Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomDut)
    It's hard to get your head around and it probably wouldn't work.
    The basic idea is that we would live in a 'booming economy' due to great advances in technology. Obviously it would be state run.
    That would be due to all that great advanced technology that the state has, right?

    Technology is adopted and improved by industries in order to reduce the cost of responding to increases in demand. But without a freely operating price mechanism, your industries would not have any way of telling what demand would be.

    However, due to everyone having their fair share of the booming technological economy then everyone would have good standards of living and health... I don't mean to say that everyone would be rolling in money, but they would lead comfortable lives.
    Except that socialism doesn't work. You cannot rationally plan the allocation of scarce resources without a price system, where prices are set by supply and demand in a competitive economy. People wouldn't be able to know when more of one thing and less of another was needed. Thats why Soviet bread lines and NHS waiting lists exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    And the fascism of the Italians was a right wing movement and certainly not socialist.
    Except that it plainly was. You can take sections of Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fasism, take out the words "fascism" and "fasces," and sell it to the SWP. They would probably tell you it was an example of "utopian and unscientific socialism" until you told them what it really was.

    Mussolini was a socialist propagandist, and the translater of Kropotkin;s Mutual Aid before he established socialism, and his economic system is called "national synicalism," because it is a form of syndicalism.

    Nazism, however, had considerable socialist influences and was more left wing.
    Well, they were less prepared to nationalise than the Italians, but willing to regulate. Keynesian style fiscal policy was key to early Nazi popularity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We need to invent a new system which is clean and fair. A system that must not include racism, communism and revolution. Until someone can find that we just
    need to stick with capitalism for now, ofcourse, not for long. Socialism has my support, but at the moment it is still sketchy and needs a bit of refining before it can be adopted. I partly like capitalism it is not a great system; breeds greed, corruption and poverty, but it is a good system for technological age.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    hell no.

    tory's all the way.

    and stop taxing the upper classes so much
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Except that it plainly was. You can take sections of Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fasism, take out the words "fascism" and "fasces," and sell it to the SWP. They would probably tell you it was an example of "utopian and unscientific socialism" until you told them what it really was.

    Mussolini was a socialist propagandist, and the translater of Kropotkin;s Mutual Aid before he established socialism, and his economic system is called "national synicalism," because it is a form of syndicalism.
    Actually, regardless of the rhetoric of the Italian fascists, Mussolini's Italy had a very free market. Probably more free than in the post New Deal US.

    The fascist movement in Italy was divided however between Catholic bourgeois and anti-Communist workers.

    The Italian fascist movement was a reaction to the violent left that was emerging in Italy. It adopted many aspects of traditional Catholic morality and customs.

    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Well, they were less prepared to nationalise than the Italians, but willing to regulate. Keynesian style fiscal policy was key to early Nazi popularity.
    Hitler was far more radical and populist if you want to put it that way. Many scholars and commentators on Italian fascism of the 1920's considered it to be unimportant and merely a reaction to the left.

    It wasn't until Hitler with his Stalinist, socialist and radical aspects that "fascism" was considered dangerous or relevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine that we had two planet Earth right next to each other. One would be for the capitalist and the other for socialist. Who would you think will be the first to land on mars?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Hitler was far more radical and populist if you want to put it that way. Many scholars and commentators on Italian fascism of the 1920's considered it to be unimportant and merely a reaction to the left.

    It wasn't until Hitler with his Stalinist, socialist and radical aspects that "fascism" was considered dangerous or relevant.
    Actually, commentators in the UK, often even left-wing ones, were excited both by what was going on in the USSR and what was occurring in Germany. For instance, from Keynes' own introduction to the German edition of his General Theory:

    [T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.
    Of course, he would have rathered that democracy be retained.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Remarqable M)
    Imagine that we had two planet Earth right next to each other. One would be for the capitalist and the other for socialist. Who would you think will be the first to land on mars?
    The socialist one. It would have done so as a demonstration to the capitalists of the greatness of socialism and to its own population of the greatness of the state, whilst its people starved.

    The capitalist one wouldn't have got near the moon yet, because resources were being used for things that there was an actual demand for, feeding people, providing their needs, and giving them enjoyable lives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selenax)
    hell no.

    tory's all the way.

    and stop taxing the upper classes so much
    Why? :curious:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    How about no.............















    You crazy Dutch *******.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Actually, commentators in the UK, often even left-wing ones, were excited both by what was going on in the USSR and what was occurring in Germany. For instance, from Keynes' own introduction to the German edition of his General Theory:



    Of course, he would have rathered that democracy be retained.
    That's true even though I would add that leftists in the US were more partial to Mussolini and that the Italian economic model was an influence on the New Deal. Hitler was hated by the cast majority due to his anti-semitism.

    But even though the economics (or the supposed economics) of Mussolini were hated and feared by the Anglo-American right, it is quite clear that Mussolini's movement had rightist goals.

    And even though you and I may be right wingers just because Mussolini was one as well doesn't mean we agree with him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    That's true even though I would add that leftists in the US were more partial to Mussolini and that the Italian economic model was an influence on the New Deal. Hitler was hated by the cast majority due to his anti-semitism.

    But even though the economics (or the supposed economics) of Mussolini were hated and feared by the Anglo-American right, it is quite clear that Mussolini's movement had rightist goals.

    And even though you and I may be right wingers just because Mussolini was one as well doesn't mean we agree with him.
    On the contrary, I would put myself on the left. I would say that since the National Front, Fascism and Nazism are the "far right," and libertarianism/classical liberalism disagrees with them on every issue, that makes libertarianism the far left. More obvious socialists agree with fascists and Nazis on their criticism of free markets and on the need for state intervention and central planning, profit sharing, hostility to private ownership of land etc, whilst agreeing with libertarianism on social or cultural issues. That makes socialists the centrists, fascists the far right, and libertarianism the left.

    Traditional conservatism fits this model, too: Look at Disraeli's complaints that the right of private property was not seen, under classical liberalism, as a reward granted on condition that it benefit society, rather than be used for individual gain. I can get plenty of nineteenth century tory and conservative quotes opposing capitalism and praising some collectivism. Of course, it was a tory government that repealed the Corn Laws, but it was forced to do so by whig radicals, by classical liberals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    On the contrary, I would put myself on the left. I would say that since the National Front, Fascism and Nazism are the "far right," and libertarianism/classical liberalism disagrees with them on every issue, that makes libertarianism the far left. More obvious socialists agree with fascists and Nazis on their criticism of free markets and on the need for state intervention and central planning, profit sharing, hostility to private ownership of land etc, whilst agreeing with libertarianism on social or cultural issues. That makes socialists the centrists, fascists the far right, and libertarianism the left.

    Traditional conservatism fits this model, too: Look at Disraeli's complaints that the right of private property was not seen, under classical liberalism, as a reward granted on condition that it benefit society, rather than be used for individual gain. I can get plenty of nineteenth century tory and conservative quotes opposing capitalism and praising some collectivism. Of course, it was a tory government that repealed the Corn Laws, but it was forced to do so by whig radicals, by classical liberals.
    You have a complete misunderstanding of the political sceptrum.

    First of all libertarianism and classical liberalism are NOT the same thing. And I would put many Classical liberals on the right and others like Mill probably on the left. Libertarianism is also diverse with many on the left and others on the right.

    Socialism is left wing, not centrist, even though some versions are more or less radical than others.

    Conservatism isn't centrist but clearly right wing. Just because some conservatives supported tariffs in the 19th century doesn't mean that they are in any way "left wing".

    And Italian fascists were rightist, yes but Nazism was far more to the left. Many fascists such as Peron were leftist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    You have a complete misunderstanding of the political sceptrum.

    First of all libertarianism and classical liberalism are NOT the same thing. And I would put many Classical liberals on the right and others like Mill probably on the left. Libertarianism is also diverse with many on the left and others on the right.

    Socialism is left wing, not centrist, even though some versions are more or less radical than others.

    Conservatism isn't centrist but clearly right wing. Just because some conservatives supported tariffs in the 19th century doesn't mean that they are in any way "left wing".

    And Italian fascists were rightist, yes but Nazism was far more to the left. Many fascists such as Peron were leftist.
    Are you talking in economic terms or social terms?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Are you talking in economic terms or social terms?
    Neither in particular, really.

    The Left v Right political spectrum isn't as easy to sum up in terms of either "social" or "economic".

    To find out whether someones a lefty or a righty you have to anaylse their thoughts on many things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Neither in particular, really.

    The Left v Right political spectrum isn't as easy to sum up in terms of either "social" or "economic".

    To find out whether someones a lefty or a righty you have to anaylse their thoughts on many things.

    Then how would you class an individual such as Lew Rockwell?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Then how would you class an individual such as Lew Rockwell?
    Rockwell is a rightist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Rockwell is a rightist.

    But he his views socially are not right wing at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But he his views socially are not right wing at all.
    "Rockwell's political ideology, like Rothbard's in his later years, combines a form of anarcho-capitalism with cultural conservatism and the Austrian School of economics."

    From Wiki

    And LeeRockwell.com has many conservative contributers like Paul Gottfried.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    "Rockwell's political ideology, like Rothbard's in his later years, combines a form of anarcho-capitalism with cultural conservatism and the Austrian School of economics."

    From Wiki
    .

    Ok then, what about the gentleman in my avatar, Ron Paul, he is an advocate of the free market and the Austrian school, but socially supports a minarchist Government and individualism.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.