In response to:

Socialist or Fascist

Starley Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 10:29 PM
Mr Sowell. Your thoughts are on the mark. Mr Obama has pushed the larger corporations in a position of overwhelming power by making it almost impossible for small business to compete. This includes both environmental and administrative requirements. Then he twists the arms of the large corporations to do his bidding. Best examples are the oil companies, auto companies, and health industry. Definitely agree with you. This compairs better to fascism rather than socialism.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 6:22 PM
Mussolini, one of the inventors of modern fascism, once said he wished that his movement had been called corporatism, because of its fusion of the state with the corporation. Crony capitalism, corporatism, the regulatory state - all are euphemisms for fascism.
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 1:18 PM
Sowell is wrong.

As I said earlier in this thread. Friedrich Hayek (Noble Peace Prize winner and refugee from Hitler) wrote in the introduction of his famous book The Road to Serfdom that socialism also includes governments which have a welfare state

The end game of socialism isn't "the ownership of the means of production" as Sowell implies. The end game is redistribution of wealth. We don't even have the same kind of industry and economy (in the developed world) that we had when Marx set down his theory. Does that mean it is impossible for socialism to exist?

According to Sowell it is

What Hayek said was that when you have a welfare state, you don't have to have government own the means of production

But it is still socialism
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 1:23 PM

Of course, Obama is a socialist AND a fascist. And both are collectivist systems. One is authoritarian the other totalitarian. But they come from the same premordial oooze: government theft and tyranny.

Obama is happy to use fascism as a stepping stone to totalitarianism. Eventually Stalin had to admit he kinda like what Mussolini was doing. That is because fascism (and corporatism) and Marxism have the same end game: government control of where the money goes.
b_niles57 Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 8:52 AM
Hmm yet I assume as a Conservative you are against regulating big business??? Pick a side please
Ugh! Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 11:07 AM
Government should regulate industry. Its when they start choosing winners and losers that there is a problem. GE comes to mind. If there is a problem, create a regulation, then (here is the rub) enforce the regulation! Instead of enforcing, Government, as a way to look like they are doing something either holds hearing (yawn) or creates more regulation. Only the ethical companies comply until the regulation is so ridiculous no one can comply or it gets too costly to comply. Government then says, "We have to take over." Can't believe people still don't see this!

Amazing set of rose-colored glasses you must have!
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 1:24 PM

The federal government has no legal authority to regulate industry.
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they...