• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Socialism = Fascism

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It has come to my attention that the Communists on this sight do not even understand that their ideology is a kin to fascism and that they are two simply two opposite sides on the same left wing coin so here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
Seriously. That article was written by a student who is a member of a group that supports Ann Rand. Besides the fact that that is one of the saddest clubs I have ever heard of, they are in no way objective like they claim. Any freshmen poly sci student could tell you the difference between fascism and socialism if you asked.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What a silly article.

I can't imagine how anybody could get past their statement that socialism abolishes private property without giggling at least a little bit. This, after they listed the U.K. and Sweden as examples of socialist countries.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gardener said:
What a silly article.

I can't imagine how anybody could get past their statement that socialism abolishes private property without giggling at least a little bit. This, after they listed the U.K. and Sweden as examples of socialist countries.
What are you talking about socialism in the Marxist form does abolish private property that's one of their main tennants.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Seriously. That article was written by a student who is a member of a group that supports Ann Rand. Besides the fact that that is one of the saddest clubs I have ever heard of, they are in no way objective like they claim. Any freshmen poly sci student could tell you the difference between fascism and socialism if you asked.
It wasn't written by a student it was written by a professor; furthermore, did you even read the article of course there are differences between fascism and socialism but they are negligible at best that's what this passage was all about:
True enough: We can put socialism and fascism on a table and stare at them all we like, and all we may see will be differences. What is required to go beyond this is to widen our context of knowledge. For instance, let's say we draw two geometrical figures on the chalkboard: a scalene and an isosceles. If we focus merely on these two concretes, without widening our context, we will see nothing but difference. The two triangles have different angles, different side lengths, different locations, different sizes. Now imagine that we introduce a foil: We draw a square on the board. The difference between the first two triangles is still there, but is made insignificant by the even greater difference between the triangles, on the one hand, and the square on the other. This process of differentiation allows us to see the triangles as similar. If we are able to isolate an essential characteristic of the group (a difference bewteen the triangles and squares which explains all or most of the other differences between them), we can then integrate this group of similars into a single mental unit, uniting it by a common definition, i.e., forming a concept.(2)

We can treat social systems in the same way in which we treat geometical figures. As we observed before, there are probably innumerable differences between socialism and fascism. But what happens if we introduce a foil here, as well? Let's imagine that we introduce a third type of social system. Rather than having society control all property, and rather than having dictatorship in one form or another, we introduce a system in which individuals are free to follow the dictates of their own mind. Rather than having a system in which the choice is between the abridgment of political freedom or the abridgment of economic freedom, we introduce one in which no one's freedom is to be abridged. In short, we introduce capitalism : the social system in which all property is privately owned, and the government's function is restricted to the protection of individual rights.

Once we remember the possibility of the existence of such a system, the differences between socialism and fascism become trivial, superficial and, above all, non-essential. Differentiation of socialism and fascism from capitalism permits the recognition of their similarity. They do differ from each other, but only in the way in which the scalene and the isosceles differ from each other: in degree, but not in kind. Socialism and fascism are each forms of statism, forms of government in which the government is given complete or extensive control over the lives of its citizens.
In fact Kelzie your form of Socialism that you like is closer to Mussolinis fascism than it is to Communism. Remeber that Fascism does not necessarily imply racism. Though Hitler allowed private property the state still controlled what they did with that property.

Think about it how else could you explain the vast similarities between the economic policies of the 1980 socialist regimes of Latin America and Francos Spain and Mussolini's Italy?

Since you're so smart Kelzie why don't you tell me the difference between the economies of modern European Socialism and Fascist Europe if you take out the racism in nazi Germany they're the same damn thing the loss of economic freedom will inevitably lead to the loss of political freedom and vice versa,

Fascism and Communism are two opposite sides on the same left wing coin the American form of capitalism based on the principles of Locke's Second Treatise of Government is the antithesis to both.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What are you talking about socialism in the Marxist form does abolish private property that's one of their main tennants.

For future reference, the word you are looking for is tenet rather than tennant.

As to your reference to Marxism, you do know this is not the only form of socialism, don't you? It is just one type of socialism, but is by no means the only one, and so a person cannot generalize about the properties of socialism as a whole based upon the properties of just one of its forms when those properties differ. I figured the mention of Sweden and the U.K. might ring a bell with you, but obviously it didn't, so let me clue you in since you didn't know -- people can certainly own property in both those places.

Here is an article that covers some of the basic points in regards to socialism. Not all socialism is communism despite the way you use the terms interchangeably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gardener said:
For future reference, the word you are looking for is tenet rather than tennant.

As to your reference to Marxism, you do know this is not the only form of socialism, don't you? It is just one type of socialism, but is by no means the only one, and so a person cannot generalize about the properties of socialism as a whole based upon the properties of just one of its forms when those properties differ. I figured the mention of Sweden and the U.K. might ring a bell with you, but obviously it didn't, so let me clue you in since you didn't know -- people can certainly own property in both those places.

Here is an article that covers some of the basic points in regards to socialism. Not all socialism is communism despite the way you use the terms interchangeably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
All socialism is based off of the tenants of Marx Communism is the purest form of socialism, in fact modern Socialism is much closer to Fascism than it is to Communism.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That was indeed an essay written by a student member of an Objectivst Club. Hardly a reputable source material for defining political philosophies.

Here is a definition from a relevant source:

Fascism: The political system of the extreme right, which incorporates the principles of the leader (dictator), a one party state, totalitarian regimentation of economic and social activity and the arbitrary exercise of absolute power by the regime. After 1922, Benito Mussolini fashioned the fascist prototype in Italy and was emulated in the 1930's by Adolf Hitler in Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Juan Perón in Argentina. Fascism's glorification of the leader makes the system vulnerable and unstable, and poses a serious problem of succession. Unlike communism, fascism retains the private ownership of land and capitol but most economic activity is controlled and regimented by the state through a system of national socialism.
THE AMERICAN POLITICAL DICTIONARY Plano & Greenberg (C)1967 Holt, Reinhert & Winston Publishers L.O.C. Card Number 67-11816


No matter how you right wingers try and dance around it, Fascism is a philosophy of the right.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
That was indeed an essay written by a student member of an Objectivst Club. Hardly a reputable source material for defining political philosophies.

Here is a definition from a relevant source:

Fascism: The political system of the extreme right, which incorporates the principles of the leader (dictator), a one party state, totalitarian regimentation of economic and social activity and the arbitrary exercise of absolute power by the regime. After 1922, Benito Mussolini fashioned the fascist prototype in Italy and was emulated in the 1930's by Adolf Hitler in Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Juan Perón in Argentina. Fascism's glorification of the leader makes the system vulnerable and unstable, and poses a serious problem of succession. Unlike communism, fascism retains the private ownership of land and capitol but most economic activity is controlled and regimented by the state through a system of national socialism.
THE AMERICAN POLITICAL DICTIONARY Plano & Greenberg (C)1967 Holt, Reinhert & Winston Publishers L.O.C. Card Number 67-11816


No matter how you right wingers try and dance around it, Fascism is a philosophy of the right.

How does Fascism bear any resemblence what so ever to right wing Capitalism? In fact it is the exact antithesis to it.

From your own definition:
which incorporates the principles of the leader (dictator), a one party state, totalitarian regimentation of economic and social activity and the arbitrary exercise of absolute power by the regime.
Those are characteristics of left wing governments not that of the right.

This definition could easily describe the Soviet Union in every way. In fascism though private property may be allowed the uses of that property are still controlled by the state for the so called social good.

There is not one aspect of Fascism that can be comparable to right wing economic or social structures and to the contrary they are easily interchangable with that of socialism, the term National Socialism has socialism in the fuc/king title for Christ's sakes.
 
Last edited:

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

I've offered the definition from a reputable and relevant to the topic source material. Got anything to rebut it?


Yes, or no?
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
, the term National Socialism has socialism in the fuc/king title for Christ's sakes.
Communist China calls itself, The People's Republic of China. Is it a republic? Is it run by the people?

North Korea calls itself, The People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Is it democratic? Is it a republic? Do the people run it?


I note you are already reduced to profanity. Sad.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
Communist China calls itself, The People's Republic of China. Is it a republic? Is it run by the people?

North Korea calls itself, The People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Is it democratic? Is it a republic? Do the people run it?


I note you are already reduced to profanity. Sad.
In fascism you have state control of labor and Capital.

In communism you have state control of labor and Capital.

In fascism you have state control of eductation.

In communism you have state control of eductation.

In fascism you have a dictator.

In communism you have a dictator.
I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.

(Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).
Hitler and Mussolini were socialists Fascism is a product of the left and in no way resembles anything from a libertarian republican right wing social structure.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

I've offered the definition from a reputable and relevant to the topic source material. Got anything to rebut it?


Yes, or no?
Yes I do your source is simply historically inaccurate and just plain wrong, here's a quote from an article from a PHD that I hope you'll actually read:
Lenin's famous essay, "Left-wing Communism, an infantile disorder" shows that Lenin himself shared the judgement that he was a Right-wing sort of Marxist. Mussolini was somewhat further Right again, of course, but both were to the Right only WITHIN the overall far-Left camp of the day.
http://www.geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html

Fascism is leftist and in no way resembles a right wing social or economic structure if it does I would be very interested to understand why you think that so far all you have done is give a definition without any factual historical evidence to back it up.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
In fascism you have state control of labor and Capital.

In communism you have state control of labor and Capital.

In fascism you have state control of eductation.

In communism you have state control of eductation.

In fascism you have a dictator.

In communism you have a dictator.


Hitler and Mussolini were socialists Fascism is a product of the left and in no way resembles anything from a libertarian republican right wing social structure.
Obviously you do not know what communism is if you think it demands a dictator.
\
I;ve posted the experts definition, you have yet to offer anything but obviously uninformed opinion to try and rebut it. You lose.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
Obviously you do not know what communism is if you think it demands a dictator.
\
I;ve posted the experts definition, you have yet to offer anything but obviously uninformed opinion to try and rebut it. You lose.
Communism must have a dictator without one who would determine the so called greater good?

Your definition is uninformed and wrong and I have pointed out to you that your definition could easily be exchanged for that of communism.

Fascism: The political system of the extreme right, which incorporates the principles of the leader (dictator), a one party state, totalitarian regimentation of economic and social activity and the arbitrary exercise of absolute power by the regime.
The exact same things can be said for Communism.
After 1922, Benito Mussolini fashioned the fascist prototype in Italy and was emulated in the 1930's by Adolf Hitler in Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Juan Perón in Argentina. Fascism's glorification of the leader makes the system vulnerable and unstable, and poses a serious problem of succession.
Mussolini started out as a Marxist, your lack of historical knowledge on the subject is probably the whole problem here.

Unlike communism, fascism retains the private ownership of land and capitol but most economic activity is controlled and regimented by the state through a system of national socialism.
While you may retain private property the use for that property is still dictated by the state through the loss of political freedom one loses their economic freedom as well.

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL DICTIONARY Plano & Greenberg (C)1967 Holt, Reinhert & Winston Publishers L.O.C. Card Number 67-11816
Good for them now let's see their definition of Communism for a side by side comparison.


When studying an entire social structure a five line definition amounts to nothing.

Read this article and get back to me:

http://www.geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html
 
Last edited:

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Communism must have a dictator without one who would determine the so called greater good?


Your definition is uninformed and wrong and I have pointed out to you that your definition could easily be exchanged for that of communism.

When studying an entire social structure a five line definition amounts to nothing.

Read this article and get back to me:

http://www.geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html

The proletariat decides itself in communism. LOL Again you try and rebut a reputable source material with some putz's website. Doesn't work.

I invite you to find ANY reputable Political Science text that calls Fascism anything but an extreme right wing philosophy.

You won't, I know. Political Science was my field of study.

You obviously have never read Marx either if you think Communism requires a dictator. LOL. God is there anything more amusing than aggressive ignorance?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
The proletariat decides itself in communism. LOL
For a Communist state to succeed how would it be determined who gets what without a dictator to tell them what the greater good is? Both fascism and communism reject economic neo-liberalist ideals in favor of a state regulated economy.
Again you try and rebut a reputable source material with some putz's website. Doesn't work.
You're calling a P.H.D. a putz? Are you a P.H.D.?

I invite you to find ANY reputable Political Science text that calls Fascism anything but an extreme right wing philosophy.
First off if your field of study was Poli Sci you obviously failed to understand the concept of empirical political analysis and taking historical facts and forming an objective idea rather than a subjective one based upon a single 6 line definition, your analysis of this subject is laughable. My question to you is what distinguishes Fascism from Communism? The differences are negligable at best.

I have extensively studied pre-neoliberalist Latin America, The Soviet Union, and Fascist Europe, and their social and economic structures are virtually indistinguishable in almost every way.

You won't, I know. Political Science was my field of study.
It's mine too. I'm better, you obviously didn't study.
You obviously have never read Marx either if you think Communism requires a dictator. LOL. God is there anything more amusing than aggressive ignorance?

I have read Marx I have read the entire Communist manifesto and Marx makes one little comment regarding the whithering away of the state, which is impossible because without a Dictatorial regime to lead there would be no way to determine who gets what and when Fascism can only be considered Right wing in the context of a left wing political box from which liberalist Capitalism is absent.

Here's your definition:

Fascism: The political system of the extreme right,
In what way is it extreme right Mr. Vanderveeken do you care to elaborate?

The only thing that I can think of is that it rejects the theories of individual liberty and property of John Locke and other enlightenment thinkers in favor of the social structures of the past, but so does Communism, so is Communism right wing now?

which incorporates the principles of the leader (dictator), a one party state, totalitarian regimentation of economic and social activity and the arbitrary exercise of absolute power by the regime.
The exact same things can be said for Communism.
After 1922, Benito Mussolini fashioned the fascist prototype in Italy and was emulated in the 1930's by Adolf Hitler in Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Juan Perón in Argentina. Fascism's glorification of the leader makes the system vulnerable and unstable, and poses a serious problem of succession.
Mussolini started out as a Marxist, your lack of historical knowledge on the subject is probably the whole problem here.

Unlike communism, fascism retains the private ownership of land and capitol but most economic activity is controlled and regimented by the state through a system of national socialism.
While you may retain private property the use for that property is still dictated by the state through the loss of political freedom one loses their economic freedom as well.

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL DICTIONARY Plano & Greenberg (C)1967 Holt, Reinhert & Winston Publishers L.O.C. Card Number 67-11816
Good for them now let's see their definition of Communism for a side by side comparison.

When studying an entire social structure a five line definition amounts to nothing.
 
Last edited:

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
For a Communist state to succeed how would it be determined who gets what without a dictator to tell them what the greater good is? Both fascism and communism reject economic neo-liberalist ideals in favor of a state regulated economy.
If you had actually read the Communist Manifesto as you claim, you'd know the answer to this one.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're calling a P.H.D. a putz? Are you a P.H.D.?
Anyone whose publishing credits amount to a free Geo-cities page is not to be taken seriously.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
First off if your field of study was Poli Sci you obviously failed to understand the concept of empirical political analysis and taking historical facts and forming an objective idea rather than a subjective one based upon a single 6 line definition, your analysis of this subject is laughable. My question to you is what distinguishes Fascism from Communism? The differences are negligable at best.
First you call it a 5 line definition, then you call it a 6 line one. On my monitor here it is a 9 line one. Irrelevant though. It is the accepted definition in political science and stands unrebutted by you.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I have extensively studied pre-neoliberalist Latin America, The Soviet Union, and Fascist Europe, and their social and economic structures are virtually indistinguishable in almost every way.
Then you haven;t really studied.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's mine two. I'm better, you obviously didn't study.
I can define the basic terms like communism and fascism, puts me ahead of you.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I have read Marx I have read the entire Communist manifesto and Marx makes one little comment regarding the whithering away of the state Fascism can only be considered Right wing in the context of a left wing political box from which liberalist Capitalism is absent.

LOL, this is funny. You claim Marx discusses Fascism in the Communist Manifesto? My goodness. How on earth would he discuss a political philosophy that would not exist until half a century after his death in his writings? It was not a term, or system that had yet been invented when the Communist Manifesto was written, or even at any point in the life of Karl Marx. And you accuse me of not studying? Goodness gracious what a horrible error destroying all your credibility on this subject you just made. Now try and run away from it. I:lol: am laughing at you :Oopsie right now so hard I am afraid I will wake the neighbors. :rofl
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
If you had actually read the Communist Manifesto as you claim, you'd know the answer to this one.
Enlighten me? Without the state Communism cannot succeed it is a proven historical fact that is why the state has not whithered in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, et al, and to the contrary rather than the state disapearing it grows to astronomical proportions through an ever expanding buraucracy in an attempt to maintain it's control over the social structure for the so called greater good!

Anyone whose publishing credits amount to a free Geo-cities page is not to be taken seriously.
This coming from someone using a dictionary as his authorative source, hay why don't you actually try being objective in this discussion instead of following the traditional lines. If you knew anything what so ever about the nature of Fascism you would know that it is a purely leftist philosophy.
First you call it a 5 line definition, then you call it a 6 line one. On my monitor here it is a 9 line one. Irrelevant though. It is the accepted definition in political science and stands unrebutted by you.
Semantics??? Gimme a break. I have rebutted your definition at every turn and I'll do it again.
Then you haven;t really studied.
I can define the basic terms like communism and fascism, puts me ahead of you.
Wow you can look in a dictionary, way to use your brain, why don't you try thinking for yourself?

A simple definition does not amount to much. When you take the historical context of both social structures it is obvious that they are opposite sides of the same coin and neo-liberalism is the antithesis to both.

LOL, this is funny. You claim Marx discusses Fascism in the Communist Manifesto? My goodness. How on earth we he discuss a political philosophy that would not exist until half a century after his death in his writings?
Where did I say that? I didn't say that at all in any way? I said that:
Me said:
I have read Marx I have read the entire Communist manifesto and Marx makes one little comment regarding the whithering away of the state Fascism can only be considered Right wing in the context of a left wing political box from which liberalist Capitalism is absent.
Now how exactly does that equate to Marx mentioning fascism?
It was not a term, or system that had yet been invented when the Communist Manifesto was written, or even at any point in the life of Karl Marx. And you accuse me of not studying? Goodness gracious what a horrible error destroying all your credibility on this subject you just made. Now try and run away from it. I:lol: am laughing at you :Oopsie right now so hard I am afraid I will wake the neighbors. :rofl
Your reading comprehension is sucks.

Here's your definition and an informed objective look at it:

Fascism: The political system of the extreme right,
In what way is it extreme right Mr. Vanderveeken do you care to elaborate?

The only thing that I can think of is that it rejects the theories of individual liberty and property of John Locke and other enlightenment thinkers in favor of the social structures of the past, but so does Communism, so is Communism right wing now?


which incorporates the principles of the leader (dictator), a one party state, totalitarian regimentation of economic and social activity and the arbitrary exercise of absolute power by the regime.
The exact same things can be said for Communism.

After 1922, Benito Mussolini fashioned the fascist prototype in Italy and was emulated in the 1930's by Adolf Hitler in Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Juan Perón in Argentina. Fascism's glorification of the leader makes the system vulnerable and unstable, and poses a serious problem of succession.
Mussolini started out as a Marxist, your lack of historical knowledge on the subject is probably the whole problem here.


Unlike communism, fascism retains the private ownership of land and capitol but most economic activity is controlled and regimented by the state through a system of national socialism.

While you may retain private property the use for that property is still dictated by the state through the loss of political freedom one loses their economic freedom as well.


THE AMERICAN POLITICAL DICTIONARY Plano & Greenberg (C)1967 Holt, Reinhert & Winston Publishers L.O.C. Card Number 67-11816
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Communism and fascims are very similar indeed.

Remeber that National socialists' believe(ed) in social democractic principles, but only for ayran peoples. Whilst communists believe in socialism for all.

Hitler despised communism, not because of it's policies, but for what he saw as so called "Jewish Bolshevism".

Stalin killed millions of people, he killed the enemies of the people. Anyone that was critical of communist ideology, or Stalin himself.

Hitler killed millions of people, he killed the enemies of the German people. Anyone that was seen as a threat to purity of the German race, or the success of National Socialism.

Now if you start to break down the fact that both Communist and Facist regimes kill people, then you see that they are in fact very similar.

Nazis differ from communists, because they belief in socialism only for ayrans, and not non-ayrans. They also believe in some private property, but to some extent is regulated by the state.

Point is both Nazism, and Communism are the same part of the left.

I.e People that believe in the all powerfull state, and the need for state control and power. It's just that Nazis are leftists that don't like people that share the same amount of melanin as they do.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Australianlibertarian said:
Communism and fascims are very similar indeed.

Remeber that National socialists' believe(ed) in social democractic principles, but only for ayran peoples. Whilst communists believe in socialism for all.

Hitler despised communism, not because of it's policies, but for what he saw as so called "Jewish Bolshevism".

Stalin killed millions of people, he killed the enemies of the people. Anyone that was critical of communist ideology, or Stalin himself.

Hitler killed millions of people, he killed the enemies of the German people. Anyone that was seen as a threat to purity of the German race, or the success of National Socialism.

Now if you start to break down the fact that both Communist and Facist regimes kill people, then you see that they are in fact very similar.

Nazis differ from communists, because they belief in socialism only for ayrans, and not non-ayrans. They also believe in some private property, but to some extent is regulated by the state.

Point is both Nazism, and Communism are the same part of the left.

I.e People that believe in the all powerfull state, and the need for state control and power. It's just that Nazis are leftists that don't like people that share the same amount of melanin as they do.
That's why I find it completely ridiculous when socialists critisize the right for being Fascists if anything we are the antithesis to fascism. I wasn't aware that the Australians had a libertarian party, Damn the man save the Republic!
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Communism and fascims are very similar indeed.
No, they are pretty much opposites.
Remeber that National socialists' believe(ed) in social democractic principles, but only for ayran peoples. Whilst communists believe in socialism for all.
Nazis aren't socialists, they are fascists. Also Communists want communism, which they think is the society after socialism.
Hitler despised communism, not because of it's policies, but for what he saw as so called "Jewish Bolshevism".
I'll agree with this.
Stalin killed millions of people, he killed the enemies of the people. Anyone that was critical of communist ideology, or Stalin himself.
Stalin didn't kill "enemies of the people", he killed enemies of himself. Also I know some of Stalin's theories and actions, and I find few of them are in line with either Marxism, socialism, or communism. E.g. "socialism in one country", basically believes in an isolated, nationalistic state, whereas communists and Marxists are Internationalists.
Hitler killed millions of people, he killed the enemies of the German people. Anyone that was seen as a threat to purity of the German race, or the success of National Socialism.
He also didn't kill "enemies of the people", he killed anyone he thought was "politically undesirable" usually as in communists and socialists. And anyone who was "racially inferior", such as Jews and Gypsies.
Now if you start to break down the fact that both Communist and Facist regimes kill people, then you see that they are in fact very similar.
Communism hasn't existed. And most "communist regimes" I find had actually little to do with communist ideology itself.
Nazis differ from communists, because they belief in socialism only for ayrans
Nazis aren't socialists, despite what they claim they are.
Point is both Nazism, and Communism are the same part of the left.
No dude, I find they are opposites.
I.e People that believe in the all powerfull state
Such as fascists and Nazis
and the need for state control and power
Such as fascists and Nazis
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trojan, it appears you are still making you dumb claim that you made in the "Excellent Political Quiz" thread. Except there a Nazi and 2 Communists were telling you that you are wrong. Now would you quit doing this sort of idiocy, the only thing that's going to happen is your ass getting whooped. Nobody will really believe this.

Also Trojan since you appear to have a taste for quotes:

Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail - Benito Mussolini

The universalists, the idealists, the Utopians all aim too high. They give promises of an unattainable paradise, and by doing so they deceive mankind. Whatever label they wear, whether they call themselves Christians, Communists, humanitarians, whether they are merely sincere but stupid or wire-pullers and cynics, they are all makers of slaves. I myself have always kept my eye fixed on a paradise which, in the nature of things, lies well within our reach. I mean an improvement in the lot of the German people.(21st February 1945) - Adolf Hitler

The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. - Adolf Hitler
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
Trojan, it appears you are still making you dumb claim that you made in the "Excellent Political Quiz" thread. Except there a Nazi and 2 Communists were telling you that you are wrong. Now would you quit doing this sort of idiocy, the only thing that's going to happen is your ass getting whooped. Nobody will really believe this.
Doesn't change the fact that it's true. You are simply uniformed as to the nature of your own political ideology. Communists are fascists that's the reality.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How am I a fascist? I have found myself almost completely opposite of fascism.

Communist: Internationalist
Fascist: Nationalist

Communist: No private property except immediately needed
Fascist: Private property, in both hands of state and individual

Communist: Classless
Fascist: Class doesn't even exist to begin with

Communist: Stateless
Fascist: Statist

Communist: Moneyless
Fascist: Money

Communist: Anti-corporate
Fascist: Corporate

Communist: Either decentralized govt. or no govt.
Fascist: Authoritian/totalitarian govt.

Shall we go on?
 
Top Bottom