The 5 Types of Tea Party Racists.

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
DonAlejandroVega said:
they called it privatization. into the hands of about a dozen "private" hands...........with Mussolini's guns at their backs.
Click to expand...
more like "with Mussolini's Hand Up Their Asses."

any disloyalty to The Party got you sent to a dank mouldy 300 year old prison cell with a wooden plank for a bed, then your spoils, titles and privileges were granted to another.

cuz socialism has more in common with feudalism than it does with communism

and no, AC, feudalism was still not capitalist, since it was based on the authoritarian rule by The State, just like Socialism.
Socialism just has fancier titles.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The only problem with everything you're saying is that it's not true.

I cited an academic historical paper from an accredited university which documents clearly that Mussolini privatized the Italian economy.

You claim repetitively that it was not truly private or that profit did not remain privatized. You have cited nothing but the meaningless rhetoric of the liar himself who promised socialism to get elected but privatized the Italian economy. If this is true, you can provide credible citation AND explain why he did not simply leave the resources and infrastructure of Italy nationalized, since it already was.
Click to expand...
Reposted with out comment.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Should the under title of this thread be

....explained using liberal math?



This post saved or created 4M jobs and decreased premiums by 2500 dollars.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Reposted with out comment.
Click to expand...
like most everything to post, it's a rote repetition of weak assertions based in moronic assumptions
Socialism is a flint knife:



Mussolini adds a Handle to make it work better:







Mussolini has betrayed us by inventing the Hammer!
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The only problem with everything you're saying is that it's not true.

I cited an academic historical paper from an accredited university which documents clearly that Mussolini privatized the Italian economy.

You claim repetitively that it was not truly private or that profit did not remain privatized. You have cited nothing but the meaningless rhetoric of the liar himself who promised socialism to get elected but privatized the Italian economy. If this is true, you can provide credible citation AND explain why he did not simply leave the resources and infrastructure of Italy nationalized, since it already was.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Serfs were not chattel, by definition.
Click to expand...
and then you asserted they were therefore volunteers.

reductio ad retardum at it's lamest, but thats your stock in trade.

a screw:

a screw without threads:


most people would call it a NAIL, but not in AbandonIntegrity World, there it becomes...

A Turnip:



until the narrative changes, then it transforms into

Whatever your narrative requires.

 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The only problem with everything you're saying is that it's not true.

I cited an academic historical paper from an accredited university which documents clearly that Mussolini privatized the Italian economy.

You claim repetitively that it was not truly private or that profit did not remain privatized. You have cited nothing but the meaningless rhetoric of the liar himself who promised socialism to get elected but privatized the Italian economy. If this is true, you can provide credible citation AND explain why he did not simply leave the resources and infrastructure of Italy nationalized, since it already was.
Click to expand...

"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.


Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions."

~http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

ohh snap.

 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
They could have gone to work for another lord...
Click to expand...
no, because they were BOUND TO THE LAND ON WHICH THEY WERE BORN

even a grade schooler knows this simple fact.

being bound to the land they were born on was the ONLY substantive difference between a Serf and Chattel Slaves.

you pretend like you have never been told this, but hey, guess what, youre lying.

"serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land."
~http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535485/serfdom

and in a few months youll pretend that this was never posted and trot out those same retarded arguments again
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions."

~http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

ohh snap.
Click to expand...
Garbage written by paulbot Sheldon Richman.

I linked a peer reviewed academic historical research paper from an accredited university. You linked garbage written by a Republican.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
no, because they were BOUND TO THE LAND ON WHICH THEY WERE BORN

even a grade schooler knows this simple fact.

being bound to the land they were born on was the ONLY substantive difference between a Serf and Chattel Slaves.

you pretend like you have never been told this, but hey, guess what, youre lying.

"serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land."
~http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535485/serfdom

and in a few months youll pretend that this was never posted and trot out those same retarded arguments again
Click to expand...
Serfs were not chattel, by definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top