Comments on: Castro v Marx

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily

Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:30:13 +0000

[...] (John Humphreys?) points out that Cuba’s new economic policy smells suspiciously like something called the free [...]

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:20:21 +0000

I’ve always known that fascism was a form of socialism, but fascism didn’t stress ownership of companies, just heavy control for national ends.
And I’ve been against socialism since my late teens, ever since I first had a job, and saw how much the governments took from my wages- my own plans matter more to me than social planning, and I want to keep all of my wages, please.

By: DavidLeyonhjelm

DavidLeyonhjelm — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:31:01 +0000

You are quite right Temujin Humphreys. Fascism is a form of socialism.

Nicholas is right about China though – it’s fascist – but not for the reasons he gave (capitalist, one party state).

It’s only genuinely capitalist at the small end of the economy. Its largest enterprises are mostly owned by the government. Those that are privately owned operate in close cooperation with the government in a mercantilist manner.

It is not at all dissimilar to Nazi Germany. And of course it is a one party state.

By: Temujin

Temujin — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:03:03 +0000

nicholas — you’re dangerously mis-informed about the nature of fascism. It is a socialist movement that stressed national strength instead, as opposed to the international version of socialism promoted by the Soviet Union. Hence the name “national socialists” (NAZI).

Fascism is absolutely NOT capitalism. Nowhere near it.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:23:40 +0000

Because even cunning people can make mistakes, Mark.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:25:16 +0000

If Bush is that clever how come he didn’t argue to invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds and listen to the RAND Corp. on occupation forces etc?

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:16:43 +0000

I’ll bet Bush CAN spell nukilyer, but he gets more votes if he sounds like a typical voter, who also can’t spells proper!

By: DavidLeyonhjelm

DavidLeyonhjelm — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:36:46 +0000

Chavez was put in by Bush so Americans could see how bad real existing socialism can be!

Ahh, I see. Funny I’ve not heard that mentioned before.

Apart from about a third of his policies I quite like Bush. But he doesn’t strike me as Machiavellian. It just doesn’t fit with someone who can’t pronounce nuclear.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:01:24 +0000

haven’t you lot cottoned on, yet? Chavez was put in by Bush so Americans could see how bad real existing socialism can be! With all these reforming societies, and with China becoming a fascist state (It’s got one party, and it embraces capitalism), we need some communes around, so romantics can see how they really function!

By: Temujin

Temujin — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:59:43 +0000

John McVey — yes, Marx drew a clear distinction between socialism and communism. Socialism has a big government that controlled everybody’s life and moulded them to become better people.

Once that was done, the government could disapear and we would have communism. End-state communism is the same as left-anarchy.

The difference between the “communists” and “anarchists” is that the former believe in going through socialism, while the later (including Chomsky & Orwell) thought that the socialism step would be a mistake. This is why Orwell was so against the USSR.

We have never had communism (except perhaps 15,000 years ago)… while every “communist” country has been socialist.

DavidL — I agree the game isn’t over. But I think hard-core “industrial socialism” (ie soviet style) is on the way out and the new big problem is “environmental socialism” and “islamic socialism”.

Venezuela is trying to bring back industrial socialism… but I don’t think it will work. They will only get half way and then collapse soon enough, insh’allah.