[dazo]

Power is in fascism.
Absolute power is in free market fascism.

>Free market capitalism provides fastest economic growth possible. However free market capitalism is "unfair", leads to extreme income inequality and destroys jobs through automation. Economic cycles produce unemployment which can lead to revolution, or redistribution of capital by the democratic government to create demand for excess human supply (e.g. The Great Depression). If being poor and unemployed was a crime then revolutions/redistribution of capital wouldn't happen. The first country to adopt free market fascism will experience huge economic growth because the bourgeoisie will be able to accumulate capital exponentially, and replace obsolete human workers with machines without any government intervention to protect the proletariat. In the end, such an economy will attain 90-95% of the world GDP. Everyone else will become mere natural resource exporters because keynesian/socialist/marxist economies won't be able to compete with free market fascism.

>Free market fascism comprises 3 social classes:
>The 1st class(fascists) consists of people who guard and regulate the system, and protect the capitalists from jealous proletarians (the artificially created middle class in the USA). If there are elections within this system, then only members of this class can vote. Though consulting the capitalist class is still possible. 1 to 10 million people are needed for this class. Tax revenue (approximately 10% of the GDP) from exploitation of capitalists is distributed more or less equally among members of the ruling class. They are the shareholders.
>2nd class("haves"): capitalists, entrepreneurs, investors, speculators, lenders, rentiers, etc. Up to 1 million people.
>3rd class("have-nots"): proletarians, including highly skilled workers, scientists and intellectuals. They are needed in the beginning, but most of them will eventually be replaced with machines and AI. Up to 100 million people.

>Japan and Germany have huge economies, yet relatively small territories (less than 400,000 km2). In free market fascism a large population won't be needed either. A territory of similar size can be created (sea platform/artificial island), or the population of a country that nobody cares about can be displaced (Somalia, Colombia, Uganda, etc.)

TL;DR Free Market Fascism is based on inverted Luddism, inverted Marxism, Malthusianism and technological singularity, it leads to fastest technological progress, economic and military power.

[Flipside]

The thing is, too many people confuse free-market with new-age imperialism, it's inherent in the risk of allowing industry to influence politics that is the danger, not capitalism itself if executed properly and within its own guidelines., which have existed the whole time but are largely ignored for convenience.

Rome was running an autonomous, war-established, but trade-maintained empire for centuries, the concept works, the execution gets corrupted.

I think the real problem sits with the fact that bankers etc. talk about exploiting the 'housing bubble' or the 'social networking bubble' and don't realize they are working within the Money Bubble, they are concepts within concepts. People forget that any bubble can burst under enough stress, even the big one.

[Suongadon]

Will there be sex-changing robot dragons?

Boo. Serious-taking this isn't fun possible without wine and I can't delete.

[Nuke]

everyone should go out, find someone who makes more money than them, and then impale them.

[StarSlayer]

fascism.
fascism.
fascism
fascism.
fascism
fascism
Fascism

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

[The E]

>Free market capitalism provides fastest economic growth possible.

Explain China.

However free market capitalism is "unfair", leads to extreme income inequality and destroys jobs through automation.

Please cite a source for this.

Economic cycles produce unemployment which can lead to revolution, or redistribution of capital by the democratic government to create demand for excess human supply (e.g. The Great Depression).

A bit more facts and less conspiracy theory, please.

If being poor and unemployed was a crime then revolutions/redistribution of capital wouldn't happen.

Please cite a source.

The first country to adopt free market fascism will experience huge economic growth because the bourgeoisie will be able to accumulate capital exponentially, and replace obsolete human workers with machines without any government intervention to protect the proletariat.

See Starslayer above re: Not knowing what fascism is.

In the end, such an economy will attain 90-95% of the world GDP. Everyone else will become mere natural resource exporters because keynesian/socialist/marxist economies won't be able to compete with free market fascism.

I do note a distinct lack of examples.

>Free market fascism comprises 3 social classes:
>The 1st class(fascists) consists of people who guard and regulate the system, and protect the capitalists from jealous proletarians (the artificially created middle class in the USA). If there are elections within this system, then only members of this class can vote. Though consulting the capitalist class is still possible. 1 to 10 million people are needed for this class. Tax revenue (approximately 10% of the GDP) from exploitation of capitalists is distributed more or less equally among members of the ruling class. They are the shareholders.
>2nd class("haves"): capitalists, entrepreneurs, investors, speculators, lenders, rentiers, etc. Up to 1 million people.
>3rd class("have-nots"): proletarians, including highly skilled workers, scientists and intellectuals. They are needed in the beginning, but most of them will eventually be replaced with machines and AI. Up to 100 million people.

Please explain the basis for these numbers.

>Japan and Germany have huge economies, yet relatively small territories (less than 400,000 km2). In free market fascism a large population won't be needed either. A territory of similar size can be created (sea platform/artificial island), or the population of a country that nobody cares about can be displaced (Somalia, Colombia, Uganda, etc.)

Please explain how Japan and Germany are relevant to your theories.

TL;DR Free Market Fascism is based on inverted Luddism, inverted Marxism, Malthusianism and technological singularity, it leads to fastest technological progress, economic and military power.

No.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

[MP-Ryan]

Was this split from somewhere?  I'm at a loss.  I can't decide if the OP is a bot, strange troll, or second-year philosophy/sociology student with a conspiracy bent.

[redsniper]

I'd rather be a pig than a fascist.

[MP-Ryan]

I'd rather be a pig than a fascist.

Judging by the rhetoric of some college-age individuals, the terms are interchangeable.

[Nuke]

he kinda reminds me of some kind of college student who just read the communist manifesto (or some other manifesto in this case) for the first time and was for some reason or another completely blown away.

yea, things dont work that way.

[Scourge of Ages]

Was this split from somewhere?  I'm at a loss.  I can't decide if the OP is a bot, strange troll, or second-year philosophy/sociology student with a conspiracy bent.

This!

[Luis Dias]

China is the perfect match between a totalitarian single party state rule dictatorship and free market capitalism.

As Zizek usually puts it, until this time, one good thing (at least) could be said about capitalism: sooner or later, this kind of system would "demand" a democracy, stemming almost naturally from the premises of "freedom" and "individualism" and so on. But now, this so-called "capitalism with eastern values" is quite different, for it marries apparently without problems the worst traits of dictatorship with the worst traits of capitalism, while being extremely dynamic. See Singapore as an example of this.

I still believe that once China hits a wall (it will hit it, sooner or later) of any kind of economic stagnation, then the populace will recapitulate Tiananmen 89 until the government collapses. But will it be too late then? Should we be pessimists or optimists? I'm somewhat grim nowadays.

[Apollo]

Calling free-market capitalism "fascism" might be the worst Godwin* I've ever seen. You cannot compare the two systems. One has little governmental economic involvement, and the other has a massive amount of it.

I suspect the OP is either a Marxist or a troll.

*:Hitler was a fascist.

[The E]

I am strongly on the troll side of the debate, given that this dude only has three posts, and this is the only one with anything resembling content.

[IronBeer]

>>See this thread

>>My reaction:

Yeah, I don't think this is going anywhere fast.

[Dragon]

Calling free-market capitalism "fascism" might be the worst Godwin* I've ever seen. You cannot compare the two systems. [/size]

It's also completely wrong. Fascism is a type of government, while capitalism is a type of economy. Hitler's Germany was Nazist (it's a different thing than fascism, though rather similar, if more extreme), while still being capitalist. In theory, you're perfectly free to have an authoritarian capitalist regime or a communist democracy. The former did exist, the latter in name only.

[Nakura]

Calling free-market capitalism "fascism" might be the worst Godwin* I've ever seen. You cannot compare the two systems. [/size]

It's also completely wrong. Fascism is a type of government, while capitalism is a type of economy. Hitler's Germany was Nazist (it's a different thing than fascism, though rather similar, if more extreme), while still being capitalist. In theory, you're perfectly free to have an authoritarian capitalist regime or a communist democracy. The former did exist, the latter in name only.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics

Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it. Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control. Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.

To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited. Farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed. That was achieved by granting business monopoly rights to marketing boards to control production and prices with a quota system.

Doesn't sound like a free-market economy to me. People often forget that fascism stems from socialism.

[Dragon]

This system wasn't really free-market, but wasn't communist either. It was more socialist than what most of the EU has now, but not by that much. Not to mention with the whole WWII thing going on, they had to have a wartime economy, and with that, plenty of government control. Free economic competition and free market actually fit quite nicely in Hitler's beliefs (social darwinism and all that). Not that he did much about the economy anyway, aside from setting some general directives.

[redsniper]

I'd rather be a pig than a fascist.

Judging by the rhetoric of some college-age individuals, the terms are interchangeable.

No, literally.