Nazi Party Registers Their First Washington Lobbyist.

[opebo]

Rather ironic that this is controversial.

[opebo]

Meh. A Nazi lobbying is less offensive than the marginalization of political minorities in the States.

I think more offensive is the number of fascists already running successful lobbying operations in the States.

You win.

That was my point above with the 'irony'.  The US is a fascist state, so thus all the lobbieists are participants in the fascism.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.