mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (05/13/85)
Lines marked with one '>' are those of Gabor Fencsik. >DKMcK, with his usual flair for measured understatement, picks up where >Stalin left off in 1936, asserting that Social Democracy in its various >manifestations (New Deal, Fair Deal, etc.) is just a variant of Fascism. No. I said will say that Social Democracy is a variant of Fascism, but I have NEVER said that it is JUST a variant of Fascism. >Even if one accepts your claim that the economic policies of Roosevelt and >Hitler were identical (although I, for one, can tell them apart), it still >takes a gigantic leap of faith to arrive at your conclusion. Fencsik, that statement is DISGUSTING!!! I never said that the economic policies of Roosevelt and Hitler were identical. > The salient >trait shared by Roosevelt and Hitler is that their economic policies were >subordinated to political objectives. For those of us not cursed with economic >myopia, the contrasts between those political objectives are quite clear. >If your theory cannot detect the difference (or finds only a difference in >degree) between them, then so much the worse for the theory. I also never said that their objectives were identical. But they were not as far apart as most people think. In both countries, Fascism drew people seeking a compromise between Left-Socialism and Capitalism. In both countries there were both idealists and opportunists in government. In both countries Imperialism was used as an economic strategy. >Your best bet might be to re-read Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom', but do it slower >this time; maybe it won't come back all garbled. And yes, I agree that a >'semantical change may enhance discussion'. Calling people fascists is OK if >your goal is to intimidate and discredit; if your aim is to persuade, then >other tactics may be more fruitful. Considering your use of straw-men arguments above, your assertions about rhetoric are extremely hypocritical, but I'll respond to then anyway. My objective is NOT to intimidate (intimidation is the game of people who, say, use straw-men arguments), but it is to discredit. If I had made the points (to which you are pseudo-responding) simply to initiate discussion, they would have been quite legitimate; it is important to look truth in the eye, especially when it shows dreams to be nightmares. But I didn't make these points simply to initiate discussion; I made them in response to Jeff Myers depiction of Fascism as a form of Capitalism (Why is, Mr Fencsik, that you don't apply your rhetorical standards to your comrades? Are those standards mere rhetorical posturings, designed to intimidate?). Back later, DKMcK