Asmodian: right, right, all valid points.
Still though, it's better than 0, though I suppose that if they are caught the company will go bankrupt from having to pay Spain for the melted gold and such... possibly.
Asmodian: right, right, all valid points.
Still though, it's better than 0, though I suppose that if they are caught the company will go bankrupt from having to pay Spain for the melted gold and such... possibly.
Odyssey isn't expected to survive losing this anyway...
Spanish socialism driving American companies out of business... go government!
It's got nothing to do with socialism. It's lawyers pure and simple. Should fit well in with American legal system.
It's the irony of the idea that a government which tends to discourage things like what this company did actually taking the fruits of their labor... of course both Cain and I exaggerate that the Spanish government is socialist, but it's the irony of the above that we are trying to point out...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Oh no, the Spanish government IS socialist. Much of the time anyway, I don't follow their politics. Just THIS isn't.
Agreed, this has nothing to do with socialism/capitalism.
I think that every single Spaniard would be surprised to hear their government described as socialist. The Partido Popular is a party significantly right of center.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Hazir, the whole continent is socialist for them. Including the far right, which are just racist socialists.
The far right are racist socialists. They're far more socialist than the centre right. Do you dispute that?
Depends on the party. But as I see you really believe the right on the continent are just different shades of socialists.
I do not think the centre right are socialists. I do think the far right are.
However I think all French governments are shades of socialists.
In general, or as in the BNP?
Definitely the BNP are. In general too from what I've seen. Economically Le Pen would definitely have been to the left of Thatcher for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
There may be some far right parties which are racist capitalist parties - but I'm not aware of any. Are you?
Currently, I'm not aware of any except the Tea Party. I was mostly thinking historically, given my fetishes, that the Nazis weren't really a radical left movement. But some of the key players I would call true lefties and others true righties.
Right wing of the SVP.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The key economic difference between right and left wing parties is the emphasis on individualism vs. collectivism. Do you think the Nazis were more individualist or collectivist when it came to economics? In general, nationalist parties are left-wing economically because they want some form of national self-sufficiency, which privileges the state or nation over the individual. For the most part, "right wing" dictatorships tend to be ones that practice crony capitalism and don't have a coherent economic ideology (there are also a handful of military juntas, like Chile's).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Are you saying Nazism was a leftist ideology?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Economically, yes. Corporatism is a left-wing ideology that has been implemented in opposition to both communism and classical liberalism. The individual is not the focus of this system; the group is. The chief desire is to avoid conflicts between different groups, which means subordinating the individual interest to the group interest. And to the extent that the private sector was allowed to exist, it was to required to serve the "national interest".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I obviously defer to your poli-sci judgements, but I would like to remind you that fascism was always meant to be the "third option" against both left and right. And National Socialism at least was very favoured among the analogues of who are today favouring Mittens.
It was a third option between Marxism and liberalism; that doesn't mean it wasn't meant to be left-wing. It's different in that it didn't call for direct government ownership over the means of production. Businessmen tended to be liberal; it just so happens that there were no serious liberal parties in much of the Western world, and fascists were the main electoral alternative to socialists/communists. I could see why business owners would like a system that guaranteed labor peace, but it's also a system with inflated wages and extensive regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
It also provided slave labour, which as an industrialist I'd welcome in a pre-automation technological level. But you once cited studies that said slave labour wasn't as productive as free labour?
Productive as in output per hour or output per cost?
I want to say per cost, but my memory is shoddy and I don't want to misrepresent what Low-key's said
Slave laborers also have a tendency to sabotage the thing they're forced to make, paid employees do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And fascists have a tendency to shoot the saboteurs and their families to boot, I'm sure some plateau would be reached eventually as the system iterated.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Source wanted. Employee theft is a rife form of sabotage now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Bro-business doesn't make it right-wing. As I said, right-wing economics emphasizes individualism and forcing people to work for free isn't very individualist. When you add the fact that the goal of this slave labor is to benefit the nation, you get an ideology that's far more left wing than right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Bro business huh :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But now you're just defining right wing-ism so as to stake claim on liberalism, liberty and all sorts of warm fuzzy things. Fascism was co-opted by those parties we'd consider conservative, the petty bourgeoisie. In the historical frame-work Nazism was beget by the right wing conservatives. If you now, a hundred years down the line, want to define right wingism so as to preclude fascism, how honest an approach is that?
Freudian slip. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Why equate liberalism with conservatism? Conservatism wants to preserve existing structures and norms. In cases where those structures and norms are liberal, then conservatism will be very similar to liberalism. But in cases like Germany, where the old status quo was nationalist and authoritarian, it's not surprising that many conservatives would support illiberal parties.
I don't think it's fair to classify fascism as either left wing or right wing. After all, it was meant to be the "third way". It was right wing socially, while generally left wing economically, traits that are shared by most nationalist parties today.