that sale to invest into company growth. Which strategy do you think is more successful in growing companies (hint: it's the one used by just about every successful company).
Sure, outside investment makes more companies successful, and makes that success come quicker -- there is no denying that fact.

But there is also the fact that once profits leave that company, those profits are gone and cannot be used to increase the worker's pay or enhance corporate growth.  Sadly, this is the basis for the mantra "Profit is Theft".

Also employee-owned (Socialist) corporations make the most profit for their worker/owners when they are sold to bigger, investor-owned (Capitalist) corporations, provided those bigger corporations don't drive them into bankruptcy first.

So in this context, which is more evil: Capitalism or Socialism?


At the end of the day successful companies = economic growth. Economic growth = higher purchasing power and quality of life for people. I'd call that a good thing.

Now that we've thoroughly derailed the thread to get back on topic. As I quoted George Orwell fascism is a term that really doesn't mean much given its overuse. I honestly don't know what "fascist" means anymore.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Sep 2020, 6:04 pm

Antrax wrote:
Now that we've thoroughly derailed the thread to get back on topic. As I quoted George Orwell fascism is a term that really doesn't mean much given its overuse. I honestly don't know what "fascist" means anymore.


That video repeatedly refers to the usual definition, a movement based on ultra-nationalism, race-based and religion-based divisions, and an obsession with the past. That's the one I had in mind.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Sep 2020, 7:31 pm

Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have to wonder what, exactly, is so wrong about workers owning all of the shares in a company for which they work?
Absolutely nothing, but don't expect a company to thrive without outside investment. No one should see anything wrong with outside investment either.
Investment comes from returning profit to the company, and not to outside investors.
You can reinvest your profits into company growth. Or you can sell shares of your profits to outside investors and use the money from that sale to invest into company growth. Which strategy do you think is more successful in growing companies (hint: it's the one used by just about every successful company).
Sure, outside investment makes more companies successful, and makes that success come quicker -- there is no denying that fact.

But there is also the fact that once profits leave that company, those profits are gone and cannot be used to increase the worker's pay or enhance corporate growth.  Sadly, this is the basis for the mantra "Profit is Theft".

Also employee-owned (Socialist) corporations make the most profit for their worker/owners when they are sold to bigger, investor-owned (Capitalist) corporations, provided those bigger corporations don't drive them into bankruptcy first.

So in this context, which is more evil: Capitalism or Socialism?


At the end of the day successful companies = economic growth. Economic growth = higher purchasing power and quality of life for people. I'd call that a good thing.

Now that we've thoroughly derailed the thread to get back on topic. As I quoted George Orwell fascism is a term that really doesn't mean much given its overuse. I honestly don't know what "fascist" means anymore.


Until they ship jobs overseas and automate most of their "labor." At present, I get no paid time off, vacation days, raises, or even breaks.

Our current economic model can't stand. We can't have employers cutting wages in order to maximize profit in a situation where the economy is built around worker's ability to buy more than what is strictly necessary for survival. People can crow about the triumph of our "capitalism" all they wish, but the chickens are going to come home to roost.

I'm a Millennial. We're the first generation that has done worse than our parents. If that's not a wake-up call, I don't know what is.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)