Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 13:18

Ah typical of the left... lies in order to try to make your point.

**GePap** · July 13, 2003, 13:18

Originally posted by Kidicious

You ass. I just made up the term Authoritarian Capitalism last night on this very thread. Stop pretending it's a real word. Look who's calling who a moron.

First of all, you too need to chill some.

Second: Kid, authoritarian and capitalism are both real terms: you took two real terms and mixed them together: that is not making up a word, but arguing for a system that would share the characteristics to make it fit into both.

And as a concept, authoritarian capitalism is very real.

**mrmitchell** · July 13, 2003, 13:19

* mrmitchell thinks about buying popcorn but notices the prices are outrageous so he just gets a drink

**GePap** · July 13, 2003, 13:21

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah typical of the left... lies in order to try to make your point.

HEY!

Don't make us catapult you from a submarine! (best I could come for a compleet opposite to chucking you from a heli into the ocean..tat's is a right-wing way)

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 13:21

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Stop pretending it's a real word.

IT IS A REAL WORD, YOU UTTER WASTE OF SPACE!

Go to google, type 'Authoritarian Capitalism'. The first link? "Singapore's Authoritarian Capitalism".

Google Search

http://www.thelockeinstitute.org/books/singapore.html

I don't know why I'm still trying to explain this to you. 'Authoritarian' and 'Capitalism' are two different words that you can put together. That doesn't mean that Authoritarian Capitalism is a type of goverment in the same sense that Democracy and Fascism are types of goverments.

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 13:24

Originally posted by GePap
And as a concept, authoritarian capitalism is very real.

I'm aware that it is a concept. It's the concept that we are talking about. I just don't see why we can't call governments that are both authoritarian and capitalist, fascist. Imran wants us to call them Authoritarian Capitalist, and I don't see the point.

**GePap** · July 13, 2003, 13:25

Imran is not arguing that Authoritarian capitalism is a form of government, only thet Facism is not a from of authoritarian capitalism.

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 13:25

Don't make us catapult you from a submarine!

Does the submarine have a screen door?

'Authoritarian' and 'Capitalism' are two different words that you can put together. That doesn't mean that Authoritarian Capitalism is a type of goverment in the same sense that Democracy and Fascism are types of goverments.

Not Found

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950501faresponse5046/christopher-lingle/the-propaganda-way.html

Foreign Affairs — The leading magazine for analysis and debate of foreign policy, economics and global affairs.

Whereas liberalism and individual freedom found fertile ground in the West, Asian institutions grew along conservative and collectivist lines. So the West evolved liberal capitalism, and Asia has tilted toward authoritarian capitalism. That the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan are moving toward multiparty politics is encouraging. However, Myanmar, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam practice authoritarian capitalism that keeps ruling parties in power by preserving economic growth.

Authoritarianism is a form of government. Capitalism is an economic system. Join them together and you have a government that is Authoritarian and follows Capitalism... ie, Authoritarian Capitalism.

Btw... is Indonesia Fascist?

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 13:28

Imran is not arguing that Authoritarian capitalism is a form of government, only thet Facism is not a from of authoritarian capitalism.

Yepper... I don't think Fascism is capitalist enough to qualify. When the government sets production limits and severly curtails the market, that ain't capitalism.

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 13:29

Originally posted by GePap
Imran is not arguing that Authoritarian capitalism is a form of government, only thet Facism is not a from of authoritarian capitalism.

I read this too fast. Ignore the post that was here.

**GePap** · July 13, 2003, 13:30

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Don't make us catapult you from a submarine!

Does the submarine have a screen door?

No, we don't subcontract from New Europe. Tyhe catapult is deck mounted, so on top of everything, you will get wet!

I'm aware that it is a concept. It's the concept that we are talking about. I just don't see why we can't call governments that are both authoritarian and capitalist, fascist. Imran wants us to call them Authoritarian Capitalist, and I don't see the point.

Becuase facism is a distinct ideology which does not support trade liberalism, which is a cornerstone of capitalism. And Facism goes beyond authoritarianism as fgar as politics is concerned. I would not call Pinochet a facist regime, like Imran did, and the facism of Franco is questionable, since his regime was not that revolutionary, and fascism is a revolutionary ideology.

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 13, 2003, 13:34

GePap: I think Pinochet is very borderline. He could either way for me. He did liberalize the economy somewhat, but also kept some strict controls over certain aspects of it.

Franco is more so, but he isn't the ideal, because he was more reactionary than, say, a Mussolini.

Tyhe catapult is deck mounted, so on top of everything, you will get wet!

**Kidlicious** · July 13, 2003, 13:34

Originally posted by GePap
Becuase facism is a distinct ideology which does not support trade liberalism, which is a cornerstone of capitalism. And Facism goes beyond authoritarianism as fgar as politics is concerned. I would not call Pinochet a facist regime, like Imran did, and the facism of Franco is questionable, since his regime was not that revolutionary, and fascism is a revolutionary ideology.

Capitalism does not require trade liberalisation. It only requires the private ownership of capital. I'm not going to give you the dictionary definition, but I will tell you that it explicity states this.

**GePap** · July 13, 2003, 13:40

As a political ideology, capitalism is incidental to Facism: the first facist manifesto caled for things like old age pensions for all, lots of goernment porgrams, so forth and so on.

Being authoritarian does not make one facist: Pinochet was authoritarian, but he did not do anything revolutionary (except perahps open up economically...) The notion of being reactionary is one of the things that for me distinguishes one from being a facist: while much of the "Volk" talk gives the impression that the system yearns to "return" to some ancient wonderland, its methods are extreme and revolutionary, giving you a very different end form whatever fantasy past some people may yearn for.

Capitalism does not require trade liberalisation. It only requires the private ownership of capital.

Hmmm? You can have private ownership of capital in a social democratic system.

**GePap** · July 13, 2003, 13:51

He, on the "definition" of capitalism from distinct viewpoints:

Marxist:

We looked high and low.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/capitalism_defined.htm

Objectivist:

Definition of Capitalism

http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Politics_Capitalism.shtml

An essential definition of Capitalism as the social system based on individual rights. An economic definition is a definition by non-essentials. Capitalism is the only moral form of government.

Calvinist!

Just a moment...

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-11definition.html

Announcement

Things which piss me off.... Teachers sprouting ignorance!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment