Fascism is the new socialism

[Nomad4Ever]

Collectivism always results in authoritarianism and the creation of the elite class.

Socialism is no more collectivist than democracy is.

 

[Deuce]

Fascism is a subset of socialism.

It is not at all a subset of socialism. **** that's ignorant.

 

[Deuce]

fascism and socialism are both authoritarian collectivist schemes where the centralized government is held to be far more important than the rights of individuals.

That's not how either of those words work.

 

[Fishking]

....the sky is blue in "my world" (i.e. the real world), so that's not the right question.

Your question should be directing inward. What color is the sky in the "world" of people like you who attempt to dispute (in direct conflict with all facts and history) that "Fascism" is in ANY WAY a leftist ideology.

You've tried this before, and in EVERY instance, you've been unable to do anything but duck and dodge when challenged to defend your perspective with FACTS (rather than your own personal opinion). Historians and sociologists (and educated people everywhere) all seem to understand what you cannot (or refuse to) acknowledge.

....at least you use "vapid" correctly.

But you and I both know you can't defend the argument that Fascism is a leftwing ideology (or, as "subset of socialism"). We've done this exercise before...and you lost. Badly.

Remember?

If not, let's go again, shall we?

Post whatever links or information you can muster to make the case that Fascism is a subset of socialism....and I'll take it from there (again).

More imagination on your part. I've done it before, and I'm doing it now. Hmmmm...reality conflicts with your claims. I know! Link to where I failed to support my assertion before. I'll wait.

.....as I stated, your personal opinions and/or emotions are not worth debating when the topic of discussion is one of objective, provable FACTS. You're certainly entitled to feel and think whatever you wish. No one will (or should) denigrate you for what you think, as long as you don't delude yourself that your baseless feelings are "the facts".

I'll dismiss this line of response, since it obviously went well over your head and is not worth rehashing how much you failed to grasp the point made. It's sad.

.....PROJECTION Alert!

You got it! You beat me with an emoji. I can't rebut that amazing use of reason.

Anyone who doesn't understand that programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, etc. etc. etc.....are in FACT examples of pure Socialism.....is someone who is not prepared to defend himself in debate.

Sorry, they are programs that run on the back of capitalism and, again, you prove you do not know what socialism is. For example, the government running Medicaid is not socialism. The government taking over the health insurance industry would be socialism. Social security is another program that runs on the back of capitalism. If the government took over all retirement programs and savings would be socialism.

So instead I have two questions for you. Tell me, Fishking:

• -how to people like you actually define "Socialism"?
• -what are the differences (in your mind) between Socialism, Communism and Marxism?

Definition of SOCIALISM

any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Full Definition of socialism​

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Seems pretty clear and lines up with what I stated above. Oh...and the difference between the two? Not a whole helluva lot.

Why would you lie about what I said in this way? There was nothing in my previous remarks that stated that Fascism is a "catchall phrase" for ANYTHING. Neither did I even use the term "anti-liberal". I used "anti-democratic", "illiberal", "authoritarianism" and "Fascism" individually. Did that confuse you in some way?

Lie? Observation, hence why the hyperbolic statement about the overuse of fascism, that went over your head, is so funny. If this is what you think is a rebuttal, I can see why you have the impression you do from past debates.

 

[Fishking]

It is not at all a subset of socialism. **** that's ignorant.

I'm already fixing the lack of education in this regard to multiple other posters. You can read them there, but you're not worth responding to and will be ignored.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Let's see now:

Which party has as it's supporters people who walk around with Nazi flags?

View attachment 67354118

Curious, ain't it, that THOSE people would call someone else Fascist

(the guy there was trying to make fun of trump and pence, and was a hillary supporter)

But ANYWAYS, the left has been calling people fascist, nazi, etc forever.

Pepperidge farm remembers....

 

[Deuce]

Fascism explicitly supports and advocates private property and wealth.

 

[Fishking]

You should know better then this and maybe you do but you can't admit it. Socialism is an economic idea and is not automatically authoritarian. Socialism can be authoritarian or it can be libertarian. Democratic socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is collectivism, and you cannot have collectivism without authoritarianism. How do you accomplish the confiscation of private property without authoritarian use of force?

Fascism is authoritarian government with a state sponsored capitalism that must be authoritarian. It is very conservative.

The nationalist part is conservative, the strict control of industry by the state is not. At least, it's not conservative in the context of the U.S.

 

[Deuce]

Socialism is collectivism, and you cannot have collectivism without authoritarianism. How do you accomplish the confiscation of private property without authoritarian use of force?

The nationalist part is conservative, the strict control of industry by the state is not. At least, it's not conservative in the context of the U.S.

Fascism explicitly supports private property.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Socialism is collectivism, and you cannot have collectivism without authoritarianism.

Trade unions, worker owner businesses, communes, professional societies, business partnerships, families, and mideval guilds are examples of collectivism without authoritarianism.

 

[Lisa]

Socialism is collectivism, and you cannot have collectivism without authoritarianism. How do you accomplish the confiscation of private property without authoritarian use of force?

The nationalist part is conservative, the strict control of industry by the state is not. At least, it's not conservative in the context of the U.S.

Where do you get the idea that all socialism is collectivism? Who said that democratic socialism cannot own private property?

Who told you that socialist support a state control of industry?

Hitler wasn't a socialist. He hated socialists and sent them to the concentration camps.

 

[Fishking]

Corporatism achieved nothing of note in Italy, which led Mussolini to being labeled "more rhetoric than revolution". Italy lacked a centrally planned economy ala the USSR exactly because the Italian government did not significantly intervene in the economy, save for responses to economic and financial crisis (The Battle for Grain, the Battle for the Lira). This was because Italy effectively maintained the same economic structure it had prior to the Fascist take over, as evident by the fact that Alberto De Stefani was retained in his position.

While much has been said of the Fascist government buying majority ownership in many corporations, its often forgotten that this never resulted in significant changes of leadership or industrial planning. Like the Nazis, the Fascists did not radically restructure their economic system to suit their political means, because unlike in socialist states, economic matters were always of secondary, and sometimes tertiary, concern.

Your portrayal of the economic realities don't match up. Italy and Germany both had significant control over their industries. From the takeover of the Nazi party Hitler pushed their industries into very specific directions to support his future war efforts. To say their economy disposition from post WWI and then later wasn't not dynamically changed is just strange to hear when it's obviously not true.

Compare that to the Soviet Union, which tore down the structures of their economy and completed replaced nearly every facet they could realistically manage to do so, and you have two (technically three) systems that don't resemble each other in any real capacity.

Again, the comparisons are there, and have been made. Outside of that, the biggest difference is that the Nazi party took over in '33 and WWII broke out in '39. Both regimes ultimately were authoritarian, had goals of expansion, saw people as a collect mass to be used claiming it was for the good of all but was really just good for the elites.

 

[Fishking]

Trade unions, worker owner businesses, communes, professional societies, and mideval guilds are examples of collectivism without authoritarianism.

Ah...you think they aren't authoritarian? Interesting. What happens if you decided to exist as an individual within the scope of their control?

 

[Deuce]

Your portrayal of the economic realities don't match up. Italy and Germany both had significant control over their industries. From the takeover of the Nazi party Hitler pushed their industries into very specific directions to support his future war efforts. To say their economy disposition from post WWI and then later wasn't not dynamically changed is just strange to hear when it's obviously not true.

Again, the comparisons are there, and have been made. Outside of that, the biggest difference is that the Nazi party took over in '33 and WWII broke out in '39. Both regimes ultimately were authoritarian, had goals of expansion, saw people as a collect mass to be used claiming it was for the good of all but was really just good for the elites.

Fascism is not just a synonym for authoritarian, it has more specific meaning than that. "Control over their industries" doesn't make it suddenly socialist.

Fascism doesn't eliminate private property.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Ah...you think they aren't authoritarian? Interesting. What happens if you decided to exist as an individual within the scope of their control?

It is impossible for these organizations to be authoritarian. One can leave any of those organizations any time they want to and any compliance to the rules is voluntary.

If the decision you point out is made, then one I see three possible results
1. One will choose to act in accordance of the rules but make that decision to do so as an individual that supports those rules
2. One will challenge the rules and possibly see those rules change
3. One will choose to leave the collective

 

[Lisa]

Your portrayal of the economic realities don't match up. Italy and Germany both had significant control over their industries. From the takeover of the Nazi party Hitler pushed their industries into very specific directions to support his future war efforts. To say their economy disposition from post WWI and then later wasn't not dynamically changed is just strange to hear when it's obviously not true.

Again, the comparisons are there, and have been made. Outside of that, the biggest difference is that the Nazi party took over in '33 and WWII broke out in '39. Both regimes ultimately were authoritarian, had goals of expansion, saw people as a collect mass to be used claiming it was for the good of all but was really just good for the elites.

Italy and Nazi Germany were fascist, so of course the government has control over the economy. It is one of the core ideas of fascism.

Ah...you think they aren't authoritarian? Interesting. What happens if you decided to exist as an individual within the scope of their control?

That doesn't even make any sense. How are trade unions or worker owned businesses authoritarian? Are those workers not also individuals? I am assuming that you do not know what a commune is.

 

[Fishking]

It is impossible for these organizations to be authoritarian. One can leave any of those organizations any time they want to and any compliance to the rules is voluntary.

Yes, yes...that's why unions will literally beat the **** out of people if they try and work during a strike. That's why they also keep pushing for the government to force unions on industries. That's why they oppose "right to work" laws, which are merely an individual having a choice to join the union or not.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, yes...that's why unions will literally beat the **** out of people if they try and work during a strike.

Assault has nothing to do with authoritarianism, but is instead a crime.

That's why they also keep pushing for the government to force unions on industries.

That is also not an example of authoritarianism. Any group with a cause is going to promote that cause.

That's why they oppose "right to work" laws, which are merely an individual having a choice to join the union or not.

Also not an example of authoritarianism. That is people promoting policies they believe in a democratic system (in western society at least)

 

[Fishking]

Socialism is no more collectivist than democracy is.

I'm confused. How is socialism not collectivism? One of the main pillars of individualism is strong private property rights. Socialism goes directly against that and dissolves the concept of private property ownership and puts ownership into the hands of "the people".

 

[Jredbaron96]

Italy and Germany both had significant control over their industries. From the takeover of the Nazi party Hitler pushed their industries into very specific directions to support his future war efforts.

Like what?

German firms could refuse government work orders even after the war started. Even those relevant to the war effort had freedom of contract and set their own production standards.

Contrary to attempts to paint them as collectivist in the same vein of the USSR, the Nazis were largely in favor of private property for German people; when shutting down small businesses in 1944 Goebbels had to caveat owners with promises that they would be allowed to re-open as soon as the war was over. Even before the war, the Nazis rarely resorted to forceful acquisition to achieve their goals; numerous public works projects or similar plans fell through because private investors did not support them, and when they did resort to nationalization, like the Junkers, the state compensated the owners in full.

This was set as the standard from day one when the Nazis took power and immediately began selling off shares of government ownership in the banks and rail industries. The term "re-privatization" had to be coined to describe Nazi economic policies.

To say their economy disposition from post WWI and then later wasn't not dynamically changed is just strange to hear when it's obviously not true.

You're more than welcome to compare notes. The same people who were making goods for the Wiemar Republic were making goods for Nazi Germany. It's just a simple fact.

Again, the comparisons are there, and have been made. Outside of that, the biggest difference is that the Nazi party took over in '33 and WWII broke out in '39. Both regimes ultimately were authoritarian, had goals of expansion, saw people as a collect mass to be used claiming it was for the good of all but was really just good for the elites.

That can be applied to just about every empire in history, but nobody would claim that the Romans, Ottomans, Tsars, or Mongols were socialists.

 

[Lisa]

Yes, yes...that's why unions will literally beat the **** out of people if they try and work during a strike. That's why they also keep pushing for the government to force unions on industries. That's why they oppose "right to work" laws, which are merely an individual having a choice to join the union or not.

Why would a member of the union also want to work during a strike? Do you not understand why unions exist?

Right to work laws are not in the best interest of the workers.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France were the bitterest of enemies and fought each other for hundreds of years. Since they fought each other, they absolutely could not be the same, using your logic.

So, tell me, which one wasn't a real monarchy?

Well isn't that about the dumbest analogy I've seen in awhile. It's not even reductio ad absurdum, It's just absurd on It's own merits.
I showed you how Hitler was an enemy of socialists all his career and you refute it with this?
Come back after you decide to put a little thought into this.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Nope, of not understanding what the words socialism and fascism mean.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

You will notice that they have definitions that have nothing to do with each other. One is an economic theory and the other is about racial or group superiority.

Like the Biden admin doing work a work around to the Constitution?

Fascism 101.

 

[Fishking]

Assault has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

Beating the **** out of people who don't do what you tell them is literally authoritarianism.

That is also not an example of authoritarianism. Any group with a cause is going to promote that cause.

That's not what I said. I said "using the government to force" unions on industries. The key distinction you left out is using force with the power of government. This is no merely "promoting a cause".

Also not an example of authoritarianism. That is people promoting policies they believe in.

Again, that's more than promoting. That's forcing. I really don't know what your definition of authoritarian is at this point. I think your comments here have clearly ceded the ground on your part.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Like the Biden admin doing work a work around to the Constitution?

I agree he did **** up trying to reinstate the moratorium the way he did.

Fascism 101.

eviction moritoriums were not a policy of any of the fascist regimes as far as I know.