RadioBanter - View Single Post

RHF

On Oct 2, 10:33*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 11:54*pm, RHF wrote:

*i realize that this is most probably a waste of time. your type, are
almost un-educational. as mussolini stated, fascism should be renamed
corporatism.

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm

What Fascism Is & Isn't

No other word causes so much misunderstanding, confusion, and heated
debate in politics than fascism. The term has been applied to many
individuals such as McCarthy, Hoover, and others. It is frequently
used to describe government policies and government themselves, often
incorrectly. What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary
defines it as: "A government system marked by a centralized
dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent
nationalism." But the author takes exception with that definition. At
best, the definition is vague and abstract. Nor does the definition
seem capable of taking into all forms of fascism.
There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label
fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to
attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to
Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it
allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in
common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but
dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to
distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler.
Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very
beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the
same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much
sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His
second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or
liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political
systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are
inherently unstable, as is any system created by man.
From there, Hayek takes severe liberties with history. For instance,
he goes on to claim that by deliberate policy the United States by
allowed the growth of cartels and syndicates after 1878.71 Indeed this
date and time period is significant, but not for a move towards
socialism or liberalism. Rather, it's the opposite a move towards
fascism and corporate rule. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge
of American history would recognize this time frame as the beginning
of the robber baron era and laissez faire economics, precisely the
type of economic policy Hayek holds in utmost esteem.
*Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the
book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings.
The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated
assertion. He argues against the nation state and proposes a
supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial
elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign
corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe
liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism
in Germany and Italy.
In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini
stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which
it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state
should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out
through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such
matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service
and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the
private sector after returning them to profitability such as the
Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in
1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.
In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of
private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned
control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936
returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout
1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several
banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and
several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and
Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht,
the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the
privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were
especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been
prosperous even during the depression.
Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to
one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to
deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new
equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the
maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the
Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of
persecuting capital."73
*Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more
akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any
liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich
industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United
States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing
attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance
themselves from their previous support of fascism.
Perhaps the only redeeming feature in Hayek's book is his
acknowledgement of environmental problems.72 Indeed this is
significant, considering the book was first published in the 1940s,
long before the birth of the environmental movement. Hayek readily
acknowledges the problem of industrial pollution and the harmful
effects of deforestation, yet he stops short of any meaningful
solution. Instead of offering a viable solution Hayek condemns
government regulation and would allow market forces to provide the
solution. However, it was these same market forces that produced the
problem. We have plenty of proof of such a fool hearty approach both
here and globally. As late as the 1970s rivers caught fire in the
United States, cities were smog stricken and harmful pollutants were
damaging the environment world wide. Today we face the problems of
global warming and ozone depletion, and the problem of environmental
estrogens, which has the potential of being even more threatening than
both global warming and ozone depletion.
But perhaps the most damning of all evidence that Hayek was dead wrong
comes from the implementation of an economic system based on his
beliefs. Hayek later taught at the University of Chicago, the same
university that trained the "Boys from Chicago" who were the economic
brains behind the fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. There is no
question in the matter that under Pinochet, Chile was indeed fascist.
More alarming, Hayek is an idol to several top-level officials in the
George W. Bush administration. They are dangerous close to imposing a
fascist style economy on the United States.
In order to dispel the myth of the Nazis being socialists we need to
first define socialism. Socialism is rigidly defined as an economic
system in which the workers own the means of production and
distribution of goods. A more relaxed definition would be simply that
the workers maintain political control over the production and
distribution of goods. Even using the more relaxed definition of
socialism, the Nazis can not be labeled as socialists as there simply
was no worker control over the production or distribution of goods in
Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis outlawed legitimate labor unions. In
place of the original unions, the Nazis implemented quasi-like unions
that were controlled by the industrialists. In a déjà vu manner, the
Republican Party has recently tried to enact a similar measure,
conferring legal status on worker groups controlled by corporations.
Some writers and historians have argued that you cannot have fascism
without corporatism, as the corporate power structure has much in
common with fascism. During the period preceding the outbreak of WWII
it was common to refer to fascism as corporatism in polite English
society.
More recently others have tried to define fascism as the "Third Way",
in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and
socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" incorrectly
labels any regulations or government controls over businesses as
socialism; essentially it's just a restatement of syndicalism. Such
nonsense should be rejected whole heartily. It again represents an
attempt to distance the right from their support of Hitler in the
1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler
was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in
private hands. Further, following the logic of the "Third Way," one
would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way," for
throughout history there has never been a pure capitalistic system. A
pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it's
never even been tried. But that is to be expected for any system that
awards the winner with all the eggs. Nor has there been a pure
socialistic system. Human greed simply prevents it.
The dangers of such nonsense can be illustrated with the following
quote taken from a Baptists fundamentalist's web page in their
labeling of the Japanese economy as fascist: However, Fascism is an
economic term, denoting the type of economy where the Means of
Production [factories, companies] and the ownership of raw materials
[mines, oil wells] remains in the hands of private individuals, but
where the government intervenes to determine how many competitors will
be allowed to produce the same thing, how much is produced, and what
prices may be charged.1
Here it can be seen that the term fascism has been clearly misapplied.
This description could past for the economic ...

read more »