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

MAGA and the New Fascism

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

Previous topic | Next topic

cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

23 Sep 2020, 7:36 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
You'll know the fascist when he tries to steal your money with taxes.



Unless tax collectors beat you up, that would make you a liar.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

23 Sep 2020, 7:37 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
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.


That's because it's a go-to for political smears, not because it's partisan. Totalitarianism is not partisan.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

23 Sep 2020, 7:42 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.


What doesn't the right try to claim?

We have multiple right wing members who are purportedly scientists, not only do they refuse to read a graph series about the composition of the atmosphere, these are people who refuse to associate their own environment's temperature with fire!


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Sep 2020, 9:09 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.


That only works when labor is strong enough to organize and demand companies share the profits workers make, all the while grabbing management under the belt and twisting. With the severe decline of organized labor, workers who actually produce the profit share in less and less of it, that money going to owners and stockholders.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Sep 2020, 9:12 pm

cberg wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
You'll know the fascist when he tries to steal your money with taxes.



Unless tax collectors beat you up, that would make you a liar.


That would mean that the founding fathers were fascists, as they had suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion in early America, when people in Pennsylvania rose up in armed revolt over a whiskey tax.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

23 Sep 2020, 9:28 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
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.


That only works when labor is strong enough to organize and demand companies share the profits workers make, all the while grabbing management under the belt and twisting. With the severe decline of organized labor, workers who actually produce the profit share in less and less of it, that money going to owners and stockholders.


The size of the labour market is also a contributing factor.

A smaller available labor market (for example, limited only to those legally in the country, and with limited immigration\work visas\permits for those from outside the country) will also push wages and conditions up through "supply and demand", where companies need to compete for workers as well as to retain them. An "unlimited" labor market reacts in the opposite direction, where minimal wages\conditions are all that they need to offer, as the company has a large pool of potential staff who will accept these low wages\conditions in order to have a job\income and the "competition" is amongst the potential staff.



Aspiegaming
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,074
Location: Hagerstown, MD

23 Sep 2020, 9:34 pm

I just want to say that my nightmare is coming close to a reality. I have a right to free speech and to criticize and protest what my government does if I don't agree with it and it becomes legal for someone else to end my life if they disagree and/or see me as an unnecessary public disturbance.

What happens in Florida better stay in Florida.


_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.

If my darkness or eccentricness offends you, I don't really care.

I will not apologize for being me.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,827
Location: Stendec

24 Sep 2020, 8:34 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
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.
That only works when labor is strong enough to organize and demand companies share the profits workers make, all the while grabbing management under the belt and twisting. With the severe decline of organized labor, workers who actually produce the profit share in less and less of it, that money going to owners and stockholders.
That describes Capitalism, almost to a tee -- treat the workers like prostitutes and reap the profits.

I started another thread on Trickle-Down economics H E R E to help get this thread back on-topic.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

24 Sep 2020, 8:41 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
That would mean that the founding fathers were fascists, as they had suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion in early America, when people in Pennsylvania rose up in armed revolt over a whiskey tax.


Renegade Cut (OP video maker) has a few choice words about the founding fathers and the founding of America.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!