Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Gvjrapiro So he didn't support private property because he wasn't consistent with it. How does self-sufficiency conflict with socialism? Could I get a quote of him speaking about planned obsolescence? The fact that he didn't want total state control of the economy only proves he was a social democrat, like Labour. And what kind of socialist wouldn't reject the income tax and if so, do socialists want to make people poor? The Union Movement trying to be more moderate is good and all, but what difference did it make on the economic beliefs of British Fascism? I know that is the definition that literally anyone else uses for corporations, but we are speaking in the fascist sense here, fascist think they are bodies (corpus) of the state.
I am aware that this is one of the definitions of nationalism, but the other definition my link uses is advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people. This also lines up extremely well with the historical record, and even today: Sinn Fein, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, practically every African nationalist group, etc.
7
-
7
-
7
-
And it probably ended up extending the depression. There was a downturn in the
economy in 1921 that was initially more severe than the downturn in the twelve months immediately following the stock market crash of October 1929. Unemployment in the first year of President Warren G. Harding’s administration was 11.7 percent. Yet Harding did nothing, except reduce government spending as tax revenues declined. The following year unemployment fell to 6.7 percent, and the year after that to 2.4 percent.
Meanwhile after the stock market crash, the unemployment rate peaked at 9 percent two months after the crash, and then began a trend generally downward, falling to 6.3 percent in June 1930. Unemployment never reached 10 percent for any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. But, after a series of major and unprecedented government interventions, the unemployment rate soared over 20 percent for 35 consecutive months. These interventions began under President Herbert Hoover, featuring the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930—the highest tariffs in well over a century—designed to reduce imports, so that more Americanmade products would be sold, thereby providing more employment for American workers. It was a plausible belief, as so many things done by politicians seem plausible. But a public statement, signed by a thousand economists at leading universities around the country, warned against these tariffs, saying that the Smoot-Hawley bill would not only fail to reduce unemployment but would be counterproductive.
None of this, however, dissuaded Congress from passing this legislation or dissuaded President Hoover from signing it into law in June 1930. Within five months, the unemployment rate reversed its decline and rose to double digits for the first time in the 1930s and it never fell below that level for any month during the entire
remainder of that decade, as one massive government intervention after another proved to be either futile or counterproductive.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Gvjrapiro Second time, where has TIK said that public limited companies should be dismantled, and how large is this body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory? You do realise that if someone supports taking away private property on a case by case basis, they do not support private property, as now ownership of private property is now based on arbitrary decision making? You do labour is a commodity, and as such has no objective value? Do you also realise that if workers thought they were getting scammed, they would be self employed? And don't answer with "they don't have the means to do so" nor did Andrew Carnegie, and he became the richest man in the US. You do realise I am not necessarily "generating" profit for your boss, as there is no guarantee what he pas me to produce will sell, but I am certainly generating profit for myself? And yes, the context is important, I would at least like you to include full clauses when quoting me.
How is wanting the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government, but not wanting a tax on personal income incompatible? Furthermore, I am still wanting to know what supporting private property but only arbitrarily is actually supporting private property?
Everything is just ideas. Fascism is an idea. Fascism being capitalism is an idea. Fascism was an idea, that rejected Socialism, which it conflates with Marxism. But on your question "if you truly believed that socialism is collective (which you define as state) control, why would they need to even involve trade unions, according to your definition?" Trade unions are collectives. Not necessarily the only collectives, but collectives nonetheless. You do realise that private corporations are an oxymoron, as corporations are owned publicly by shareholders?
The motivations for imperialism were mainly Christianity, money, and trying to see if you can turn an entire continent into a prison. Also, you were speaking about nations, not ethnicities. All I can say for nationalism in Germany and Italy, independence from whom? And Fascism was caused by defeat in WW1, not as a natural extension of a belief in independence, otherwise, I would like to know why the Netherlands didn't go fascist of her own free will.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5