Fairtaxlaw

[shypsychologyguy]

thats politics for you. These days there isnt enough bipartisn efforts and one side will not except a good proposal from the other side because of elections people have to polarize to stand apart from the opposition.

I think the dems did not come up with any good alternatives to the social security issue and used scare tactics although the proposal from the president is not unstable or bad but it may not be the best option however the dems have not attempted to adress it past saying "all you old people will lose your benefits" and " social security is just fine"

I think the social security proposal and speeches were some of the presidents best but that may be due to the fact that one of the speeches was given in Pensacola so I felt alot of excitment when I watched it live. The one I saw was a town hall type meeting where he had on stage with him random people from my hometown and the president came across as a cool guy to have a beer with.

[shypsychologyguy]

One question and I am not very knowledgable about socialism so help me understand.

what is different about modern socialism and that of the Nazi regime or was that Nazi Facism as you can see I am pretty ignorant.

what is the diference between socialism and Facism and are there examples of any lasting successful examples.

[wagnerr]

shypsychologyguy said:

One question and I am not very knowledgable about socialism so help me understand.

what is different about modern socialism and that of the Nazi regime or was that Nazi Facism as you can see I am pretty ignorant.

what is the diference between socialism and Facism and are there examples of any lasting successful examples.

Loot at it this way, SPG. Socialism is the extreme left; while facism is on the extreme right.

Technically, socialism is Marx's second step to paradise, consisting of the proletariat (urban working class) ruling over the capitalists and peasantry. These two groups were to be re-educated towards Marxism, then take the next step up to Communism, where no govt would be neccessary.

The socialists gear towards helping the urban working class control the means of production, so that they won't be so mistreated and life would be better for them.

Socialists are also anti-religion for the most part, and they see all religion as an attempt by the state to manipulate the ignorant masses.

Thing is, with so much socialism running around in the early 20th century, govts got scared shit, and formulated new programs to combat the socialists. Mussolinni in Italy formulated a new type of govt to combat the Italian socialists; he called it Facism, after the old Roman symbol Facista.

Because the socialists were mostly atheists, the Italian Facists turned to the Church for support. Typically, the early facists favored everything the socialists did not; they tended to be pro-monarchists, pro-religion, and pro native. This means that the Italian facists wanted their country to run by Italian facists, who were Italian, Catholic, and loyal to the king and pope.

The Germans also took on facist ideals, as did the Spanish in Europe. These facists were strong traditionalists, and worked toward gearing up the nations for war, in defense of the god-less socialists.

Hitler, for example, adopted Mussolini's form of Facism and made it German. He attacked the German socialists, then turned on the Jews and Slavs because they were not German. He attacked Christians as well.

In South America, facism developed out of an anti-colonial movement. Again, they were gearing towards restoring native, mestizo rule of various South American countries, particularly Argentina and Chile.

South American facists include Peron, Noriega, and Pinochet; again, all ultra nationalists gearing towards Catholicism and native rule. Pol Pot could be included here as well, of Cambodia, and Idi Amin Dada of Uganda. Hitler of Germany, of course. I'd also include the Duvalliers of Haiti.

Some prominent socialists included Lenin, of course, Trotsky, Stalin, Sytin, and Voroshilov of Russia; Tito of YugoSlavia, Mao Tse-Dong of China, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam. Even W.E.B. Dubois and Eugene V. Debs of our own United States, SPG.

The Labor party of Britain, led by Tony Blair at this time, is also a Socialist party, but with much less dramatic goals in mind.

So basically SPG, you can think of Facists as ultra conservatives, and socialists as ultra-liberals. Socialists look to the international level of workers unification, while Facists tend to look inwards on the national level, and promote racist superiority.

I abhor both systems because of all the destruction they wrought on the world in the 20th century, and because both groups tended to be very strongly anti-democratic.

Thing is, the effects of the two idealogical systems here were very similar. Both looked to the fusion of the industry with the state; both waged genocide on problem groups; both depended on strong leadership; and both emerged out of crisis.

[HybridMoment]

As for the fair tax, I don't really see it being a "left" or "right" idea. It actually is more of a Libertarian idea, though I guess Republicans are for it, because they are fiscally conservative like Libertarians.

[shytothebone]

wagnerr said:

shypsychologyguy said:

One question and I am not very knowledgable about socialism so help me understand.

what is different about modern socialism and that of the Nazi regime or was that Nazi Facism as you can see I am pretty ignorant.

what is the diference between socialism and Facism and are there examples of any lasting successful examples.

Loot at it this way, SPG. Socialism is the extreme left; while facism is on the extreme right.

Technically, socialism is Marx's second step to paradise, consisting of the proletariat (urban working class) ruling over the capitalists and peasantry. These two groups were to be re-educated towards Marxism, then take the next step up to Communism, where no govt would be neccessary.

The socialists gear towards helping the urban working class control the means of production, so that they won't be so mistreated and life would be better for them.

Socialists are also anti-religion for the most part, and they see all religion as an attempt by the state to manipulate the ignorant masses.

Thing is, with so much socialism running around in the early 20th century, govts got scared shit, and formulated new programs to combat the socialists. Mussolinni in Italy formulated a new type of govt to combat the Italian socialists; he called it Facism, after the old Roman symbol Facista.

Because the socialists were mostly atheists, the Italian Facists turned to the Church for support. Typically, the early facists favored everything the socialists did not; they tended to be pro-monarchists, pro-religion, and pro native. This means that the Italian facists wanted their country to run by Italian facists, who were Italian, Catholic, and loyal to the king and pope.

The Germans also took on facist ideals, as did the Spanish in Europe. These facists were strong traditionalists, and worked toward gearing up the nations for war, in defense of the god-less socialists.

Hitler, for example, adopted Mussolini's form of Facism and made it German. He attacked the German socialists, then turned on the Jews and Slavs because they were not German. He attacked Christians as well.

In South America, facism developed out of an anti-colonial movement. Again, they were gearing towards restoring native, mestizo rule of various South American countries, particularly Argentina and Chile.

South American facists include Peron, Noriega, and Pinochet; again, all ultra nationalists gearing towards Catholicism and native rule. Pol Pot could be included here as well, of Cambodia, and Idi Amin Dada of Uganda. Hitler of Germany, of course. I'd also include the Duvalliers of Haiti.

Some prominent socialists included Lenin, of course, Trotsky, Stalin, Sytin, and Voroshilov of Russia; Tito of YugoSlavia, Mao Tse-Dong of China, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam. Even W.E.B. Dubois and Eugene V. Debs of our own United States, SPG.

The Labor party of Britain, led by Tony Blair at this time, is also a Socialist party, but with much less dramatic goals in mind.

So basically SPG, you can think of Facists as ultra conservatives, and socialists as ultra-liberals. Socialists look to the international level of workers unification, while Facists tend to look inwards on the national level, and promote racist superiority.

I abhor both systems because of all the destruction they wrought on the world in the 20th century, and because both groups tended to be very strongly anti-democratic.

Thing is, the effects of the two idealogical systems here were very similar. Both looked to the fusion of the industry with the state; both waged genocide on problem groups; both depended on strong leadership; and both emerged out of crisis.

Don't get communism confused with socialism. I know communism has some socialistic properties but guys like Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, etc were communist period. No arguments about it. Also I dont know where you get that Tony Blair his party are socialist. They are not. If they were they wouldnt be supporting the USA like they are now. Spain is a good example.

[wagnerr]

shytothebone said:

Don't get communism confused with socialism. I know communism has some socialistic properties but guys like Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, etc were communist period. No arguments about it. Also I dont know where you get that Tony Blair his party are socialist. They are not. If they were they wouldnt be supporting the USA like they are now. Spain is a good example.

Why are you separating Communism from Socialism?

And yes, the British Labor party is Socialist, but they are not Marxists. The Labor group evolved out of strands of socialist programs in the early 20th century i believe, very similar to the US own American Socialist Party at about the same time.

From how i understand it, the Labor party coalesced out of a combination of Social Democrats and independent labor unions throughout England, seeking to propound the good of the working class of Britain. They are still today a very moderate form of Socialists that combine with democratic principles.

Also, i don't know why Blair is supporting the US. The only thing i can figure is that the British and Americans have had a very close working relationship for the last two centuries, and try to cooperate in forigen affairs.

Maybe there's some other motivation in mind, i don't know.

As for Ho Chi Minh, he was the object of study for me for nearly a year in grad school. He and his comrades converted to Russian Socialism early on in their lives, after they became interested in Vietnamese independence.

Thing is, there were only two options for the Vietnamese to pursue if they wanted independence. One, they could side with Ho Chi Minh's party and become Socialist, and get support from the Russian Comintern. Option two was to side with the Vietnamese Constitutionalist party, known as the VNQDD, which hoped for peaceful separation from the French after 1932.

More and more, the Vietnamese came to see the VNQDD party as shallow and hallow, and never would achieve independence from the French after WWII. The VNQDD wanted to set up a system similar to the British Dominion system, which would have lasting ties with the French govt.

So, if the Vietnamese wanted independence, after WWII, their only real option was to turn to the ICP, the IndoChinese Communist Party, which evolved into the Vietanamese Socialist Republic of the North.

Ho Chi Minh wished to lead his socialist republic into the Communist future, but he died before it could be achieved.

To become a Communist nation, Ho Chi Minh knew that he had to develop the Indochinese Proletariat, which at the time of the 1950's consisted of fewer than 200,000 workers in the cities. Ho knew that Communism could never develop without first a socialist revolution led by the proletariat, but he modified this to include educated groups of the peasantry to assist and form the backbone of the army.

And his group were successful after him.

With Stalin, well, he was Party Chairman of the Soviet Union, which headed committees of representatives geared towards protecting the working classes of the USSR. The committees consisted of prominent Socialists representing the workers, while not precisely being part of the working class themselves.

Stalin adopted many of Lenin's own industrialization programs after his death in 1924. However, Stalin also evolved into a powerful and paranoid dictator, interested in making the USSR powerful on his terms.

I know less about the Chinese, but i do know that Mao and his groups were facing the same problems as Ho in Vietnam, how to create a Chinese proletariat. So you see, socialism had to come first before the Communist system could be implemented.


But you are correct about Pol Pot. I shouldn't have included him in my list of facists, hehehe. I was thinking though that his reign of terror did closely resemble Facist terro policies. But he was much more a Mao Communist than anything.

[shypsychologyguy]

I like democracy . However Wasnt america established as a republic ?

whats the diference between a democracy and a republic.

[wagnerr]

shypsychologyguy said:

I like democracy . However Wasnt america established as a republic ?

whats the diference between a democracy and a republic.

A republic is a loose coalition of states, often bound together under a weak central govt.

A democracy is where all citizens participate in every single community decision.

The founders were very conscious of the potential abuses of a powerful central govt. So they made the nation into a republic at first, instead of a Constitutional monarchy like Britain.

[shypsychologyguy]

Ok thats what I figured.

[Samantha]

wagnerr said:

What does it matter if a proposal is left or right? Look to the analysis of a proposed law or progam, and judge it that way, not by any politician or group.

Exactly.

I love the way it's called 'Fair' tax lol. Talk about a loaded name. "No madam, I will not be voting for the fair tax but will instead vote for the unfair tax". Gimme a break.

I'm going to start a political party and call it the Good Guys party. "So will you be voting for the Good Guys this election?". Can't fail. Assuming we are as dumb as alot of politicians think we are that is.

[shypsychologyguy]

that is loaded but whats wrong with that.

I cant help that the president is pushing for a policy with a name that states exactly what it is "Fair"

[Samantha]

shypsychologyguy said:

that is loaded but whats wrong with that.

Personally I don't like people trying to manipulate me or my opinions by cheap trickery. If something is worthy it should be able to stand up to scrutiny rather than trying to slip it in the back door via some intellectual sleight of hand.

shypsychologyguy said:

I cant help that the president is pushing for a policy with a name that states exactly what it is "Fair"

It's ok I wasn't blaming you for it. It was just an observation. It may very well be fair but for me a better name would describe HOW it works, not why it works. Why not call it Give The Government Money tax? After all that is what it is too but I guess it doesn't sound as good. Call me old fashioned but I prefer substance over style.

Besides I think we should be allowed to make our own minds up whether something is fair or not. It is pointless to me calling it fair because all or any methods of taxation should be fair. The only difference is what we consider fair. It is subjective. One man's biscuit is another man's mug sludge and all that.