• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Socialism = Fascism

Comrade Brian said:
How am I a fascist? I have found myself almost completely opposite of fascism.

Communist: Internationalist Ya right every Communist state has been highly Nationalistic.

Fascist: Nationalist

Communist: No private property except immediately needed
Fascist: Private property, in both hands of state and individual Private property which is controlled by the state making it not private at all.

Communist: Classless Bullshit Communism creates a new set of classes that of the worker and that of the Buraucrat.
Fascist: Class doesn't even exist to begin with

Communist: Stateless Really since when has there been a stateless Communist government?
Fascist: Statist

Communist: Moneyless Ruples
Fascist: Money

Communist: Anti-corporate
Fascist: Corporate Corporations which are controlled by the state making them publicly owned.

Communist: Either decentralized govt. or no govt. Ya right Communist nations are just as authoritarian as fascist ones.Fascist: Authoritian/totalitarian govt.

Shall we go on?

Please do,

You name me one non-statist, one non-nationalist, one moneyless, one classless, one decentralized non authoritarian, Communist nation to have ever existed.

Read this and then tell me that Fascism is not a socialist form of government:

http://www.geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html
 
Communist: Internationalist Ya right every Communist state has been highly Nationalistic.
Communism and "state" is contradictory, also Modern Communism hasn't existed. Also a "nationalistic communist state" is the terms of Stalinism.
Fascist: Private property, in both hands of state and individual Private property which is controlled by the state making it not private at all.
State-property is a form of private property.
Communist: Classless Bullshit Communism creates a new set of classes that of the worker and that of the Buraucrat.
If it is not classless, it does not fit the parameters for communism, and thus is not communist.
Communist: Stateless Really since when has there been a stateless Communist government?
Stateless is a parameter for communism.
Communist: Moneyless Ruples
I think if you're trying to point out Russia's monetary unit it is Roubles not ruples, and for cents it is Kopecks.
Fascist: Corporate Corporations which are controlled by the state making them publicly owned.
State-owned =/= public-owned.
Communist: Either decentralized govt. or no govt. Ya right Communist nations are just as authoritarian as fascist ones
Dictatorship and communism are contradictory, communism is built around people, not on top of them.

Maybe this might help you:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572241/Communism.html#s3
 
Comrade Brian said:
Communism and "state" is contradictory, also Modern Communism hasn't existed. Also a "nationalistic communist state" is the terms of Stalinism.

State-property is a form of private property.

If it is not classless, it does not fit the parameters for communism, and thus is not communist.

Stateless is a parameter for communism.

I think if you're trying to point out Russia's monetary unit it is Roubles not ruples, and for cents it is Kopecks.

State-owned =/= public-owned.

Dictatorship and communism are contradictory, communism is built around people, not on top of them.

Maybe this might help you:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572241/Communism.html#s3

Ah, the old theoretical Communism bit, there is not one tennant of Marxist teachings that were not implemented by the Soviets and the Red Chinese and all it led to was Dictatorship and Fascism.
 
Trojan's whole basis for an argument is that the mainstream status quo opinion of Marxism is what what Marxism really is. I.E Stalinist Russia.

Obviously, for those who have actually studied the political theory we understand the differences between Marxism and Fascism.

I have already asserted the differences, to which Trojan has very unskillfully ignored.
 
Auftrag said:
Trojan's whole basis for an argument is that the mainstream status quo opinion of Marxism is what what Marxism really is. I.E Stalinist Russia.

Obviously, for those who have actually studied the political theory we understand the differences between Marxism and Fascism.

I have already asserted the differences, to which Trojan has very unskillfully ignored.

I know there are differences I have acknowledged those differnces but compared to a Capitalist Democratic system the differences between Marxism and Fascism are minimul. They share much more in common then they differ.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I know there are differences I have acknowledged those differnces but compared to a Capitalist Democratic system the differences between Marxism and Fascism are minimul. They share much more in common then they differ.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Auftrag said:
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Good answer :roll:

In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.

(Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)

[Fascism stresses] the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, in behalf of society...For Liberalism, the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ulitmate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

(Alfredo Rocco, "The Political Doctrine of Fascism" (address delivered at Perugia, Aug. 30, 1925); reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, pp. 34-35.)

[T]he higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits an lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.

(Adolf Hitler at Bueckeburg, op cit pg. 872.)

Unless the political implications of this ethical doctrine of collectivism are not apparent to everyone, the Nazis make them strikingly clear. The Nazis were opposed to authentic private property, and as a result, to capitalism:

"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

(Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939))

To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.

(Nazi head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)

Finally,

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).
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Good answer :roll:

In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.

(Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)

[Fascism stresses] the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, in behalf of society...For Liberalism, the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ulitmate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

(Alfredo Rocco, "The Political Doctrine of Fascism" (address delivered at Perugia, Aug. 30, 1925); reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, pp. 34-35.)

[T]he higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits an lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.

(Adolf Hitler at Bueckeburg, op cit pg. 872.)

Unless the political implications of this ethical doctrine of collectivism are not apparent to everyone, the Nazis make them strikingly clear. The Nazis were opposed to authentic private property, and as a result, to capitalism:

"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

(Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939))

To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.

(Nazi head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)

Finally,

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).

What a surprise T.O.T and a Nazi stroking each other.
 
We have been through this a thousand times already and it has been proven over and over by both advocates of left wing thought and right wing though agree (except for about 3 people) that Fascism is a right wing ideology. Period, finito the end. Those on the right who continually fail or refuse to recognize this are in denial. Read this again written by the founder and father of Fascism. It categorically denies any connection with socialism or communism and in effect says that such ideologies that maintain the abolition of class are outlaw ideologies. Here it is AGAIN:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

I don't agree with Auftrag but he knows his sh¡t about Fascism.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Good answer :roll:

In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.

(Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)

[Fascism stresses] the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, in behalf of society...For Liberalism, the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ulitmate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

(Alfredo Rocco, "The Political Doctrine of Fascism" (address delivered at Perugia, Aug. 30, 1925); reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, pp. 34-35.)

[T]he higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits an lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.

(Adolf Hitler at Bueckeburg, op cit pg. 872.)

Unless the political implications of this ethical doctrine of collectivism are not apparent to everyone, the Nazis make them strikingly clear. The Nazis were opposed to authentic private property, and as a result, to capitalism:

"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

(Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939))

To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.

(Nazi head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)

Finally,

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).

Surely, after so many posts, you would have learnt how this debating thing works. You are so confused in your arguments its quite pathetic.

There are similarities between Socialism in the marxian sense and with National Socialism, I havent denied that, but that's not what you're talking about, and that isnt what you were talking about in the other thread.

You asserted that Marxism and Fascism were the same, and you also say that fascism and socialism are the same, when I have proven to you that you are catagorically wrong.

Similiarties between National Socialism and socialism aside, Marxism and National Socialism or even fasciam are polar opposites.

Refer to quiz thread.
 
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

Communism tends to equal Totalitarianism. However, Socialism does not necessarily equal Communism and and Socialism definitely does not equal Fascism.

Fascism is the totalitarian marriage of government and corporate interests. How in the world is that socialism?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Communism tends to equal Totalitarianism.

Having read Marx and analysing history, I can assure you that communism doesnt and never has equalled totalitarianism.

There has never been a communist country. There have been and still remain, socialist countries in the Marxian sense, i.e dictatorship of the proletariat.
 
Inuyasha said:
We have been through this a thousand times already and it has been proven over and over by both advocates of left wing thought and right wing though agree (except for about 3 people) that Fascism is a right wing ideology. Period, finito the end. Those on the right who continually fail or refuse to recognize this are in denial. Read this again written by the founder and father of Fascism. It categorically denies any connection with socialism or communism and in effect says that such ideologies that maintain the abolition of class are outlaw ideologies. Here it is AGAIN:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

I don't agree with Auftrag but he knows his sh¡t about Fascism.

Bullshit there is not one single right wing principle that can be found in Fascism, Mussolini was a Marxist for Christ's sakes.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Communism tends to equal Totalitarianism. However, Socialism does not necessarily equal Communism and and Socialism definitely does not equal Fascism.

Fascism is the totalitarian marriage of government and corporate interests. How in the world is that socialism?

Did you even read the article?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit there is not one single right wing principle that can be found in Fascism, Mussolini was a Marxist for Christ's sakes.

Let's try and get to the bottom of this...

Can you tell me what your definition of Marxism is?
 
Mussolini a Marxist?????:roll: :roll: For one thing, maybe you can explain then, the massacre of communists by both Mussolini and Franco (I am not even going to talk about Hitler here).

As Auftrag says perhaps you had better give us YOUR definition of Marxism It seems to be different from everyone else on this board.

Try reading Mussolini's paper on fascism with a little more care. If that makes no impression them read Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera's manifesto for the Spanish Falange.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Did you even read the article?

Yes I did. The problem is that it tries to mix different elements of the ideological spectrum in order to demonstrate a preconception.

Fascism must by definition be Authoritarian. Otherwise, to be a Fascist society, one must have a ruling authority that is controlling in both social and economic aspects. Fascism can have socialist aspects, but Socialism definitely does not require fascism. All that socialism requires is an economy that which has a great deal of public sector ownership. That public sector could be controlled by a totalitarian regime, or it could be completely democratically controlled. Who holds the property is irrelevant in a democratic society. For example, in our nation we have public lands such as National Parks and National Forests. Those lands are not owned and controlled by a totalitarian authority. Instead, they are managed by a democratically elected government and virtually all management decisions related to them are subject to the public approval process. The management of our public lands lies in stark contrast to the management of property in the former Soviet Union or under Nazi Germany. Otherwise, socialism could be a component of a fascist nation, or it could be completely antithetical to fascism.

The problem with essays like the one you posted is they are absolute in their ideology. Basically the author of essays like that is absolute in his or her beliefs. They believe that there side is always right and other ideologies are always wrong. This inevitably always leads to historical revisionism and a solid lack of objectivity. To argue that Fascism is not primarily a right wing ideology is absolutely ludicrous to any objective individual.
 
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

Many if not all governments have a form of socialism. Even the U.S. therefore Democracy = Socialism, Parlamentary Democracy = socialism, Communism = Socialism, Monarchy = Socialism, Theocratic Dictarortship = Socialism and yes, Fascism = Socialism.

Of course all of these forms of government have varying degrees of socialist ideals, programs and responsibilities. What you and your article are trying to say is that Socialism = Fascism = Nazism. Which it does not.

In fact it doesn't even need to be government, Agriculture = Socialism, Fleet Fishing = socialism, anything that is done in bulk to produce the necessities of life for the people = Socialism.

Nazism has Fascist aspects and therefore socialist aspects but every form of government has socialist aspects. Your true meaning in this thread is that you want to say Liberals are Nazis which we are not. Liberals do not persecute their enemies, they do not use political and religious oppnents as scapegoats exclusively to gain power (at least not anymore than Conservatives, Dictators, Kings and Communist Generals do).

Liberals do not blame one set of people for the demise of their political success. In fact the origin of the lack of success for us liberals is that we have no common ideologcal dogma that unites us in working toward one common goal. And we do not wish to systematically exterminate those who oppose us or even some unuspecting part of the population that we've used as a scapegoat.

Nazism has it's root in Nationalism and in the superiority of its nation's culture over other nations and cultures in the world. Therefore if liberals were Nazis, as you would love to label us, then we would not hate America as you have been so willing to claim (which we don't, we just question the path its leadership is taking us down). In fact we would be on the forefront of imperialistic conquest of the Middle east with no regard for its peoples or culture. We would be pushing for total domination of the continent and its people, which we are not.

Now you claim that Liberals hate America which is the persecution of a political oppnent. You claim that Liberals do not support the war, and a good chunk of us don't, so therefore we want our military efforts to fail, which is using Liberals as a scapegoat should the military fail. Both of these positions of your's are products of your Nationalism which, again, has the same root as Nazism yet you claim to be a Conservative.

Anyway...

We The People, By The People, Of the People. Sound familiar?

It's a socialist statement, prove that it's not.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit there is not one single right wing principle that can be found in Fascism,.

Ever heard of nationalism?
 
Inuyasha said:
Mussolini a Marxist?????:roll: :roll: For one thing, maybe you can explain then, the massacre of communists by both Mussolini and Franco (I am not even going to talk about Hitler here).

As Auftrag says perhaps you had better give us YOUR definition of Marxism It seems to be different from everyone else on this board.

Try reading Mussolini's paper on fascism with a little more care. If that makes no impression them read Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera's manifesto for the Spanish Falange.

Hitler actually demanded that all Marxists who wanted to could switch parties and join the Nazis immediatly, it's all in that article which you obviously haven't read, sibling rivalries are the worst when to similar ideological philosophies are competing in the same country it is quite natural that they will come into conflict. Mussolini was a member of the Communist party until he branched off on his own to develop Marxism into a more nationalistic form.
 
Saboteur said:
Many if not all governments have a form of socialism. Even the U.S. therefore Democracy = Socialism, Parlamentary Democracy = socialism, Communism = Socialism, Monarchy = Socialism, Theocratic Dictarortship = Socialism and yes, Fascism = Socialism.

Of course all of these forms of government have varying degrees of socialist ideals, programs and responsibilities. What you and your article are trying to say is that Socialism = Fascism = Nazism. Which it does not.

In fact it doesn't even need to be government, Agriculture = Socialism, Fleet Fishing = socialism, anything that is done in bulk to produce the necessities of life for the people = Socialism.

Nazism has Fascist aspects and therefore socialist aspects but every form of government has socialist aspects. Your true meaning in this thread is that you want to say Liberals are Nazis which we are not. Liberals do not persecute their enemies, they do not use political and religious oppnents as scapegoats exclusively to gain power (at least not anymore than Conservatives, Dictators, Kings and Communist Generals do).
Oh like hell they don't.
Liberals do not blame one set of people for the demise of their political success. In fact the origin of the lack of success for us liberals is that we have no common ideologcal dogma that unites us in working toward one common goal. And we do not wish to systematically exterminate those who oppose us or even some unuspecting part of the population that we've used as a scapegoat.

Nazism has it's root in Nationalism and in the superiority of its nation's culture over other nations and cultures in the world. Therefore if liberals were Nazis, as you would love to label us, then we would not hate America as you have been so willing to claim (which we don't, we just question the path its leadership is taking us down). In fact we would be on the forefront of imperialistic conquest of the Middle east with no regard for its peoples or culture. We would be pushing for total domination of the continent and its people, which we are not.
I never said liberals are nazis but you are most certainly socialists and fascists because through the loss of economic freedom the loss of political freedom is the natural result just as in Communist Russia this is not a world of imagination and theory alone this is a world of the here and now and the end results of political experimentation and the effects of their implementation on society are what matters not the theory themselves because like what I said before every tennant of Marx was practiced by the Soviet Union and look what it got them. A Dictatorship and a Bankrupt nation that needed there most hated enemy to bail them out.
Now you claim that Liberals hate America which is the persecution of a political oppnent. You claim that Liberals do not support the war, and a good chunk of us don't, so therefore we want our military efforts to fail, which is using Liberals as a scapegoat should the military fail. Both of these positions of your's are products of your Nationalism which, again, has the same root as Nazism yet you claim to be a Conservative.
Nazism has its roots squarly in leftist ideology and the tennants of Marx.
Anyway...

We The People, By The People, Of the People. Sound familiar?

It's a socialist statement, prove that it's not.

That's not how that statement goes it goes A Government of, by, and for the people that has nothing to do with the economy and as a matter of fact our nation was founded on the principles of Locke in that the government can have no say in your life, liberty, or property without due process, it's all right in the Constitution maybe you should read it sometime.
 
Last edited:
Inuyasha said:
Mussolini a Marxist?????:roll: :roll: For one thing, maybe you can explain then, the massacre of communists by both Mussolini and Franco (I am not even going to talk about Hitler here).

As Auftrag says perhaps you had better give us YOUR definition of Marxism It seems to be different from everyone else on this board.

Try reading Mussolini's paper on fascism with a little more care. If that makes no impression them read Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera's manifesto for the Spanish Falange.

Read Hitlers 25 point platform of the nazi party and then tell me that it is not a socialist manifesto.
 
Back
Top Bottom