Jump to content

-----Socialism and Globalism Corporatist-----


Recommended Posts

On 15/05/2021 at 12:56 AM, Yekaterina said:

About Nazi... some people are hardcore fans of them and just let them be. But they are already marginalising themselves as Nazi ideologies are clearly unacceptable in the 21st Century.

I think the same of the Bolsheviks ... a pity that the hammer and sickle are n prohibited.

Edited

I never mentioned capitalism. I give it the title it deserves.

-----The only form of the left that I know of that works is the Chinese model.-------

 

The NatSoc or Nazism It is not very different from socialism, in fact its leaders were socialists, they were enemies of capitalism.

 

It seems I must give to you history classes, I do not know what they are taught in Europa and America (USA).

Let us begin.

 

Mussolini was originally a socialist politician and a journalist at the Avanti! newspaper. In 1912, he became a member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI).

 

Source: Anthony James Gregor (1979). Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520037991.

 

Benito Mussolini was an Italian military man, journalist, and politician who was a member of the Italian Socialist Party for 14 years. In 1910, he was appointed editor of the weekly La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), and the following year he published an essay entitled “The Trentino as seen by a Socialist.” His journalism and political activism led him to prison, but soon after he was released, the Italian Socialist Party, increasingly strong and having achieved an important victory at the Congress of Reggio Emilia, put him in charge of the Milanese newspaper Avanti!

 

This intense political activism was followed by World War I, which marked a turning point in Mussolini’s life. In the beginning, the leader of the Socialist Party was part of an anti-interventionist stance, which opposed Italy’s participation in World War I, however, he later joined the interventionist group, which earned him expulsion from the Socialist Party.

 

Who is the ideological father of fascism?

Practically everyone knows that Karl Marx is the ideological father of communism and socialism or that Adam Smith is the father of capitalism and economic liberalism. Do you know, in contrast, who the mind behind fascism is? It’s very likely that you don’t, and I can tell you in advance that the philosopher behind fascism was also an avowed socialist.

 

Giovanni Gentile, a neo-Hegelian philosopher, was the intellectual author of the “doctrine of fascism,” which he wrote in conjunction with Benito Mussolini. Gentile’s sources of inspiration were thinkers such as Hegel, Nietzsche, and also Karl Marx.

 

Gentile went so far as to declare “Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form.” One of the most common reflections on this is that fascism is itself socialism based on national identity.

 

Gentile believed that all private action should be oriented to serve society, he was against individualism, for him there was no distinction between private and public interest. In his economic postulates, he defended compulsory state corporatism, wanting to impose an autarkic state, basically the same recipe that Hitler would use years later.

 

A basic aspect of Gentile’s logic is that liberal democracy was harmful because it was focused on the individual which led to selfishness, he defended “true democracy” in which the individual should be subordinated to the State, in that sense, he promoted planned economies in which it was the government that indicated what, how much, and how to produce.

 

Gentile and another group of philosophers created the myth of socialist nationalism, in which a country well directed by a superior group could subsist without international trade, as long as all individuals submitted to the designs of the government. The aim was to create a corporate state. It must be remembered that Mussolini came from the traditional Italian Socialist Party, but due to the rupture with this traditional Marxist movement, and due to the strong nationalist sentiment that prevailed at the time, the bases for creating the new “nationalist socialism”, which they called fascism, were overturned.

 

Fascism nationalized the arms industry, however, unlike traditional socialism, it did not consider that the state should own all the means of production, but it should dominate them. The owners of industries could “keep” their businesses, as long as they served the directives of the state. These business owners were supervised by public officials and paid high taxes. Essentially, “private property” was no longer a thing. It also established the tax on capital, the confiscation of goods of religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal rents. Statism was the key to everything, thanks to the nationalist and collectivist discourse, all the efforts of the citizens had to be in favor of the State.

 

Fascism claimed to oppose liberal capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of “third way”, the same position that would be held by Argentine Peronism years later. This opposition to international socialism and communism is precisely what has caused so much confusion in the ideological location of fascism, Nazism and also Peronism. Having opposed the traditional internationalist Marxist left, these were attributed to the current of ultra-right movements, when the truth is that, as has been demonstrated, their centralized economic policies obeyed collectivist and socialist principles, openly opposing capitalism and the free market, favoring nationalism and autarchy.

 

In that sense, as established by the philosopher creator of fascist ideology, Giovanni Gentile, fascism is another form of socialism, ergo, it was not a battle of left against right, but a struggle between different lefts, an internationalist and a nationalist one.

 

In fact, in 1943, Benito Mussolini promoted the “socialization of the economy”, also known as fascist socialization; for this process Mussolini sought the advice of the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Nicola Bombacci; the communist was the main intellectual author of the “Verona Manifesto”, the historical declaration with which fascism promoted this process of economic “socialization” to deepen anti-capitalism and autarchism, and in which Italy became known as the “Italian Social Republic.”

 

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.”

 

Six days after these statements, Benito Mussolini would be captured and shot.

 

This article is part of Emmanuel Rincón’s “La reinvención ideológica de América Latina”.

1607400431140.thumb.jpg.7ede719388be10c231bfb15a2936c784.jpg

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I think the same of the Bolsheviks ... a pity that the hammer and sickle are not prohibited.

I remember when I was younger, my mom got mad at me because I drew a hammer and a sickle. To be honest the problem is not with the symbol itself but what comes after the symbol and what it implies. I am not a Bolshevik just because I drew the symbol, in fact I am still not quite sure what Bolsheviks are, even now. 

If some dude wants to be called Bolshevik, then just let them. If could be a normal Slavic name. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are allowed to point out to them that Nazi and Bolsheviks are unacceptable, at least in your country. 

None of the countries in the world are truly communist; as long as currency still exists there is some degree of capitalism going on. 

China claims to be communist but their eco is booming and they managed the Covid situation better than most countries who claim to be capitalists and 'free' countries. What your name is doesn't matter, what matters is the things you do and say. 

The dude called nazi is actually not horrible at all, he doesn't know what it means and just took it out from a history book. Same applies for Soviet, he just chose it for the meme.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yekaterina said:

Capitalism = using currency to exchange wealth and aiming to accumulate as much wealth as one can, no?

Then you can say we've had "capitalism" since the first coin was invented, but historians and economists would disagree with that notion. I think capitalism is is an economy ruled by those who have the most capital (it's why capitalism naturally evolves into oligarchy). In China's example, they'd be state-capitalist. But anyway, my first post was just being facetious. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

You are allowed to point out to them that Nazi and Bolsheviks are unacceptable, at least in your country. 

in fact, there were not even 2.

 

My country would be the nightmare of Hitler and Lenin.

The colony, even the British one, brought slaves.

 

Natives lived here and hated other natives.

And one day the Spanish arrived and they hated each other too.

 

And then the descendants of Spaniards hated those of the peninsula (Spain) and finally independence came with French and British help, a great role from Argentina and Mexico. 

 

Then the conservatives hated the liberals. And the liberals to the conservatives. But they were all Catholic.

 

Then communism came and made us fight among Central Americans.

 

Then in the 90's hatred continued, El Salvador and Nicaragua hated us, but not anymore.

 

El Salvador and Nicaragua had leftist regimes.

 

El Salvador came out of that, Nicaragua did not.

 

I am dedicated to speaking with people from other Latin American countries.

 

The socialism of the 21st century has destroyed our countries.

 

Mine is safe for now, only organized crime and drugs destroy us.But it does not divide us.

 

But fortunately China is only interested in doing business.The problem is that my country was behind thinking that it should not ally with China.

I do not hate communism, if not what it was and what the West interprets it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no 100% purely capitalist country in the world, if only for the simple reason that roads, fire departments, city halls and police stations are public institutions. There is no such thing as a private city hall or a system of private roads. Not even the most pro-capitalist mainstream economists would go so far as to suggest that roads should be private. It would be so impractical, from every conceivable standpoint, that one would have to be a complete lunatic to advocate for something like that. 

In other words, every single country in the world has some degree of "socialism" to it, like it or not. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

in fact, there were not even 2.

 

My country would be the nightmare of Hitler and Lenin.

The colony, even the British one, brought slaves.

 

Natives lived here and hated other natives.

And one day the Spanish arrived and they hated each other too.

 

And then the descendants of Spaniards hated those of the peninsula (Spain) and finally independence came with French and British help, a great role from Argentina and Mexico. 

 

Then the conservatives hated the liberals. And the liberals to the conservatives. But they were all Catholic.

 

Then communism came and made us fight among Central Americans.

 

Then in the 90's hatred continued, El Salvador and Nicaragua hated us, but not anymore.

 

El Salvador and Nicaragua had leftist regimes.

 

El Salvador came out of that, Nicaragua did not.

 

I am dedicated to speaking with people from other Latin American countries.

 

The socialism of the 21st century has destroyed our countries.

 

Mine is safe for now, only organized crime and drugs destroy us.But it does not divide us.

 

But fortunately China is only interested in doing business.The problem is that my country was behind thinking that it should not ally with China.

I do not hate communism, if not what it was and what the West interprets it to be.

Well Lion from my point of view is a half-true the left and left and right alike did a lot of horrible things.

I give you an example:

Guatemala and Rios Mont(Right also a genocide like hitler)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide

also a fun fact xd: My mom and most of my family was a political refugee that is the reason i am mexican 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/05/2021 at 1:46 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

Then communism came and made us fight among Central Americans.

It wasn't communism that made you fight. It was CIA and their crusade against it. History books omit things like the Indonesian genocide where 3-5 million were killed according the later estimates in the name of stopping communism from spreading in the third world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America

The global south was just a CIA playground during the era.

I mean the term "Banana Republic" was coined in a somewhat literal sense. O. Henry used the term to describe Honduras, and the neighboring nations which at the time were under heavy exploitation by American multinationals, of which the most infamous was the United Fruit Company.

I am not necessarily socialist, but I am pretty anti-imperialist.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lion.Kanzen changed the title to -----Socialism--
  • 4 weeks later...
On 15/05/2021 at 10:34 AM, Yekaterina said:

Capitalism = using currency to exchange wealth and aiming to accumulate as much wealth as one can, no?

If this is capitalism, then ancient Rome and ancient Greece are capitalist

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

If this is capitalism, then ancient Rome and ancient Greece are capitalist

Were they not?

Ancient Rome and Greece were very aggressive though... why on Earth would you burn down Carthage and Persepolis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genava55 said:

If this is capitalism, then ancient Rome and ancient Greece are capitalist

the current system of government in the world is turning into a Corporatocracy.

 

The powerful and private sector government that seeks to create a monopoly and turn everything into services.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The only socialism that does not follow this trend is China

What can I say apart from China OP? ^_^;)

The Han Chinese faction are also OP, Stan has nerfed them significantly compared to Terra Magna but still very strong. Mauryans will meet their counter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yekaterina said:

What can I say apart from China OP? ^_^;)

The Han Chinese faction are also OP, Stan has nerfed them significantly compared to Terra Magna but still very strong. Mauryans will meet their counter!

Today's China has good policies. They still remember the opium wars I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lion.Kanzen said:

mean, there is a museum that negatively remembers his western enemies.

Lol, that is within expectation. Well they are not really enemies of the west or any country in particular, because above all everyone wants money in the end and they prioritise profit. Socialism is just a name; you are not a lion just because your name is Lion.Kanzen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Socialism

I must be clear it is Socialism that they are promoting in the last decade.

 

Lately they import it everywhere.

I don't know what you guys call him. We call it progressivism.

 

They are creating a lot of social division in many countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York Times Admits US Sanctions Are Destroying Venezuela

Quote

The facile right-wing talking point that the economic crisis facing Venezuela “proves” that “socialism always ends in failure” has become so hackneyed by overuse that it has attained its own tongue-in-cheek name. The ad Venezuelum, as it has come to be known, has slowly developed into such a tedious and predictable right-wing tactic that it seems to now serve as an all-purpose retort to try to discredit even the most modest of left-of-center proposals.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lion.Kanzen changed the title to -----Socialism and Globalism Corporatist-----

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...