He will make this movie seem like real life, He will probably become like the "big brother" of the movie.
shareWow, the OP is a perfect example of how ass-backwards liberal (progressive/communist) thinking really is. Goebbels would be right proud of that projection. We're living 1984 right now under the true fascists, the democrat party.
shareNothing like that happened of course.
shareI'll say this for "progressives": they're consistent. Twenty years ago, they were comparing G.W. Bush to Hitler, and I heard some of them seriously asserting that he would simply ignore the constitution and refuse to relinquish power at the end of his term. Any time a republican gets into the White House these days it's "a threat to our democracy" and their unhinged "the sky is falling" rhetoric starts up at once.
Meanwhile, they are the ones that try to ignore the constitution and change the rules so they never lose again (e.g. end the filibuster, pack the supreme court, take control of election laws away from the states, and create a ̶D̶i̶s̶i̶n̶f̶o̶r̶m̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶G̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶B̶o̶a̶r̶d̶ Ministry of Truth, to control the information to which the citizens have access).
Remember when G.W. Bush's grandfather was supposed to serve as a liaison to Nazi Germany after a fascist coup (the Business Plot)? I remember. Then I remember how G.W. Bush started two wars based on false intelligence and crammed the Patriot Act through Congress.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are passing voting laws ensuring fewer people vote, lying about who won the election, planning fascist coups... Why? Because they're nothing but a party of white supremacists and fascists. In a 60% white country, the Republican Party's legislative nominees are nearly 100% white. Of those that self-identify as Republicans, 95% are white.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are passing voting laws ensuring fewer people vote...
...lying about who won the election...
...planning fascist coups...
Why? Because they're nothing but a party of white supremacists and fascists.
Source does nothing to debunk what I said. You can have a bigger turnout while fewer people are allowed to vote.
Many republican voters don't trust the results of the election. Most of the elected GOP politicians concede Biden won. And don't act like your side is innocent. Many democrats still think Gore won in 2000, and as recently as last year, VA gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe was still holding that position.
Most of the elected GOP politicians concede
That is a lie. It was not an insurrection, and it was certainly not planned out ahead of time, and this is according to the FBI!
Because they're a bunch of fascists, and so are you.
Nope, I only call 'em like I see them, nice straw man attempt. When push came to shove, we've seen that there were only a few conservatives willing to stand up to Trump. The rest are at best fascist enablers or sympathizers and at worst outright fascists. That's why they still propagate fascist conspiracy theories.
And if you still support Trump, you're at best a fascist sympathizer.
Parties that voted (unanimously at that) for Hitler to become a dictator (Enabling Act of 1933):
-The German National People's Party was a national-conservative party in Germany during the Weimar Republic. Before the rise of the Nazi Party, it was the major conservative and nationalist party in Weimar Germany. It was an alliance of nationalists, reactionary monarchists, völkisch and antisemitic elements supported by the Pan-German League.
-Centre [Catholic] Party (Ideology - Social conservatism)
-Bavarian People's Party (branch of the Centre Party, Ideology - Social conservatism, Conservatism)
-"The Christian Social People's Service was a Protestant conservative political party in the Weimar Republic."
-The German People's Party (Ideology - National liberalism, Civic nationalism, Conservative liberalism, Constitutional monarchism, Economic liberalism)
Nope...
...only call 'em like I see them...
When push came to shove, we've seen that there were only a few conservatives willing to stand up to Trump... And if you still support Trump, you're at best a fascist sympathizer.
You supported him when he stole the election with less than 79,000 votes spread across 3 states in which Republican governors suppressed hundreds of thousands of votes.
Trump is the end result of 50 years of Republican anti-intellectualism.
Your ilk still reveres Reagan despite him selling arms to a fascist theocratic regime so he could fund fascist death squads in Nicaragua to perpetuate US hegemony.
Those are your actions and your words are meaningless.
Reagan was the best President since Truman.
shareNope, he was literally the worst.
"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost!" - Ronald Reagan
Then he went on to dismantle unions, destroy the middle class, put millions of people out of work, lower taxes for rich people and put god knows how many people in jail in his failed War on Drugs, which was just an economic war against poor people. He also tried to veto sanctions against the apartheid government in South Africa (Senate overrode the veto with a 78-21 vote).
His trickle-down nonsense didn't work.
He sold arms to a fascist regime to fund the fascist death squads in Nicaragua which wanted to restore a dictatorship and topple a democratically elected government.
He also sold arms to Iraq (at that time fighting a war against Iran) and supplied chemical weapons which Saddam Hussein used against Kurds and Iraqi insurgents.
Also supported the dictators in Panama, El Salvador and in the Philippines.
His administration was also one of the most corrupt in history - like twelve dozen officials from his administration were investigated, tried or convicted (and later pardoned, which implies guilt according to the SCOTUS).
He tripled the national debt, quadrupled the deficit (and stole from Social Security to cover his budget) and ignored the AIDS epidemic (just like Thatcher in the UK did, which is where I'm assuming you're from).
Won the Cold War.
shareThe Republican Party represents as little as 12% of the population and as much as 30%. The last time Republicans represented a majority in Congress was 1996. The last time Republicans got a majority of votes in a presidential election was 2004 and before that it was 1988.
In 2016, Trump "won" by less than 79,000 votes across three states with Republican governors who suppressed the votes of hundreds of thousands of people. Trump was a wholly illegitimate president who placed 3 judges on the Supreme Court which are now trying to do away with a 50-year old precedent. I don't care if it's a weak precedent or whatever. They know what they're doing, they know it will lead to more deaths and more economic inequality. They don't care that abortion has support of the majority of people in the US. They want to do away with gay marriage and birth control next.
Republicans don't care about democracy at all. There are so many popular measures that Congress can pass, like federal marijuana legislation, that they're actively blocking. They've gone to courts in several states to block results of elections about marijuana, just as an example.
Looking forward to the idiot Democrat lemming OP admitting they had everything totally backwards and apologizing for wasting our time with their ignorance.
Censorship - Democrats
KKK - Democrats
Every shithole inner city plantation run by - Democrats
Destroy economy - Democrats
$6 gas - Democrats
Allow Putin to invade Crimea, and now Ukraine - Democrats
Started no wars. Gave us the strongest economy in a century. Lowest unemployment for blacks and Hispanics. Net exporter of domestic oil. Gives us social media that respect free speech and the 1st amendment. - Donald J Trump
Any questions?
Lol TDS made you fuck up reality.
Now answer to the ministry of truth!
Orwell was slamming the left in 1984, fyi.
shareOrwell was a socialist who fought in the Spanish Civil war and was shot in the neck by fascists like yourself. He was slamming a tyrannical dictatorship run by an Inner Party (1% of the population), which tightly controls the Outer Party (15%), while the rest of the population is left to itself because they are too preoccupied with work, war and bread and circuses (i.e. they have no class consciousness to mount a revolution; and true revolution is possible only when 85% of the population rebels).
In short, go get a clue and actually read the book, dumbass.
What an ocean of logical fallacies! Read Hitchens' Why Orwell Matters and get a clue yourself.
Fucking idiot...
The future belonged to the proles. And could he be sure that when their time came the world they constructed would not be just as alien to him, Winston Smith, as the world of the Party? Yes, because at the least it would be a world of sanity. Where there is equality there can be sanity. Sooner or later it would happen, strength would change into consciousness. The proles were immortal, you could not doubt it when you looked at that valiant figure in the yard. In the end their awakening would come. And until that happened, though it might be a thousand years, they would stay alive against all the odds, like birds, passing on from body to body the vitality which the Party did not share and could not kill.share
Orwell was still slamming the left -- it was just the far left, where the radical revolutionaries are. Yes, he was a socialist himself. He believed in democratic socialism. As brilliant as he was, he never came to the realization that men like F.A. Hayek had that all versions of socialism constitute "the road to serfdom" -- that tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning. The abandonment of classical liberalism and individualism that embracing socialism necessarily entails, inevitably results in loss of personal freedom and oppressive government. (Before you point to Scandinavia, those countries are not socialist. They don't have planned economies; they have free market economies that support large welfare states by taxing their citizens to the eyeballs.)
Problem with socialism is that taking all the economic power and combining it with the coercive power of the state, creates a jewel at the heart of your system that is just too tempting for the ambitious and power-seeking to resist grabbing. So you'll get a Stalin, a Castro, a Chávez, or a Maduro. Any country that goes full socialist is doomed to this fate. A few countries (e.g. Great Britain, Israel, and India) experimented with socialism and eventually rejected it out of economic necessity, but most places it's been tried, it's either kept the country poor and oppressed by a ruling elite that will do anything to stay in power, or it leads to the collapse of the country altogether, like the U.S.S.R.
Another idiot who hasn't read the book.
And is quoting an economist who would rather have fascism with economic liberalism (fiscal conservatism) than democracy without it.
Here's your "brilliant" F.A. Hayek supporting Pinochet:
Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression — and this is valid for South America — is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government. And during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.
Facing the demagogic trend, [political] liberalism is the form of suicide committed by our sick society. With this perspective it gives itself up. The merciless, embittered class war that is waged against it finds it ready to capitulate politically, after having helped spiritually to forge the enemy’s weapons.
"Only the conservative element, weak as it was in the 19th century, can and will in the future, prevent the coming of this end (125)." What Spengler refers to as “conservatism” is thus simply a means to shelter liberal society from itself, rescue the economic order from the suicidal tendencies of its politically liberal “protectors.”
Like Donoso, Spengler palpably shows how “conservatism” and “anti-liberalism” are not necessarily motivated by opposition to capitalism or a longing for the socioeconomic order predating it, but can come precisely to succor the economic liberal order in its hour of greatest need. Conservatives are thus willing to toss out the bathwater of political liberalism to save the baby of capitalism.
For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.
I read the book in 1984 when it was assigned in high school. I've reread it since. Animal Farm too.
Nothing about the quote from Hayek refutes his argument. That is a complete non sequitur. Moreover, he's not wrong that democracy can be illiberal, and dictatorships can be liberal -- though that's rare, and dictatorship is not a preferred form of government, because for every enlightened and tolerant Marcus Aurelius, you'll get a brutal Nero or Caligula.
Pinochet is a bad example, and he was wrong about that. So what? If everyone had to have everything they've ever asserted disregarded because they were wrong about some things, then no one on earth could be relied upon. It's a ridiculous standard. He was right in the case of Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, who was also an authoritarian. Unlike most dictators of the 20th century, however, he was not a believer in socialism, and his view was pragmatic rather than ideological. He promoted a market economy, welcomed foreign investments, and required school kids to learn English, to better link Singapore, a major port, into international commerce.
When the rest of the 3rd world was setting up government-controlled economies, blaming their poverty on "exploitation" by more advanced industrial nations, and staying poor and corrupt, Yew did not deem Singapore's people ready for democracy, and offered a decent government with much less corruption than in other countries in that part of the world. And Singapore has gotten more democratic over time.
He's only talking in terms of ECONOMIC LIBERALISM, not freedom or equality. In fact, when conservatives and "libertarians" talk about freedom, what they really mean is freedom of wealthy individuals to oppress and exploit the lower classes.
And Hayek is refuted by the fact that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland exist and are not dictatorships at all, instead, they're four of the freest societies on Earth (the US is rapidly sliding due to wealth inequality).
Meanwhile, the action taken in Germany to protect the economic liberal order lead to the worst tyranny ever (wholly supported by private power) which resulted in the only genocide accomplished via military-industrial means in the history of mankind. And it was supported by the likes of Hayek (who is considered one of the more moderate "libertarians" - a term stolen from left-wing socialists; Murray even brags about it).
The industrialists fell in line as well... Why? Because:
1) the Nazis banned collective bargaining
2) banned strikes
3) banned unions
4) labor disputes were decided 100% in favor of the employer
5) tied the workers to their place of employment, like industrial serfs
6) expanded the working hours to 72 (alas, 8 short of Spengler's vision of an 80-hour workweek, who also called any form of taxation "Bolshevism")
7) corporate profitability shot up 4 times (when comparing the years 1928 and 1938)
8) income taxes were at ~14% at the time of the biggest land invasion in human history; the government got funds by looting half of Europe and also mass privatizations (the very origin of the word "privatization" was coined when the Economist used the word to describe Nazi economic policy)
No wonder that the industrialists from Krupp, IG Farben and Flick were convicted for their roles in this regime.
For example, before the 1933 elections, IG Farben gave the Nazis 4.5 million Reichsmarks and saved it from bankruptcy. Afterward, it became one of the largest companies in the world.
We have an example even before Hayek wrote his little book: Mussolini's Italy.
Mussolini, a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano) before World War I, became a fierce antisocialist after the war. After coming to power, he banned all Marxist organizations and replaced their trade unions with government-controlled corporatist unions. Until he instituted a war economy in the mid-1930s, Mussolini allowed industrialists to run their companies with a minimum of government interference. Despite his former anticapitalist rhetoric, he cut taxes on business, permitted cartel growth, decreed wage reduction, and rescinded the eight-hour-workday law. Between 1928 and 1932 real wages in Italy dropped by almost half. Mussolini admitted that the standard of living had fallen but stated that “fortunately the Italian people were not accustomed to eating much and therefore feel the privation less acutely than others.”
And Hayek is refuted by the fact that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland exist and are not dictatorships at all, instead, they're four of the freest societies on Earth...
Before you point to Scandinavia, those countries are not socialist. They don't have planned economies; they have free market economies that support large welfare states by taxing their citizens to the eyeballs.
To tell you the truth, yes, I just skimmed through your reply. Still, I don't care what you prefaced it with.
What Hayek claimed is that countries like Sweden would become dictatorships and their citizens serfs. In Sweden, at one time, the government controlled 63 percent of gross national product, for example. That's precisely what Hayek, his ilk and you would call "socialism".
Mussolini's government instituted laissez-faire capitalist reforms early in his dictatorship and didn't magically transform into a land of liberality; so the very work which you referenced was wrong a decade before it was written.
Never mind that the baby boomer generation is in control of most of the wealth in US precisely because of what they would today call "socialism": high taxes, both corporate and income taxes. They got theirs, so fuck everyone else.
Nor did I ever claim Scandinavia is socialist, I claimed that, according to Hayek's logic, there'd be a bunch of totalitarian regimes in Europe by now and that's just not the case. He was wrong before he wrote the book and he was wrong after he wrote it. Precisely the opposite happened: those countries now have strong social protections, much better worker rights, free education, healthcare and so on while wealth inequality and democracy in the US is only growing worse as more time elapses.
For example, wage theft in the US eclipses all other forms of theft by as much as three times, yet, when have you ever heard anyone of going to jail for wage theft? I think only California criminalized it (and recently). Of the 50 billion stolen from workers each year, only a couple are ever reclaimed. Never mind that the top 1% dodge 163 billion dollars in taxes every year.
Word for word Republican agenda.
"[Oswald] Spengler's Prussian socialism was popular amongst the German political right, especially the revolutionary right who had distanced themselves from traditional conservatism. His notions of Prussian socialism influenced Nazism and the Conservative Revolutionary movement."
"Historian Ishay Landa has described the nature of 'Prussian socialism' as decidedly capitalist. For Landa, Spengler strongly opposed labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. At the same time as he rejected any social democratic provisions, Spengler celebrated private property, competition, imperialism, capital accumulation, and 'wealth, collected in few hands and among the ruling classes'. Landa describes Spengler's 'Prussian Socialism' as 'working a whole lot, for the absolute minimum, but — and this is a vital aspect — being happy about it.'"
For the dummies:
https://fee.org/articles/orwell-s-1984-how-to-misread-a-classic/