Hacker News Reader

Comment by chordalkeyboard | Hacker News Reader

> Finally, there are factions within capitalists themselves that create ideologies like fascism who attempt to resolve crises in profit due to labor fights by adopting a highly nationalist and xenophobic position that blames "bad" capitalists for everyones' problems and tries to organize around "good" capitalists that do things right.

Our perspective is that fascists are not capitalists because they seek to manage the economy through central planning.

The rest of this argument is not likely to be fruitful unless you can critically examine your notions surrounding property and violence. Theres also a healthy amount of revisionist historical thinking that seeks to whitewash the terrible conditions created by communist countries. I'm not interested in debating matters of fact here so thank you for your replies and your perspective.

View on HN

> Our perspective is that fascists are not capitalists because they seek to manage the economy through central planning.

An incorrect perspective. Fascism is sacrificing one set of the ownership class for another, diverting populism directed against a hostile liberal economic system to only part of that class while giving more power to the rest of it. Fascism is characterized by privatization, not central planning, with a subset of the bourgeoisie gaining vast new powers in comparison. You could even ask Mussolini himself about this in his comments about how fascism should more correctly be called corporatism - and see his transition from opportunistic socialist to opportunistic fascist serving key bourgeois individuals and their interests.

> The rest of this argument is not likely to be fruitful unless you can critically examine your notions surrounding property and violence.

I can critically examine them and always have been able to. Should I interpret this to actually mean, "until you change your opinions on them"? I figured there would be an accompanying pushback about them, but I don't see one.

> Theres also a healthy amount of revisionist historical thinking that seeks to whitewash the terrible conditions created by communist countries.

Again, this seems to just be, "I disagree". A fruitful conversation would be one where we can have a discussion and real exchange, not vague dismissiveness.

> I'm not interested in debating matters of fact here so thank you for your replies and your perspective.

Historical and economic analyses are rarely simple matters of fact and this is a subject where dealing with other perspectives is a necessity. None of what we're discussing is at the level of simple facts, they are interpretations depending on a large set of suppositions and historical knowledge.

But I welcome a discussion.

> An incorrect perspective.

No, it merely emphasizes things that you do not consider and ignores things that you consider relevant.

> Fascism is sacrificing one set of the ownership class for another, diverting populism directed against a hostile liberal economic system to only part of that class while giving more power to the rest of it. Fascism is characterized by privatization, not central planning

Fascism is characterized by an alliance between state and corporate leaders. Its not truly private if the state still controls your production.

> I can critically examine them and always have been able to.

Good, then you should be able to respond to arguments that question your preferred perspective on property rights by defending it rather than assuming it to be the case.

> Should I interpret this to actually mean, "until you change your opinions on them"? I figured there would be an accompanying pushback about them, but I don't see one.

You should interpret it as a gentle nudge towards considering the pushback you have already received in a new light.

> Again, this seems to just be, "I disagree". A fruitful conversation would be one where we can have a discussion and real exchange, not vague dismissiveness.

I'm not interested in debating over the factual accuracy of the deplorable conditions in the soviet republics and satellite communist nations. I consider that (alleged) fact to be settled, you do not, there's nothing to be gained here.

> Historical and economic analyses are rarely simple matters of fact and this is a subject where dealing with other perspectives is a necessity.

This is true.

> None of what we're discussing is at the level of simple facts, they are interpretations depending on a large set of suppositions and historical knowledge.

The factual dispute I referred to is our disagreement on the quality of life of the soviet and communist citizens under state controlled economies. I'm uninterested in your revisionist account alleging that it "wasn't that bad."

> But I welcome a discussion.

Lets return to the issue of property rights. How do you justify imposing your opinion on property rights on other people who don't share that opinion?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com