Nazi Party Registers Their First Washington Lobbyist.

[opebo]

The true irony lies in the fact that John Bowles is registering this party because the anglophone culture is "being reduced to second-class citizen status and losing political power" because Spanish-speaking minorities are gaining power.  Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.  Now, if your beef is with Other-than-English language programs, isn't it a heavy paradox to pick a German name for a political party to represent your ideology?

Not so much.  They like the German and probably think of themselves as 'Anglo-Saxon' Germanic people.  But I'm sure you know that.

And after all the racism is just the facade of fascism, not the heart of it - domination by the elite owning class.

[Vosem]

The true irony lies in the fact that John Bowles is registering this party because the anglophone culture is "being reduced to second-class citizen status and losing political power" because Spanish-speaking minorities are gaining power.  Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.  Now, if your beef is with Other-than-English language programs, isn't it a heavy paradox to pick a German name for a political party to represent your ideology?

Not so much.  They like the German and probably think of themselves as 'Anglo-Saxon' Germanic people.  But I'm sure you know that.

And after all the racism is just the facade of fascism, not the heart of it - domination by the elite owning class.

'Domination by the elite owning class' has been a very rare condition throughout human history -- generally, majorities oppress ('own', I guess you could say) minorities, not the other way around. A few counterexamples do exist (apartheid, colonialism in general)*, but fascism isn't one of them: fascism is a horrible ideology for other reasons, such as the conquest-mania, genocidal activities, and general lack of sanity.

*I want to note that decolonization was as horrible a process as colonization was.

[opebo]

And after all the racism is just the facade of fascism, not the heart of it - domination by the elite owning class.

'Domination by the elite owning class' has been a very rare condition throughout human history -- generally, majorities oppress ('own', I guess you could say) minorities, not the other way around. A few counterexamples do exist (apartheid, colonialism in general)*, but fascism isn't one of them: fascism is a horrible ideology for other reasons, such as the conquest-mania, genocidal activities, and general lack of sanity.

*I want to note that decolonization was as horrible a process as colonization was.

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.  The model for human society is the ant-hive.

[Vosem]

And after all the racism is just the facade of fascism, not the heart of it - domination by the elite owning class.

'Domination by the elite owning class' has been a very rare condition throughout human history -- generally, majorities oppress ('own', I guess you could say) minorities, not the other way around. A few counterexamples do exist (apartheid, colonialism in general)*, but fascism isn't one of them: fascism is a horrible ideology for other reasons, such as the conquest-mania, genocidal activities, and general lack of sanity.

*I want to note that decolonization was as horrible a process as colonization was.

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.  The model for human society is the ant-hive.

Your first sentenced is couched by some very vague phrasing: 'always'. Let's use a civilization both of us are familiar with: could you explain how this occurs in the modern United States?

And the second sentence is simply false. Knowledge of the details of how ant-hives work was not present during the first civilizations, so it was clearly not consciously so. Even the claim that  human society is similar to an ant-hive is easily debunkable: humans do not die immediately after mating; in human societies, there is always dissent, and there is always people leaving to go live in some other place (or at least trying), behavior that is totally absent in an ant-hive. In an ant-hive, the queen rules everybody until she dies. In human societies, no one can ever have real absolute control.

[opebo]

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.

Let's use a civilization both of us are familiar with: could you explain how this occurs in the modern United States?

Capitalism, Vosem.

[Vosem]

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.

Let's use a civilization both of us are familiar with: could you explain how this occurs in the modern United States?

Capitalism, Vosem.

Capitalism ≠ slavery.

[opebo]

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.

Let's use a civilization both of us are familiar with: could you explain how this occurs in the modern United States?

Capitalism, Vosem.

Capitalism ≠ slavery.

There are some small differences in detail, but the same power-relationships are there.

[Vosem]

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.

Let's use a civilization both of us are familiar with: could you explain how this occurs in the modern United States?

Capitalism, Vosem.

Capitalism ≠ slavery.

There are some small differences in detail, but the same power-relationships are there.

Except they're not. The point of slavery is that I, the slave, do work but don't get paid. The point of capitalism is that I, the worker, do work and get paid. One could make the argument that they are opposites (though I don't think economic concepts really have opposites except in people's heads).

[ModerateCoward]

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.

Let's use a civilization both of us are familiar with: could you explain how this occurs in the modern United States?

Capitalism, Vosem.

Capitalism ≠ slavery.

There are some small differences in detail, but the same power-relationships are there.

Except they're not. The point of slavery is that I, the slave, do work but don't get paid. The point of capitalism is that I, the worker, do work and get paid. One could make the argument that they are opposites (though I don't think economic concepts really have opposites except in people's heads).

The point of both is to reduce the worker to subsistence existence. The differences lie in how it's achieved.

[Vosem]

No, the elite has always utilized the majority as serfs or slaves, Vosem.

Let's use a civilization both of us are familiar with: could you explain how this occurs in the modern United States?

Capitalism, Vosem.

Capitalism ≠ slavery.

There are some small differences in detail, but the same power-relationships are there.

Except they're not. The point of slavery is that I, the slave, do work but don't get paid. The point of capitalism is that I, the worker, do work and get paid. One could make the argument that they are opposites (though I don't think economic concepts really have opposites except in people's heads).

The point of both is to reduce the worker to subsistence existence. The differences lie in how it's achieved.

No. The point of slavery is to make the master's life better, and in doing so put the slaves in a position where they have to stay there. The point of capitalism is the freedom to make money and spend it, without interference. The two are close to opposites.

[opebo]

The point of both is to reduce the worker to subsistence existence. The differences lie in how it's achieved.

No. The point of slavery is to make the master's life better, and in doing so put the slaves in a position where they have to stay there. The point of capitalism is the freedom to make money and spend it, without interference. The two are close to opposites.

You're wrong there, Vosem.  The purpose of the system is the same - to control society.  After all - how could it be otherwise?  Why would an elite owning class accept a change from 'slavery' to 'capitalism' unless it made controlling society (workers) even better?

[Hatman]

The point of slavery is to make the master's life better, and in doing so put the slaves in a position where they have to stay there.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

[Vosem]

The point of both is to reduce the worker to subsistence existence. The differences lie in how it's achieved.

No. The point of slavery is to make the master's life better, and in doing so put the slaves in a position where they have to stay there. The point of capitalism is the freedom to make money and spend it, without interference. The two are close to opposites.

You're wrong there, Vosem.  The purpose of the system is the same - to control society.  After all - how could it be otherwise?  Why would an elite owning class accept a change from 'slavery' to 'capitalism' unless it made controlling society (workers) even better?

The 'elite owning class' wouldn't because a change from slavery to capitalism doesn't. In the United States, when the North tried to convert the South to capitalism, the South's slave-owners cried bloody murder and fought the bloodiest war in US history. I'm sure you're familiar with it.

The point of slavery is to make the master's life better, and in doing so put the slaves in a position where they have to stay there.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

But in capitalism, there can be rich people, but there can be no masters.

[opebo]

Sounds like capitalism to me.

But in capitalism, there can be rich people, but there can be no masters.
[/quote]

That's what 'to be rich' means, Vosem - you control other people.  The richer you are, the more people you control and the greater the extent of your control of them.

[angus]

opebo,
There are a couple of problems with your analysis.  First, the Nazi were not crusty.  They were not the von Romsteins and the barons and the grafs.  Sure, those old Prussian aristocrats jumped aboard after the federal elections of 1932, but the NSDAP was grassroots and humble in origin.  It wasn't top-down policy making originally, but quite the opposite.  Secondly, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants were around long before the first Bavarian beer hall putsch.  A serious xenophobic, nativist Yankee WASP empresario could do better than call himself a Nazi.  I submit that this is just nouveau bourgeois white trash exploiting poor white trash, and not some conspiracy of elitist fascists such as one finds in the Trilateral Commision and the Princeton Alumni Club.  They would be better off with a French name than a German one.  

[Vosem]

Sounds like capitalism to me.

But in capitalism, there can be rich people, but there can be no masters.

That's what 'to be rich' means, Vosem - you control other people.  The richer you are, the more people you control and the greater the extent of your control of them.
[/quote]

No, that isn't what it means. To be rich means to have money. The richer you are, the more money you have. It doesn't equal controlling people. Money can certainly be spent in order to influence people, but being rich does not mean you control anyone.

opebo,
There are a couple of problems with your analysis.  First, the Nazi were not crusty.  They were not the von Romsteins and the barons and the grafs.  Sure, those old Prussian aristocrats jumped aboard after the federal elections of 1932, but the NSDAP was grassroots and humble in origin.  It wasn't top-down policy making originally, but quite the opposite.  Secondly, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants were around long before the first Bavarian beer hall putsch.  A serious xenophobic, nativist Yankee WASP empresario could do better than call himself a Nazi.  I submit that this is just nouveau bourgeois white trash exploiting poor white trash, and not some conspiracy of elitist fascists such as one finds in the Trilateral Commision and the Princeton Alumni Club.  They would be better off with a French name than a German one. 

You're off-topic