• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Billionaires Exist?

Should Billionaires Exist?


  • Total voters
    97
Why not, you've managed to avoid common sense and even a basic understanding of history.

From the guy who says Fascism didn't emerge from the failures of Capitalism and the assertion was "made up" history. You keep pitching and I keep hitting them out of the park.
 
Correct, 20th century Fascism emerged from socialism.

AI: Which contributed to the rise of fascism more: Capitalism or Socialism?

...

Fascism Causes: Socialism vs Capitalism​


Fascism arose primarily as a response to the crises and contradictions of capitalism, particularly during periods of severe economic instability, rather than as a consequence of socialism’s successes. While fascist movements often used anti-socialist rhetoric and violently suppressed socialist and communist movements, the ideological and structural origins of fascism are deeply rooted in the failures of liberal capitalism, including economic inequality, overproduction, unemployment, and the perceived inability of democratic institutions to manage capitalist crises. Socialism, by contrast, is presented in the sources not as a contributor to fascism but as its antithesis—a revolutionary alternative that fascism was specifically designed to prevent.

Fascism as a Product of Capitalist Crisis​

Fascism is widely interpreted in the provided sources as an extreme, authoritarian response to the systemic failures of capitalism. J.T. Murphy, writing in 1935, explicitly states that "Fascism is not an alternative to Capitalism. It is Capitalism in its most desperate, violent form". This perspective frames fascism not as a break from capitalism but as its most reactionary defense mechanism during periods of collapse. When capitalism faces deep structural crises—such as overproduction, falling profits, and mass unemployment—the ruling capitalist class may turn to fascist movements to preserve the existing economic order by crushing working-class resistance and dismantling democratic institutions that might enable socialist transformation.

The economic model under fascism maintained private ownership of the means of production, but subjected it to strict state control in the name of the "national interest". This arrangement allowed capitalists to retain ownership while the state intervened to ensure profitability, suppress labor unions, and eliminate socialist threats. For example, in Nazi Germany, industrialists collaborated closely with the Nazi Party, supporting its rise in power to prevent a potential socialist revolution. This collaboration underscores the idea that fascism functions as a tool for big business to maintain control during times of social and economic upheaval.

The Role of Socialism in the Rise of Fascism​

While socialism did not cause fascism, it played a significant role as a political target and ideological foil. Fascist movements consistently defined themselves in opposition to socialism, communism, and class struggle, portraying them as existential threats to the nation. The violent suppression of socialist and communist movements—such as the murder of Spartacist revolutionaries by the Freikorps, precursors to the Nazi Party—was central to fascism’s consolidation of power.

However, this opposition does not imply that socialism contributed to fascism in a causal or structural sense. Rather, the fear of socialism among the capitalist class acted as a catalyst for supporting fascist movements. As one source notes, "Fascism ultimately serves as a reactionary movement to hinder the tide of history"—specifically, the historical movement toward socialism and workers’ emancipation. In this view, fascism is not a response to socialism’s strength, but to capitalism’s weakness and the ruling class’s fear of losing control.
 
AI: Which contributed to the rise of fascism more: Capitalism or Socialism?

...

Fascism Causes: Socialism vs Capitalism​


Fascism arose primarily as a response to the crises and contradictions of capitalism, particularly during periods of severe economic instability, rather than as a consequence of socialism’s successes. While fascist movements often used anti-socialist rhetoric and violently suppressed socialist and communist movements, the ideological and structural origins of fascism are deeply rooted in the failures of liberal capitalism, including economic inequality, overproduction, unemployment, and the perceived inability of democratic institutions to manage capitalist crises. Socialism, by contrast, is presented in the sources not as a contributor to fascism but as its antithesis—a revolutionary alternative that fascism was specifically designed to prevent.

Fascism as a Product of Capitalist Crisis​

Fascism is widely interpreted in the provided sources as an extreme, authoritarian response to the systemic failures of capitalism. J.T. Murphy, writing in 1935, explicitly states that "Fascism is not an alternative to Capitalism. It is Capitalism in its most desperate, violent form". This perspective frames fascism not as a break from capitalism but as its most reactionary defense mechanism during periods of collapse. When capitalism faces deep structural crises—such as overproduction, falling profits, and mass unemployment—the ruling capitalist class may turn to fascist movements to preserve the existing economic order by crushing working-class resistance and dismantling democratic institutions that might enable socialist transformation.

The economic model under fascism maintained private ownership of the means of production, but subjected it to strict state control in the name of the "national interest". This arrangement allowed capitalists to retain ownership while the state intervened to ensure profitability, suppress labor unions, and eliminate socialist threats. For example, in Nazi Germany, industrialists collaborated closely with the Nazi Party, supporting its rise in power to prevent a potential socialist revolution. This collaboration underscores the idea that fascism functions as a tool for big business to maintain control during times of social and economic upheaval.

The Role of Socialism in the Rise of Fascism​

While socialism did not cause fascism, it played a significant role as a political target and ideological foil. Fascist movements consistently defined themselves in opposition to socialism, communism, and class struggle, portraying them as existential threats to the nation. The violent suppression of socialist and communist movements—such as the murder of Spartacist revolutionaries by the Freikorps, precursors to the Nazi Party—was central to fascism’s consolidation of power.

However, this opposition does not imply that socialism contributed to fascism in a causal or structural sense. Rather, the fear of socialism among the capitalist class acted as a catalyst for supporting fascist movements. As one source notes, "Fascism ultimately serves as a reactionary movement to hinder the tide of history"—specifically, the historical movement toward socialism and workers’ emancipation. In this view, fascism is not a response to socialism’s strength, but to capitalism’s weakness and the ruling class’s fear of losing control.
What does the word "Nazi" stand for?
 
Yes, the wealth already here is, for the most part, trapped here for tax purposes, but that's not the issue. It's losing the new wealth, because that will be created outside of US and will benefit some other country's treasury. See post 522.
Right, no one will ever seek to generate income in America once they can no longer become a billionaire.
 
Would it be fair to name that "next phase" a kind of "cultural revolution?"
Based on the current regime it seems our next phase is closer to a "final solution".
 
Can everyone be a billionaire?

Probably not because you are always going to have things like newborn children, the insane, etc.

But it seems entirely plausible that future generations could see "billionaires" become something of a norm in society, as "millionaires" are today.

Why or why not? How would that work?

The same way becoming a Millionaire became a thing regular people could do; steady growth in wealth and productivity combined with a bit of inflation ;p


I mean since 2016.

Ah. So when you think "History" you think "nothing before 2016". ?

Was Capitalism doing it right during the Great Depression?

To the extent it was allowed, yeah - the problem of course being that our government tried to get rid of Capitalism and replace it with Progressive Corporatism. Government Made The Depression Great, sadly :(

If you'd like a comparison between that and how a free-market approach would have worked, recommend taking a look at the crash of 1920-21, and what Harding did that was different from what FDR did.

Authoritarianism is inherently right-wing.

:lol: 100 million dead from Communism couldn't be reached for comment :)
 
:lol: 100 million dead from Communism couldn't be reached for comment :)
We need to use the power of the state to strip billionaires of their wealth and compel employers to pay what we socialists deem to be the fair value of their labor.

And oh ya, authoritarianism is a right-wing thing.
 
Probably not because you are always going to have things like newborn children, the insane, etc.
But it seems entirely plausible that future generations could see "billionaires" become something of a norm in society, as "millionaires" are today.

And how does that work? Does the working class become filled with newborn and crazy people?

That you don't understand the zero sum game of political power is kind of embarrassing for you. I'd be embarrassed.

Ah. So when you think "History" you think "nothing before 2016". ?

Well, I don't want to have to embarrass you over and over again as to the causes of fascism. I've already done that to another poster and he's struggling to maintain coherence.

To the extent it was allowed, yeah - the problem of course being that our government tried to get rid of Capitalism and replace it with Progressive Corporatism. Government Made The Depression Great, sadly :(

Yeah, Capitalism would have done so much better without the polices of FDR. Isn't it amazing that rolling back FDR's policies has lead to yet another crisis of Capitalism? What a coincidence.

If you'd like a comparison between that and how a free-market approach would have worked,

"Free market" :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Oh, such naivety.

recommend taking a look at the crash of 1920-21, and what Harding did that was different from what FDR did.

Yeah, well, you believe free market nonsense and that's why we're ideologically opposed, despite my being proven right at every turn.

:lol: 100 million dead from Communism couldn't be reached for comment :)

Oh look! Someone doesn't understand the nature of Left and Right politics. You're aware that George Orwell was a socialist, right? He was devoted to socialism but wrote in opposition to authoritarianism, even going to literal war against it. How does that work?
 
What does the word "Nazi" stand for?

Yeah, capitalism was so disgraced that it had to label itself as a variant of ethnic socialism to be taken seriously. Anyway, the Democratic Republic of North Korea applauds your efforts.
 
We need to use the power of the state to strip billionaires of their wealth and compel employers to pay what we socialists deem to be the fair value of their labor.

And oh ya, authoritarianism is a right-wing thing.

Socialism is the mitigation or absence of hierarchy and democratization of economic and political power. Authoritarianism is the ultimate manifestation of hierarchy and consolidated power. So... um... yeah.
 
And how does that work? Does the working class become filled with newborn and crazy people?

If you are not sure on how newborns happen, probably a random dude on the internet shouldn't be the one to walk you through that process.

Additionally, a certain percentage of humans are - for a variety of reasons in and out of their control - sort of stuck on Self Destruct. :( Our ability to help them is limited, and often requires imposing control over their lives for them.

That you don't understand the zero sum game of political power is kind of embarrassing for you. I'd be embarrassed.

Political power is not zero sum, because different governments have different scopes of authority and power over their people.

However, what is definitely not zero sum is wealth. You started with an argument that assumed it was, and have never been willing to acknowledge that.


Well, I don't want to have to embarrass you over and over again as to the causes of fascism.

Dans, if you think History books only go back to 2016, I'm not worried about you embarrassing me on the causes of Fascism.


Yeah, Capitalism would have done so much better without the polices of FDR.

Very much so, as the example I offered would show you, if you wanted to go read some history :)

FDR more than any other human is responsible for the length and breadth of the Great Depression. His policies - a grab bag of random impulses and ideas often without a coherent unifying vision other than that the state should Do Something - worsened and sustained the Depression longer than it would have gone on under wiser leadership.


What a coincidence.
"Free market" :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Oh, such naivety.
Yeah, well, you believe free market nonsense and that's why we're ideologically opposed, despite my being proven right at every turn.

:) Feel free to go read up on how the US recovered from the 1920-21 crash v how we fared later in the 1930s.


Oh look! Someone doesn't understand the nature of Left and Right politics. You're aware that George Orwell was a socialist, right? He was devoted to socialism but wrote in opposition to authoritarianism, even going to literal war against it. How does that work?

See, this is where reading history would help you, Dans. There are authoritarian left wingers and authoritarian right wingers. There are anti-authoritarian right wingers and anti-authoritarian left wingers (which, particularly within socialism, is always entertaining to me, because it's such magical thinking. Give Marx, Lenin, and Mao credit - they knew dang well they were establishing authoritarian governance. Bakunin and the "anarcho-syndicalists" were always champagne socialists by nature, utterly divorced from the reality of what they were proposing).

"Right" and "Left" wing politics aren't terribly good descriptors, even - it's a holdover from where the various sides sat in the National Assembly during the French Revolution.
 
Socialism is the mitigation or absence of hierarchy and democratization of economic and political power. Authoritarianism is the ultimate manifestation of hierarchy and consolidated power. So... um... yeah.
Then why do so many Socialist experiments degrade into authoritarianism?
 
Then why do so many Socialist experiments degrade into authoritarianism?

Which ones specifically degraded into authoritarianism, NatMorton?
 
Socialism is based on mutually beneficial self interest. All of our social programs rely on people’s understanding that they will very likely not end up fabulously wealthy at the end of their working lives and may not have enough to live on in retirement or enough to pay their heightened medical costs in old age.

And capitalism is no less based on coercion from the very beginning of its development. It eliminated the idea of mutual obligation between noble tenant and commoner landlord, and replaced it with pure exploitation. It is why the British passed so many laws allowing the death penalty to be used against poor people who stole from the wealthy, but not against employers who abused their employees or paid them starvation wages.
Mh the mutual obligation was tenuous at best.
 
If you are not sure on how newborns happen, probably a random dude on the internet shouldn't be the one to walk you through that process.
Additionally, a certain percentage of humans are - for a variety of reasons in and out of their control - sort of stuck on Self Destruct. :( Our ability to help them is limited, and often requires imposing control over their lives for them.

I didn't ask about vague abstract factors relating to the human condition which prevents people from being billionaires. I asked how anyone could be a billionaire if everyone was a billionaire.

Political power is not zero sum, because different governments have different scopes of authority and power over their people.

Power is indeed zero sum. I'm referring to political power under one government. Under apartheid and Jim Crow, whites had to lose power for black people to gain it. Power OVER people means that there is a lesser power in the equation, politically. Black people gaining political power means that white people lose political power. That's hierarchy.

What do you think is the fuel of fascism? Scapegoating minorities. Hierarchy. When you view your status on the hierarchy as deserved and earned, equality looks like oppression.

However, what is definitely not zero sum is wealth. You started with an argument that assumed it was, and have never been willing to acknowledge that.

Wealth is a form of political power.

FDR more than any other human is responsible for the length and breadth of the Great Depression.

Says people who think Milton Friedman, free markets, and trickle down are fabulous. Not serious people.

His policies - a grab bag of random impulses and ideas often without a coherent unifying vision other than that the state should Do Something - worsened and sustained the Depression longer than it would have gone on under wiser leadership.

Why is Finland the happiest place on Earth?

See, this is where reading history would help you, Dans. There are authoritarian left wingers and authoritarian right wingers.

I understand that you have a basic understanding of left and right politics, hierarchy, and power. Let me help you:

Hierarchy in Left Right Politics​

The role of hierarchy is central to understanding the distinction between left and right politics, with the left generally seeking to reduce or eliminate social hierarchies, while the right tends to accept, defend, or promote them as natural, inevitable, or necessary. This foundational difference originated during the French Revolution, when supporters of the monarchy (favoring hierarchy) sat on the right of the National Assembly, while revolutionaries advocating for equality and the dismantling of feudal privileges sat on the left.

Left-wing ideologies typically view social hierarchies—whether based on class, wealth, status, or power—as sources of inequality and oppression, often questioning their legitimacy. The left impulse is described as fundamentally toward the leveling of hierarchies, driven by principles of equality and reason. This includes opposition to entrenched privileges and advocacy for equal opportunity or outcome, particularly for the less advantaged.

In contrast, right-wing politics often supports social orders and hierarchies as natural, desirable, or justified by tradition, religion, or competition. The right has historically aligned with upper or dominant classes, defending their prerogatives and resisting challenges to established authority. While some right-wing movements embrace laissez-faire capitalism and individualism, others, such as traditionalist or fascist ideologies, support hierarchical collectivism, where social harmony is maintained through organic, top-down structures.

Notably, both far-left and far-right extremes can exhibit authoritarian traits, leading to the "horseshoe theory," where the ends of the spectrum appear similar in their rejection of liberal democracy. However, the core divergence remains: the left challenges hierarchies in the name of equality, while the right upholds them as essential to social order.

What the last sentence describes is a fundamental fact about all concepts and ideologies. They break down at their extremes. Like gravity. However, some concepts are BASED on extremes. Like right-wing ideology, which is innately hierarchical. Extreme left-wing ideology can be authoritarian in the same way that gravity can become a hole in space and time.
 
The USSR, Cuba, Mao's China, North Korea, and Venezuela come immediately to mind.
Did they degrade into or begin as authoritarian?
As I see it, all forms of government over time become more authoritarian.
As population increases, the price of freedom rises more rapidly.
 
Did they degrade into or begin as authoritarian?
As I see it, all forms of government over time become more authoritarian.
As population increases, the price of freedom rises more rapidly.

Marxist Socialism requires authoritarianism. Even Karl himself stated it was a necessary stage prior to attaining the workers' paradise. His words:
“Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary… this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.”

This is its great flaw. In order to achieve, for example, the eliminations of "billionaires" and central ownership of the means of production, political authority must be centralized in the new order imposed, often by force. The problem is, once you centralize power to that degree it's game over. That power is never returned to the people.
 
Society requires a system of rules, laws and checks and balances to function. Who controls that system (the people, a few billionaires or a dictator) determines who the government serves. A government that serves the people will be democratic -- accountable to the people. A government that serves the elite few will be authoritarian, which is inherently a right-wing construct.

A left-wing system cannot be forced upon people, otherwise it becomes a right-wing system. If an authoritarian props up a system of 'socialism', that's still a right-wing system. The people have no say in how the system is constructed or who it benefits. That's a consolidation of government power. That's right-wing. Right-wing methods cannot be used to enact left-wing policies, otherwise you get the worst of both.

A system of taxation that prevents the emergence of billionaires is fully democratic, if it is enacted through a democratic process of representative government.
 
I didn't ask about vague abstract factors relating to the human condition which prevents people from being billionaires. I asked how anyone could be a billionaire if everyone was a billionaire.

Which is like asking how anyone could be a thousandaire if everyone was a thousandaire, or how anyone could be an athlete if everyone was an athlete.

However, what you asked was:

Can everyone be a billionaire? Why or why not? How would that work?

This was in response to the point that wealth was not zero sum.

To which I responded:

Probably not because you are always going to have things like newborn children, the insane, etc.

But it seems entirely plausible that future generations could see "billionaires" become something of a norm in society, as "millionaires" are today.

100 years ago, someone who believed then (as you seemingly do now) that wealth is zero sum would have similarly mockingly asked if I thought it was possible that normal people might start becoming millionaires in the future. Normal people are now becoming millionaires. Could that extend to billionaires in the future? Sure, if we keep growing, instead of choking economic activity off with stone-age zero-sum tribalism.


Power is indeed zero sum. I'm referring to political power under one government.

Then even there you are incorrect, because the breadth of power exerted by a government over a people can wax and wane.

Under apartheid and Jim Crow, whites had to lose power for black people to gain it.

This was not at all a zero sum exchange. What happened under the destruction of both Apartheid and Jim Crow was a reduction in State Power.


What do you think is the fuel of fascism? Scapegoating minorities. Hierarchy.

Usually it's connected to a middle class struggling with perceived loss of social, political, or economic security. Contra notions about Hierarchy, Fascism tends to be pretty populist. Our nations' PhD's are not exactly flocking to support Trump.
 
Back
Top Bottom