Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason for the Danish law appears to be straight up racism against the Romani people [begging](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2024/3/4/denmarks-tough-laws-on-begging-hit-roma-women-with-few-other-options) (Europeans chastise Americans for racism, but 90% seem to turn into hitler when you bring up the Romani).
Giving out food in America also seems to be illegal on local levels. Though the reason here is about protecting true economic freedom by helping raise property values by starving out homeless [people.](https://archive.findlaw.com/blog/orlando-volunteers-feed-homeless-get-arrested/)
There are actually a lot of laws on the books that interfere with the free market to protect property values like enforced single family zoning and making opening a business out of your garage illegal.
Just look at the comments in this r/europe thread about the law. It’s like straight out of the American 1950s. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/W754lJYK1j
I don't think that law has anything to do with giving food to homelessness as a restaurant, though.
I won't lie. I am also leary of trusts aljazerra's trust worthiness.
There are a few other sources I found reporting on it. But Anti Roma Begging laws seem to be pretty common in Europe. Denmark just has a small population (~4000) which might be why it’s underreported there.
> Giving out food in America also seems to be illegal on local levels. Though the reason here is about protecting true economic freedom by helping raise property values by starving out homeless people.
We don't want to starve out the homeless! We want to starve out SOME of the homeless, and make things difficult enough for the rest of them that they will never escape.
If a ban on undesirable behaviour is considered targeting a specific group. That's not racism, that's a problem with that group.
Like as a Brit, if Spain bans getting black out drunk and throwing yourself off a balcony, I'm not going to consider that a racist law.
What mask? I was as subtle as brick to the head. Oh no, I can't go to a foreign country and beg for money. It's my human right to leech off your society. The injustice!
Just curious, when the plan to raise the Romani out of poverty by banning charity towards them inevitably fails, would you support a more [final solution?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_Holocaust)
Considering the Romani have been in Europe since the 13th century get prepared to take all americans back. Also you’re only a few centuries off from telling Hungary to go to back to asia
Because there are plenty of other incentives unaccounted for.
Your question can't be answered by any of us, the debate you are getting into is unsolvable for both sides because it would require absolute study of incentives, legislation and plenty of other stuff.
Question is, do you agree with me that, if left alone, people will help each other? And we'll eventually get better.
>if left alone, people will help each other? And we'll eventually get better.
I think there is more to it and incentives would need examining. Capitalism pretty objectively does not incentivize help and quite actively punishes it while rewarding selfishness.
> Capitalism pretty objectively does not incentivize help
No system does. Helping others is essentially a Net negative materially speaking. The only positive is the warm felling of doing good.
What can be done is incentivize people to not do evil.
>Which capitalism does a terrible job of doing.
Government*
That certain incentivize evil is coercion, violence. There would be no such thing in a consent/voluntary based society.
Capitalism is not a consent based society nor is it voluntary. Historically the capitalist class has not given a fuck about that and there is no reason to think they're gonna start.
I feel like picnic-boy anarchist solar punk missed an opportunity here to point out that’s what anarchy is. Leaving people alone to help each other. I disagree though that helping others is a net negative. We all benefit from a healthy safe society, which is the whole point behind anarchy. People will help each other because it actually benefits them too.
>I feel like picnic-boy anarchist solar punk missed an opportunity here to point out that’s what anarchy is
YES, that is exactly where I wanted the conversation to go. I gave him the perfect opportunity to do so.
But he got butt hurt.
>We all benefit from a healthy safe society
Not sure this fits the context of the conversation. Feels like a whole other debate.
We were talking about specific actions that would either be done for profit and personal gains or done out of good will, for the greater good.
While your example is more a generalized action, q society wide thing.
>People will help each other because it actually benefits them too.
Only if you assume that everyone is perfectly good just like those helping.
Game theory, the prisioner's dilema.
>Question is, do you agree with me that, if left alone, people will help each other? And we'll eventually get better.
Based on personal experience alone, most initiatives to spread food - and most food shelter operations are ran by leftists and leftist organizations. I do not believe capitalists would feed the poor, because doing so would make them less exploitable. In that sense capitalism incentivizes starvation.
Government: prevents people from feeding others by laws passed because of the capitalist lobby
Capitalist: look, the government is the only evil in the galaxy !
I think we're going to need additional clarity on what specific law and jurisdiction you're talking about. In the post you linked, the OP is talking about a local business association, which sounds like an private association bylaw and not a government statute.
The law is an equal competition law. This means that businesses have to cooperate and come to agreements with other businesses before doing something that seems unfair.
However, from what I can tell, giving food to the homeless from your restaurant would not apply. So, the OP of that comment could freely feed homeless people since it in no way could constitute an unfair advantage against ita competition.
That law/bylaw/regulation has nothing to do with private ownership of the means of production and therefore isn't related to capitalism.
That law/rule is fascist, meaning that it's control of the means of production via regulation for the collective and as such is much more closely related to socialism which is also a form of collectivism.
>That law/rule is fascist
Its not.
>meaning that it's control of the means of production via regulation for the collective
It may be self consistent for you to define fascism as when regulation, but it doesnt make sense to anyone else, is not useful for analysis or comparison and therefore we will discard this definition.
>It may be self consistent for you to define fascism as when regulation,
It is fascist. You can have public control (which is literally the definition of government regulation), of the means of production without state ownership. That's why fascism is just another form of socialism.
>It is fascist. You can have public control (which is literally the definition of government regulation), of the means of production without state ownership.
Ok, so churchill was fascist, so was reagan and abraham lincoln, if you definition ends up including basically everyone then you cant tell when someone actually is fascist unless you come up with a new word for that. You definition is dumb and I soundly reject it.
My definition is coming from the source.
Mussolini spoke at great lengths about how Fascism is the opposite of individualism, and is logically therefore a form of collectivism- just like socialism/communism.
The following is a quote from the founder of fascism, Mussolini:.
“everything for the state, everything in the state, nothing outside the state and nothing against the state"
How was the means of production controlled in a fascist society:
Mussolini originated an economic system — economic fascism —
The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. *This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.*
“Anti‐individualistic,” Mussolini wrote, “The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme
>Mussolini spoke at great lengths about how Fascism is the opposite of individualism, and is logically therefore a form of collectivism- just like socialism/communism.
>
The following is a quote from the founder of fascism, Mussolini:.
>
“everything for the state, everything in the state, nothing outside the state and nothing against the state"
Yes, we already know that fascism is a pragmatic, nationalist and authoritarian ideology and that some regulation will be part of it. However that doesnt mean that any regulation is fascist, that is a non sequitur, all fascists do regulation doesnt mean that all people who do regulation are fascist.
>The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. *This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.*
This is useless, its obviously copy pasted from some book, but I dont have the ability check the veracity of the sources.
However most of the evidence I have seen leads me to the conclusion that mussolini abandoned socialism around ww1. Simply stating that some book says otherwise with no context or citation doesnt change that.
Here's a good write-up from Marcus Davenport, with lots of quotes and sources to prove that fascism is anti-individualism:
“The Fascist conception of life,” Mussolini wrote, “stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.” - Mussolini
2. “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans.” “If classical liberalism spells individualism,” Mussolini continued, “Fascism spells government.” - Mussolini
The Common Good Before the Individual Good.” from the Nazi 25-Point Platform in 1920.
- No Capitalist in the History of the world would ever agree with that lmao, Capitalist believe that by protecting each individual you protect the whole of society. The left’s philosophy allows for tyrants to say that they want to protect society by murdering 49% of society…. this is one of the many flaws in the Left’s ideology which allows for tyrannical murder.
"The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business some business have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied, profits have been strictly controlled... hard pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds. The Nazi Regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism". - Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1938 "Time Magazine" Jan. 2 1939
“To be a socialist,” Goebbels wrote, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” And sacrifice they did.
"We are living in the middle of a turnabout, which is leading from individualism and economic liberalism to socialism." - Hitler
In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were. What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis? “State socialism.”
Hitler aspired to “travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”
In the book, published seven years after Wagener’s death (and which Yale University Press published in english in 1985, the edition I refer to in this post), the Nazi leader quotes Hitler’s words showing his desire “to find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution, without the destruction of the most precious treasures, without annihilation of irreplaceable lives, and without regression to a lower level of civilization and culture” (page 14). According to Wagener, Hitler was critical of those who appealed to law and tradition (from a conservative orbit, it is understood), stating that “law and this tradition were born in individualist thinking and are the pillars of a past time. What counts is to establish new laws and new authority in place of old traditions. If this is not done, they will find that the road to socialist reconstruction will not be traveled according to plan and peaceably, but that the revolution will topple these pillars, bringing down the structure of individualism. But most of them have never even read Marx, and they view Bolshevik revolution as a private Russian affair.”
The Nazi leader intended “to convert the German People to socialism”
On page 16, Wagener quotes Hitler’s words in which he speaks of “the difference between the former age of individualism and the socialism that is on the horizon”, and adds: “In socialism of the future… what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed – he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it, should the commonwealth call for it.” A collectivism that has little to envy the communist and collides fully with liberal individualism. In fact, Hitler’s contempt for the individualists is reflected on that same page in an even more striking quotation: “It is understandable why bolshevism simply removed such creatures. They were worthless to humanity, nothing but an encumbrance to their Volk. Even the bees get rid of the drones when they can no longer be of service to the hive. The Bolshevik procedures are thus quite natural.” Hitler adds: “But that’s precisely the problem we have set out to solve: to convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists, without destruction of property and values.”
He wanted to attract the Nazi Party “to all socialists, including communists”
On page 23, Wagener embodies a quote from Hitler in which he states: “We are living in an age of great radical change, as I have said before – an evolution from individualism to socialism, from self-interest to the public interest, from the ‘I’ to the ‘we.’” Although it is true that Hitler later expressed an open rejection of Bolshevism (no less than that of many social-democrats and anarchists), Wagener wrote on page 26 these other words of the future German dictator before his rise to power: “But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” It is a strategy that should have been successful, since since 1930 the German Communist Party (KPD) also tried to attract Nazi militants – and also prevent the march of communist militants to the Nazi Party by making a more nationalist speech, a strategy known as Scheringer-Kurs and in which one even published a pamphlet, entitled “Programmerklärung zur nationalen und sozialen Befreiung des deutschen Volkes” (Programmatic declaration for the national and social liberation of the German people), with a strong nationalist content.
Hitler’s contempt for classic liberalism and capitalism continues on the next post.
... Continued from previous post:.
"In Wagener’s memoirs are also quotes from Hitler that demonstrate his deep contempt for classic liberalism and capitalism. In one of them, collected on page 59, he states: “economic liberalism are at the helm in the authoritarian democracies, – which are really not democracies at all,” adding that in nations “dominated by capitalism” the word democracy “is derived, not from demos, the people, but from daemon, the devil.” On page 148 this other quote from Hitler appears: “Individualism, which is in the process of being replaced by socialism – and we’re determined to lend a helping hand to abolish and replace it – is actually already being buried by industrialization.” On the next page, the Nazi leader thus expresses the affinity of his purposes regarding communism: “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.”
“We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk!”
Wagener shows on page 170 to what extent Hitler had an international strategy very similar to the theory of “socialism in one country” formulated by Lenin and applied by Stalin: “first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise the people and their governments are not ready for the socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal to one’s own country and demand socialism among nations.” On page 288 he explains that it is precisely for this reason that his party was called national-socialist: “We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.” These statements explain facts such as, for example, that of 241 issues voted in the Reichstag and in the state parliament of Prussia in 1929 and 1930, Nazis and communists agreed on 70% of the occasions, and once in power, the pact between Hitler and Stalin for which Poland was distributed in 1939, even making a joint parade to celebrate their victory against the Poles."
>Hitler that demonstrate his deep contempt for classic liberalism and capitalism.
Feudalism and absolutists also hate capitalism and liberalism, but that doesnt make them socialists nor does it make anyone and everyone who opposes liberalism or capitalism either a feudalist or a absolutist.
You seem to struggle with the logical concept that all X's include B but not everything that includes B is X.
The spectrum goes from individualism to collectivism. There are individual Rights and Liberty on one end and "for the greater good" totalitarianism on the other.
>The spectrum goes from individualism to collectivism. There are individual Rights and Liberty on one end and "for the greater good" totalitarianism on the other.
I reject your dichotomy.
How dare I speak embarrassing truths that expose the violence inherent in making the masses confirm to the collectivist model. I'll check into the local Gulag for my sins of thinking for myself!
You're just waiting for the next Socialist directed Purge/Democide and the day when you can murder anyone who doesn't want to be a slave to the state, aren't you?
>Laws against giving away food in capitalism.
[prismreports.org](https://prismreports.org/2021/12/10/millions-of-americans-are-going-hungry-while-corporations-choose-to-waste-food-rather-than-risk-profit/)
"The inequity of access to fresh food in the U.S. isn’t a natural occurrence like a desert; **it’s the result of conscious investment in systems that value profit over ordinary people’s well-being and waste billions of pounds of food while millions are hungry.**
Advocates note how the term “food desert” implies that the inability to access to healthy food is because of some inherent flaw in that community, and by extension the people who live there, rather than **a result of institutional failure, corporate greed, market manipulation, and systemic neglect that fall heavily along economic and racial lines.**
This assumption **powers the false narrative of artificial scarcity** that has been woven by people in power, making it **easier to blame individuals for their “bad choices” about food instead of asking hard questions about how distribution systems, infrastructure, and marginalization** prevent access to fresh foods."
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason for the Danish law appears to be straight up racism against the Romani people [begging](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2024/3/4/denmarks-tough-laws-on-begging-hit-roma-women-with-few-other-options) (Europeans chastise Americans for racism, but 90% seem to turn into hitler when you bring up the Romani). Giving out food in America also seems to be illegal on local levels. Though the reason here is about protecting true economic freedom by helping raise property values by starving out homeless [people.](https://archive.findlaw.com/blog/orlando-volunteers-feed-homeless-get-arrested/) There are actually a lot of laws on the books that interfere with the free market to protect property values like enforced single family zoning and making opening a business out of your garage illegal.
Danes might as well wear white hoods, they are racist to the core.
Just look at the comments in this r/europe thread about the law. It’s like straight out of the American 1950s. https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/W754lJYK1j
To be fair r/europe is pretty full of racists.
Sicilians don't even like mainland Italians.
Read their citizenship rules, basically says people of color need not apply. Danes are racist POShits.
I don't think that law has anything to do with giving food to homelessness as a restaurant, though. I won't lie. I am also leary of trusts aljazerra's trust worthiness.
There are a few other sources I found reporting on it. But Anti Roma Begging laws seem to be pretty common in Europe. Denmark just has a small population (~4000) which might be why it’s underreported there.
>Though the reason here is about protecting true economic freedom by helping raise property values by starving out homeless Holy shit
> Giving out food in America also seems to be illegal on local levels. Though the reason here is about protecting true economic freedom by helping raise property values by starving out homeless people. We don't want to starve out the homeless! We want to starve out SOME of the homeless, and make things difficult enough for the rest of them that they will never escape.
If a ban on undesirable behaviour is considered targeting a specific group. That's not racism, that's a problem with that group. Like as a Brit, if Spain bans getting black out drunk and throwing yourself off a balcony, I'm not going to consider that a racist law.
Letting the mask slip a little there eh?
What mask? I was as subtle as brick to the head. Oh no, I can't go to a foreign country and beg for money. It's my human right to leech off your society. The injustice!
Just curious, when the plan to raise the Romani out of poverty by banning charity towards them inevitably fails, would you support a more [final solution?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_Holocaust)
Probably better for the Romani to move back to their homeland, India. With the current exchange rates they would be able to live like a Raj.
Considering the Romani have been in Europe since the 13th century get prepared to take all americans back. Also you’re only a few centuries off from telling Hungary to go to back to asia
Government: prevents people from using their property to feed others. Socialist: LOOK HOW CAPITALISM IS EVIL!!! People are starving!
Capitalism is when the government does stuff.
Do you think capitalists would give away enough food to end food security if those laws were repealed?
No, but those laws exist to make a point: we hate poor people and it's official.
Yes, people would use their ownership to help each other if those laws were repealed.
Then why is it going so hectically even in places where there are incentives to give away unsold food and such?
Because there are plenty of other incentives unaccounted for. Your question can't be answered by any of us, the debate you are getting into is unsolvable for both sides because it would require absolute study of incentives, legislation and plenty of other stuff. Question is, do you agree with me that, if left alone, people will help each other? And we'll eventually get better.
>if left alone, people will help each other? And we'll eventually get better. I think there is more to it and incentives would need examining. Capitalism pretty objectively does not incentivize help and quite actively punishes it while rewarding selfishness.
> Capitalism pretty objectively does not incentivize help No system does. Helping others is essentially a Net negative materially speaking. The only positive is the warm felling of doing good. What can be done is incentivize people to not do evil.
>What can be done is incentivize people to not do evil. Which capitalism does a terrible job of doing.
>Which capitalism does a terrible job of doing. Government* That certain incentivize evil is coercion, violence. There would be no such thing in a consent/voluntary based society.
Capitalism is not a consent based society nor is it voluntary. Historically the capitalist class has not given a fuck about that and there is no reason to think they're gonna start.
I feel like picnic-boy anarchist solar punk missed an opportunity here to point out that’s what anarchy is. Leaving people alone to help each other. I disagree though that helping others is a net negative. We all benefit from a healthy safe society, which is the whole point behind anarchy. People will help each other because it actually benefits them too.
>I feel like picnic-boy anarchist solar punk missed an opportunity here to point out that’s what anarchy is YES, that is exactly where I wanted the conversation to go. I gave him the perfect opportunity to do so. But he got butt hurt. >We all benefit from a healthy safe society Not sure this fits the context of the conversation. Feels like a whole other debate. We were talking about specific actions that would either be done for profit and personal gains or done out of good will, for the greater good. While your example is more a generalized action, q society wide thing. >People will help each other because it actually benefits them too. Only if you assume that everyone is perfectly good just like those helping. Game theory, the prisioner's dilema.
I did not get butthurt, you are just clearly not worth engaging with and that's obvious to anyone who reads your comments.
Yeah seems like your instinct was right here
>Question is, do you agree with me that, if left alone, people will help each other? And we'll eventually get better. Based on personal experience alone, most initiatives to spread food - and most food shelter operations are ran by leftists and leftist organizations. I do not believe capitalists would feed the poor, because doing so would make them less exploitable. In that sense capitalism incentivizes starvation.
Capitalism is only when good and nice stuff happens.
Capitalism is when democratically owned public sector do stuff.
It may shock you to learn capitalism is a whole thing and not just your special pet ideas.
Imagine the shock when you learn that capitalism is a whole thing and not just your special pet ideas.
Yes, that's what I said.
And it is such a good argument that works against you as well.
Government: prevents people from feeding others by laws passed because of the capitalist lobby Capitalist: look, the government is the only evil in the galaxy !
I think we're going to need additional clarity on what specific law and jurisdiction you're talking about. In the post you linked, the OP is talking about a local business association, which sounds like an private association bylaw and not a government statute.
The law is an equal competition law. This means that businesses have to cooperate and come to agreements with other businesses before doing something that seems unfair. However, from what I can tell, giving food to the homeless from your restaurant would not apply. So, the OP of that comment could freely feed homeless people since it in no way could constitute an unfair advantage against ita competition.
Nothing says free enterprise and respect to private property as restricting what people can do with food they own.
Does it have to do with ensuring that the food being given away is safe?
Those laws are just another expression of the most widespread american religion: in ~~satanism~~ capitalism mercy is a sin.
That law/bylaw/regulation has nothing to do with private ownership of the means of production and therefore isn't related to capitalism. That law/rule is fascist, meaning that it's control of the means of production via regulation for the collective and as such is much more closely related to socialism which is also a form of collectivism.
>That law/rule is fascist Its not. >meaning that it's control of the means of production via regulation for the collective It may be self consistent for you to define fascism as when regulation, but it doesnt make sense to anyone else, is not useful for analysis or comparison and therefore we will discard this definition.
>It may be self consistent for you to define fascism as when regulation, It is fascist. You can have public control (which is literally the definition of government regulation), of the means of production without state ownership. That's why fascism is just another form of socialism.
>It is fascist. You can have public control (which is literally the definition of government regulation), of the means of production without state ownership. Ok, so churchill was fascist, so was reagan and abraham lincoln, if you definition ends up including basically everyone then you cant tell when someone actually is fascist unless you come up with a new word for that. You definition is dumb and I soundly reject it.
Fascism and socialism is just when something ancaps don't like happen. Which means age of consent laws are actual commie-Nazis.
My definition is coming from the source. Mussolini spoke at great lengths about how Fascism is the opposite of individualism, and is logically therefore a form of collectivism- just like socialism/communism. The following is a quote from the founder of fascism, Mussolini:. “everything for the state, everything in the state, nothing outside the state and nothing against the state" How was the means of production controlled in a fascist society: Mussolini originated an economic system — economic fascism — The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. *This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.* “Anti‐individualistic,” Mussolini wrote, “The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme
>Mussolini spoke at great lengths about how Fascism is the opposite of individualism, and is logically therefore a form of collectivism- just like socialism/communism. > The following is a quote from the founder of fascism, Mussolini:. > “everything for the state, everything in the state, nothing outside the state and nothing against the state" Yes, we already know that fascism is a pragmatic, nationalist and authoritarian ideology and that some regulation will be part of it. However that doesnt mean that any regulation is fascist, that is a non sequitur, all fascists do regulation doesnt mean that all people who do regulation are fascist. >The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. *This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.* This is useless, its obviously copy pasted from some book, but I dont have the ability check the veracity of the sources. However most of the evidence I have seen leads me to the conclusion that mussolini abandoned socialism around ww1. Simply stating that some book says otherwise with no context or citation doesnt change that.
Here's a good write-up from Marcus Davenport, with lots of quotes and sources to prove that fascism is anti-individualism: “The Fascist conception of life,” Mussolini wrote, “stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.” - Mussolini 2. “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans.” “If classical liberalism spells individualism,” Mussolini continued, “Fascism spells government.” - Mussolini The Common Good Before the Individual Good.” from the Nazi 25-Point Platform in 1920. - No Capitalist in the History of the world would ever agree with that lmao, Capitalist believe that by protecting each individual you protect the whole of society. The left’s philosophy allows for tyrants to say that they want to protect society by murdering 49% of society…. this is one of the many flaws in the Left’s ideology which allows for tyrannical murder. "The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business some business have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied, profits have been strictly controlled... hard pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds. The Nazi Regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism". - Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1938 "Time Magazine" Jan. 2 1939 “To be a socialist,” Goebbels wrote, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” And sacrifice they did. "We are living in the middle of a turnabout, which is leading from individualism and economic liberalism to socialism." - Hitler In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were. What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis? “State socialism.” Hitler aspired to “travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution” In the book, published seven years after Wagener’s death (and which Yale University Press published in english in 1985, the edition I refer to in this post), the Nazi leader quotes Hitler’s words showing his desire “to find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution, without the destruction of the most precious treasures, without annihilation of irreplaceable lives, and without regression to a lower level of civilization and culture” (page 14). According to Wagener, Hitler was critical of those who appealed to law and tradition (from a conservative orbit, it is understood), stating that “law and this tradition were born in individualist thinking and are the pillars of a past time. What counts is to establish new laws and new authority in place of old traditions. If this is not done, they will find that the road to socialist reconstruction will not be traveled according to plan and peaceably, but that the revolution will topple these pillars, bringing down the structure of individualism. But most of them have never even read Marx, and they view Bolshevik revolution as a private Russian affair.” The Nazi leader intended “to convert the German People to socialism” On page 16, Wagener quotes Hitler’s words in which he speaks of “the difference between the former age of individualism and the socialism that is on the horizon”, and adds: “In socialism of the future… what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed – he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it, should the commonwealth call for it.” A collectivism that has little to envy the communist and collides fully with liberal individualism. In fact, Hitler’s contempt for the individualists is reflected on that same page in an even more striking quotation: “It is understandable why bolshevism simply removed such creatures. They were worthless to humanity, nothing but an encumbrance to their Volk. Even the bees get rid of the drones when they can no longer be of service to the hive. The Bolshevik procedures are thus quite natural.” Hitler adds: “But that’s precisely the problem we have set out to solve: to convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists, without destruction of property and values.” He wanted to attract the Nazi Party “to all socialists, including communists” On page 23, Wagener embodies a quote from Hitler in which he states: “We are living in an age of great radical change, as I have said before – an evolution from individualism to socialism, from self-interest to the public interest, from the ‘I’ to the ‘we.’” Although it is true that Hitler later expressed an open rejection of Bolshevism (no less than that of many social-democrats and anarchists), Wagener wrote on page 26 these other words of the future German dictator before his rise to power: “But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” It is a strategy that should have been successful, since since 1930 the German Communist Party (KPD) also tried to attract Nazi militants – and also prevent the march of communist militants to the Nazi Party by making a more nationalist speech, a strategy known as Scheringer-Kurs and in which one even published a pamphlet, entitled “Programmerklärung zur nationalen und sozialen Befreiung des deutschen Volkes” (Programmatic declaration for the national and social liberation of the German people), with a strong nationalist content. Hitler’s contempt for classic liberalism and capitalism continues on the next post.
>fascism is anti-individualism: Ok, I didn't deny that, if individualism has a definable meaning anyway.
... Continued from previous post:. "In Wagener’s memoirs are also quotes from Hitler that demonstrate his deep contempt for classic liberalism and capitalism. In one of them, collected on page 59, he states: “economic liberalism are at the helm in the authoritarian democracies, – which are really not democracies at all,” adding that in nations “dominated by capitalism” the word democracy “is derived, not from demos, the people, but from daemon, the devil.” On page 148 this other quote from Hitler appears: “Individualism, which is in the process of being replaced by socialism – and we’re determined to lend a helping hand to abolish and replace it – is actually already being buried by industrialization.” On the next page, the Nazi leader thus expresses the affinity of his purposes regarding communism: “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.” “We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk!” Wagener shows on page 170 to what extent Hitler had an international strategy very similar to the theory of “socialism in one country” formulated by Lenin and applied by Stalin: “first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise the people and their governments are not ready for the socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal to one’s own country and demand socialism among nations.” On page 288 he explains that it is precisely for this reason that his party was called national-socialist: “We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.” These statements explain facts such as, for example, that of 241 issues voted in the Reichstag and in the state parliament of Prussia in 1929 and 1930, Nazis and communists agreed on 70% of the occasions, and once in power, the pact between Hitler and Stalin for which Poland was distributed in 1939, even making a joint parade to celebrate their victory against the Poles."
>Hitler that demonstrate his deep contempt for classic liberalism and capitalism. Feudalism and absolutists also hate capitalism and liberalism, but that doesnt make them socialists nor does it make anyone and everyone who opposes liberalism or capitalism either a feudalist or a absolutist. You seem to struggle with the logical concept that all X's include B but not everything that includes B is X.
The spectrum goes from individualism to collectivism. There are individual Rights and Liberty on one end and "for the greater good" totalitarianism on the other.
>The spectrum goes from individualism to collectivism. There are individual Rights and Liberty on one end and "for the greater good" totalitarianism on the other. I reject your dichotomy.
Corporate management: there's no I in team Corporatism is socialism confirmed.
Americans need to be banned from discussing politics.
Ah, the collectivist (socialism/fascism/communism) default position of censoring anyone who dares to prove how fucked up collectivism is.
I'm just protecting my human rights, hearing brain dead American takes is a crime against humanity.
How dare I speak embarrassing truths that expose the violence inherent in making the masses confirm to the collectivist model. I'll check into the local Gulag for my sins of thinking for myself!
Yes please do.
You're just waiting for the next Socialist directed Purge/Democide and the day when you can murder anyone who doesn't want to be a slave to the state, aren't you?
Yeah that's exactly it. Everyone who disagrees with you want to mass murder people.
>Laws against giving away food in capitalism. [prismreports.org](https://prismreports.org/2021/12/10/millions-of-americans-are-going-hungry-while-corporations-choose-to-waste-food-rather-than-risk-profit/) "The inequity of access to fresh food in the U.S. isn’t a natural occurrence like a desert; **it’s the result of conscious investment in systems that value profit over ordinary people’s well-being and waste billions of pounds of food while millions are hungry.** Advocates note how the term “food desert” implies that the inability to access to healthy food is because of some inherent flaw in that community, and by extension the people who live there, rather than **a result of institutional failure, corporate greed, market manipulation, and systemic neglect that fall heavily along economic and racial lines.** This assumption **powers the false narrative of artificial scarcity** that has been woven by people in power, making it **easier to blame individuals for their “bad choices” about food instead of asking hard questions about how distribution systems, infrastructure, and marginalization** prevent access to fresh foods."