Many of you are confusing socialism with communism. Communism (be it Marxist, Stalinist, et al) is an economic system based on rewards for input effort (each according to his need...). Communism DOES usually imply a central system, much like statism or Marx' State Socialism. This should not be confused/associated it socialism (be it syndicalist, primitavist, et al), a social system designed on the concept of human equality and on the sort of Ubuntu concept of "i get better because we all get better". Most socialist would be offended to be called communists, as the two are far more different than Republicans and Democrats (and you certainly wouldn't call one by the other's title).
Although both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-clerical, I don't know that defines Fascism. I think Franco asserted, as Fascism dictates, that the Nation-State is the key to government. I think that he also realized the role of the Catholic church as and the concept of a pro-establishment State. While there were certainly monarchist groups in northern Spain, Franco's regime most clostly resembles (and by resembles I mean shares all aspects with) Fascism.
During both Hitler's and Franco's regimes, it wasn't just the conservatives who aligned themselves with the Fascists, as many moderates also joined. This isn't exactly a rare occurrence, as it happens in most modern political systems, wherein the moderate left aligns itself with the right. This was especially true in Spain, as the left was highly disorganized, and the anarcho-socialist groups were very nuanced, making the strength and order of the Fascist right appear much more stable. One could draw close similarities to American politics from this, even including Franco's motto - "God, Family, State".
Anarchists have always been treated badly, as that is the nature of the lesser known (Indigenous groups, Africans, anarchists...). Since you're studying socialism, I would highly suggest Voltairine de Cleyre, and Emma Goldman. Goldman argues that socialism and anarchism are not separable concepts. Given that socialism is defined by the complete equality of human beings, it would not be possible to have one person rule over another, thus anarchy (an - absence of, archos - rulers). Of course, you've probably already read those two authors, but if not, I highly recommend them.
Joe
How does Franco's lack of interest in saving another Fascist (Rivera) make him not a fascist? Are the bases for you argument -
1. Franco allowed a Fascist to be imprisoned after creating a facade of support
2. I should read more
During the Mexican revolution, were Madeiro and Huerta not similarly-idealed revolutionaries? Shortly after fighting for Madeiro and supporting his presidency, Huerta had Madeiro inprisoned and later killed as part of his usurpation. These are the things that happen during a revolution. The concepts superficial support followed by coups and murder are shown quite well during the Mexican Revolution, and most were committed by men who were, during Diaz' reign, part of the same movement (Huerta, Madeiro, Carranza, Villa).
A fascist or any revolutionary ruler of any type usually sees himself/herself as the best possible option for rule. This, of course, is part of the problem of militarist/violent revolution, as it always falls victim to the adage, "absolute power corrupts, absolutely". Surely Castro's post-revolutionary executions or Mao's government-sanctioned famine are evidence of that.
Taken from Wikipedia,
"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology [...] that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party [...] Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism."
Taking more from Wikipedia, and from Mussolini, the coiner of the term
"Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism."
Franco led a nationalist, statist, right-wing rebellion that put individual interests aside for the interests of the nationalist state. The movement was certainly anti-communist, militaristic and toltalitarian. I don't understand how you decide that he is was not a fascist. Whether or not Franco would have aligned himself as a Fascist, or whether he has been identified historically as a fascist is of little importance. What is important is that the characteristics of his regime so closely resemble Fascism. Hitler called his party the National Socialists (Nazi), yet clearly, he was far from socialism.
I'm fairly familiar with the Spanish Civil War, and the Spanish-American war that set the groundwork for a tattered Spain. I'm more interested in anarchist, and socialist movements, and the Generations of '98 and '27, but I didn't read my Spanish history on the back of a napkin. Your passive-aggressive declaration regarding my "reading about Fascism rather than making the common mistake..." is baseless and not well-received. I do, however, like your/. name.
you're right, and it's just sort of a furthering of the irony in the adage of ww2 being the war that ended fascism. i wasn't stating that fascism ended with Franco, just that Franco was an obvious fascist, and a big name during ww2, so it was blatantly obvious that ww2 didn't end fascism.
perhaps this theory of determinism over individualism is more fitting when looking at niche inventions. when society needs a certain concept, or innovation, and there exists a finite number of solutions, and within those, a single - or even several a la Edison/Tesla - feasible solution, it is more like that the individual is less important.
in terms of history at large, i don't know that it is so easy to say that the individual does not account for the majority of the history. looking at post ww1 germany, it is clear that almost any strong-minded person could have stepped in and scapegoated any aspect of german society. this occurred similarly in spain, post spanish-american war. low and behold, both countries ended up under the tyranny of fascism. of course, we know that while the inception was similar, the outcomes of the two countries were certainly different. - on a side note, here, ww2 is constantly referred to as the war that ended fascism, though franco was the de facto king of nationalist/fascist spain until the mid 1970s.
so, it may be true to say that it is circumstance (determinism) that is the greatest father of history, but also that individualism (or the "great man" as it was put) certainly changes outcome.
I understand that, however the "facts" are roughly the same, regardless of their medium. Perhaps Chucky is just looking for a pay day. It clearly isn't the content of these "facts" that has Mr. Norris upset, given that he has openly accepted them, and, as you say, even owns a website displaying them. The statements aren't Chuck's own original material, and certainly others have derived revenue from these statements, even if only through pay-per-click (et al) types of webvertisements.
As for Ian Spector's theft, that is another issue. However, Mr. Spector isn't being sued by the intellectual property owners, he's being sued by Chuck Norris.
what about when he essentially gives an open endorsement, using the facts for his own publicity and even naming his favorite?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QAeoFdM5g
Maybe X = the number of customers cingular/att currently has, and Y = the number of customers (including business accounts) switching to cingular/att to adopt the iphone. So, X + Y = cingular/att++
You're looking at the wrong meaning of the word. Engineer doesn't come from the word engine as in Internal Combustion Engine, it comes from the latin word for creation. So, an engineer is one who creates something. Since software engineers create programs, they are, in fact, engineers.
what's funny to me is that firefox users should be thinking, "why the hell would i download IE7 to get what firefox has had for some time." in firefox, however, i can just the search bar to multiple engines at the flick of a switch.
this question sort of sums up the release of IE7. wow, in 4 years, microsoft put out a web browser that does almost as much as firefox was doing ages ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't speaking in terms of capital return. Call me old fashioned, but I would try to stay away from monikers of the third reich.
I think I would try to stay away from calling some the "People's Car", given that that name has it's roots in Hitler (Volkswagon = the people's car).
Many of you are confusing socialism with communism. Communism (be it Marxist, Stalinist, et al) is an economic system based on rewards for input effort (each according to his need...). Communism DOES usually imply a central system, much like statism or Marx' State Socialism. This should not be confused/associated it socialism (be it syndicalist, primitavist, et al), a social system designed on the concept of human equality and on the sort of Ubuntu concept of "i get better because we all get better". Most socialist would be offended to be called communists, as the two are far more different than Republicans and Democrats (and you certainly wouldn't call one by the other's title).
Although both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-clerical, I don't know that defines Fascism. I think Franco asserted, as Fascism dictates, that the Nation-State is the key to government. I think that he also realized the role of the Catholic church as and the concept of a pro-establishment State. While there were certainly monarchist groups in northern Spain, Franco's regime most clostly resembles (and by resembles I mean shares all aspects with) Fascism. During both Hitler's and Franco's regimes, it wasn't just the conservatives who aligned themselves with the Fascists, as many moderates also joined. This isn't exactly a rare occurrence, as it happens in most modern political systems, wherein the moderate left aligns itself with the right. This was especially true in Spain, as the left was highly disorganized, and the anarcho-socialist groups were very nuanced, making the strength and order of the Fascist right appear much more stable. One could draw close similarities to American politics from this, even including Franco's motto - "God, Family, State". Anarchists have always been treated badly, as that is the nature of the lesser known (Indigenous groups, Africans, anarchists...). Since you're studying socialism, I would highly suggest Voltairine de Cleyre, and Emma Goldman. Goldman argues that socialism and anarchism are not separable concepts. Given that socialism is defined by the complete equality of human beings, it would not be possible to have one person rule over another, thus anarchy (an - absence of, archos - rulers). Of course, you've probably already read those two authors, but if not, I highly recommend them. Joe
How does Franco's lack of interest in saving another Fascist (Rivera) make him not a fascist? Are the bases for you argument - 1. Franco allowed a Fascist to be imprisoned after creating a facade of support 2. I should read more During the Mexican revolution, were Madeiro and Huerta not similarly-idealed revolutionaries? Shortly after fighting for Madeiro and supporting his presidency, Huerta had Madeiro inprisoned and later killed as part of his usurpation. These are the things that happen during a revolution. The concepts superficial support followed by coups and murder are shown quite well during the Mexican Revolution, and most were committed by men who were, during Diaz' reign, part of the same movement (Huerta, Madeiro, Carranza, Villa). A fascist or any revolutionary ruler of any type usually sees himself/herself as the best possible option for rule. This, of course, is part of the problem of militarist/violent revolution, as it always falls victim to the adage, "absolute power corrupts, absolutely". Surely Castro's post-revolutionary executions or Mao's government-sanctioned famine are evidence of that. Taken from Wikipedia, "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology [...] that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party [...] Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism." Taking more from Wikipedia, and from Mussolini, the coiner of the term "Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism." Franco led a nationalist, statist, right-wing rebellion that put individual interests aside for the interests of the nationalist state. The movement was certainly anti-communist, militaristic and toltalitarian. I don't understand how you decide that he is was not a fascist. Whether or not Franco would have aligned himself as a Fascist, or whether he has been identified historically as a fascist is of little importance. What is important is that the characteristics of his regime so closely resemble Fascism. Hitler called his party the National Socialists (Nazi), yet clearly, he was far from socialism. I'm fairly familiar with the Spanish Civil War, and the Spanish-American war that set the groundwork for a tattered Spain. I'm more interested in anarchist, and socialist movements, and the Generations of '98 and '27, but I didn't read my Spanish history on the back of a napkin. Your passive-aggressive declaration regarding my "reading about Fascism rather than making the common mistake..." is baseless and not well-received. I do, however, like your /. name.
you're right, and it's just sort of a furthering of the irony in the adage of ww2 being the war that ended fascism. i wasn't stating that fascism ended with Franco, just that Franco was an obvious fascist, and a big name during ww2, so it was blatantly obvious that ww2 didn't end fascism.
perhaps this theory of determinism over individualism is more fitting when looking at niche inventions. when society needs a certain concept, or innovation, and there exists a finite number of solutions, and within those, a single - or even several a la Edison/Tesla - feasible solution, it is more like that the individual is less important.
in terms of history at large, i don't know that it is so easy to say that the individual does not account for the majority of the history. looking at post ww1 germany, it is clear that almost any strong-minded person could have stepped in and scapegoated any aspect of german society. this occurred similarly in spain, post spanish-american war. low and behold, both countries ended up under the tyranny of fascism. of course, we know that while the inception was similar, the outcomes of the two countries were certainly different. - on a side note, here, ww2 is constantly referred to as the war that ended fascism, though franco was the de facto king of nationalist/fascist spain until the mid 1970s.
so, it may be true to say that it is circumstance (determinism) that is the greatest father of history, but also that individualism (or the "great man" as it was put) certainly changes outcome.
I understand that, however the "facts" are roughly the same, regardless of their medium. Perhaps Chucky is just looking for a pay day. It clearly isn't the content of these "facts" that has Mr. Norris upset, given that he has openly accepted them, and, as you say, even owns a website displaying them. The statements aren't Chuck's own original material, and certainly others have derived revenue from these statements, even if only through pay-per-click (et al) types of webvertisements. As for Ian Spector's theft, that is another issue. However, Mr. Spector isn't being sued by the intellectual property owners, he's being sued by Chuck Norris.
what about when he essentially gives an open endorsement, using the facts for his own publicity and even naming his favorite? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8QAeoFdM5g
you have unlock the repository for it, and then run sudo apt-get hack-howto.
Maybe X = the number of customers cingular/att currently has, and Y = the number of customers (including business accounts) switching to cingular/att to adopt the iphone. So, X + Y = cingular/att++
Wow, what a surprise - senseless rhetoric.
Hmmm...possible. It would definitely run NetBSD, and possibly make the greatest daughter card ever to the NetBSD Toaster
You're looking at the wrong meaning of the word. Engineer doesn't come from the word engine as in Internal Combustion Engine, it comes from the latin word for creation. So, an engineer is one who creates something. Since software engineers create programs, they are, in fact, engineers.
what's funny to me is that firefox users should be thinking, "why the hell would i download IE7 to get what firefox has had for some time." in firefox, however, i can just the search bar to multiple engines at the flick of a switch. this question sort of sums up the release of IE7. wow, in 4 years, microsoft put out a web browser that does almost as much as firefox was doing ages ago.