• 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

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

Can you tell me what your definition of Marxism is?

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (American College Dictionary).

The only thing different in fascism is that instead of a loss of economic freedom you have a loss of political freedom, however, without political freedom property rights are meaningless because the state can still tell you what to do with said property so that allthough the title maybe in your name the state still controls it just like in a socialist model.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Socialism - a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. (American College Dictionary).

The only thing different in fascism is that instead of a loss of economic freedom you have a loss of political freedom, however, without political freedom property rights are meaningless because the state can still tell you what to do with said property so that allthough the title maybe in your name the state still controls it just like in a socialist model.

1. Nazism is rooted in extreme right wing nationalism and authoritarianism. It is by definition completely antithetical to left wing liberalism. Just like communism is completely antithetical to right wing conservative ideology. Probably half of Hitler’s speeches demonized communism.

2. Loss of property rights is a facet of Fascism only if the state is a totalitarian regime. For example, if a dictatorship were to tell its citizens that they could not open businesses up on their property, that’s a form of Fascism. However, if a democratically elected city council issues zoning laws that govern what citizens of a particular ward can do with their property that is not Fascism. Its simply democracy.

Your problem seems to be that you not only hold a conservative ideological view, you believe that your ideology is right in all aspects and opposing ideologies are wrong in all aspects. Therefore, you are unwilling to accept that the extremes of your ideology leads to fascism and totalitarianism just like the extremes of liberal ideology can lead to communism. It’s the kind of revisionism and lack of reason and objectivity that arises when one not only has a ideological disagreement with differing viewpoints, but actually hates and despises those who have differing viewpoints.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
1. Nazism is rooted in extreme right wing nationalism and authoritarianism. It is by definition completely antithetical to left wing liberalism. Just like communism is completely antithetical to right wing conservative ideology. Probably half of Hitler’s speeches demonized communism.

Why do you assume that nationalism is a symptom of the right? Chavez is highly nationalist, so is Red China, so was the Soviet Union. Are they right wing?
2. Loss of property rights is a facet of Fascism only if the state is a totalitarian regime. For example, if a dictatorship were to tell its citizens that they could not open businesses up on their property, that’s a form of Fascism. However, if a democratically elected city council issues zoning laws that govern what citizens of a particular ward can do with their property that is not Fascism. Its simply democracy.

No that would be the confiscation of private property for the collective good IE Communism/Fascism. Imminent Domain is Fascist in the extreme and guess who's for that it's not the right it's the left.
Your problem seems to be that you not only hold a conservative ideological view, you believe that your ideology is right in all aspects and opposing ideologies are wrong in all aspects. Therefore, you are unwilling to accept that the extremes of your ideology leads to fascism and totalitarianism just like the extremes of liberal ideology can lead to communism. It’s the kind of revisionism and lack of reason and objectivity that arises when one not only has a ideological disagreement with differing viewpoints, but actually hates and despises those who have differing viewpoints.

Yes Socialism is wrong in all aspects. It leads to authoritarian dictarship and tyranny in every single circumstance it has ever been implemented in it's pure form, without a right wing capitalist counter balance. And even when it has this Capitalist balance it still leads to tyranny, even Mussolini has described his form of Socialism as the third way, as a sort of coming together of Capitalism and Socialism just like modern European socialist states prescribe to. The net result will always be the same, when you take away economic freedom the end result will be the loss of political liberty, just as the head cannot live without the body so to can political liberty not exist without economic freedom. This is Locke 101 stuff for a man to be truly free he must be secure in his life, liberty, and property.

I would really like you to explain to me how extreme right wing policies could lead to fascism, extreme right wing means virtually no state governance over the affairs of the people at all. Libertarianism is so far right that it's reactionary and it demands the total deregulation of industry in favor of a truly free economic system.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Oh like hell they don't.

Like I said, not anymore than anyone else does. If we did why are we not in power? Would you care to substantiate that claim?

I never said liberals are nazis but you are most certainly fascists.

UMMMMM essentially you have. But I'd love an explanation of how you have come to the conclusion that Liberals are Fascists.

Nazism has its roots squarly in leftist ideology and the tennants of Marx.

See what I mean? You're calling us Nazis.

Nazism is a perversion of Fascist Socialism. Socialism is a tennant of all government. Prove me wrong.

And explain how Nationalism doen't have anything to do with Nazism. Then explain what your Nationalism is all about.

That's not how that statement goes it goes A Government of, by, and for the people

I knew it didn't go that way. And I knew you knew how it did go.:smile: Anyway prove that it is not a socialist statement.

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

How does that prove that the statement isn't Socialist?

And what does Socialism have to do with economy?

What are taxes? Aren't they the way that the public pays for the social services of government?

And our government does have a say in our life, liberty AND property. Especially property, the government can annex your property at a moment's notice all without due process. And thanks to the Patriot Act the government can now declare marshall law at a moment's notice which affects our life and liberty.

maybe you should read it sometime.

The constitution and the Bill of Rights are Socialist documents again, prove me wrong.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why do you assume that nationalism is a symptom of the right? Chavez is highly nationalist, so is Red China, so was the Soviet Union. Are they right wing?


No that would be the confiscation of private property for the collective good IE Communism/Fascism. Imminent Domain is Fascist in the extreme and guess who's for that it's not the right it's the left.


Yes Socialism is wrong in all aspects. It leads to authoritarian dictarship and tyranny in every single circumstance it has ever been implemented in it's pure form, without a right wing capitalist counter balance. And even when it has this Capitalist balance it still leads to tyranny, even Mussolini has described his form of Socialism as the third way, as a sort of coming together of Capitalism and Socialism just like modern European socialist states prescribe to. The net result will always be the same, when you take away economic freedom the end result will be the loss of political liberty, just as the head cannot live without the body so to can political liberty not exist without economic freedom. This is Locke 101 stuff for a man to be truly free he must be secure in his life, liberty, and property.

I would really like you to explain to me how extreme right wing policies could lead to fascism, extreme right wing means virtually no state governance over the affairs of the people at all. Libertarianism is so far right that it's reactionary and it demands the total deregulation of industry in favor of a truly free economic system.

You are confusing different ideals.

Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Authoritarianism. Communism / Socialism is the exact opposite of Socialism.

Modern Conservatives are Libertarian on Economic Issues (well not really) and Authoritarian on Social Issues. Modern Liberals are Libertarian on Social Issues and Authoritarian on Economic Issues.

For example, modern conservatives would argue for a near completely free market, but would also argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy, and believe that government is a vehicle to further religious and or cultural beliefs.

Modern liberals would argue that markets must be heavily regulated and wealth redistributed, but would also argue that there is a constitutional right to privacy, and they believe that the government is not a vehicle to further religious and or cultural beliefs.

So, a modern conservative has an economic ideology that is antithetical to fascism, but has social beliefs that at times fascist in nature.

A modern liberal has a worldview that is antithetical to fascism, but has economic beliefs that at times are shared by fascists.

A pragmatist or moderate individual believes that the government is not a vehicle to further religious or ideological beliefs. Is an individual who places science over ideology, and who believes that while the government should by and large stay out of the markets, that some oversight and some regulation is a necessity in a modern society. Otherwise, they are individuals who believe that neither side is fully right or fully wrong. For example, socialism in its pure form does not work, but neither does pure capitalism. Both viewpoints are utopian. However, capitalism tempered with some form of a safety net, worker, and environmental protections, has on balanced proved to be a far better solution than socialism tempered with some capitalism.

Extremism is one of the worst qualities one can have and all totalitarianism begins with extremism. Any time someone says they are very conservative or very liberal. Look out.

Basically, its all about reason and science over ideology.
 
Saboteur said:
...
The constitution and the Bill of Rights are Socialist documents again, prove me wrong.

No, they are by and large libertarian documents that allow the people to choose whatever economic system they wish to choose.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
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.

Thats an inacurate statement considering Socialist Writers who lived before Marx like Saint-Simon Thomas More and proto-socialist groups like the levellers, diggers e.t.c. The Brittish Labour Party in its early days is a good example of non marxist socialism as it started with its own idealogy thats was described as being "more influenced by Methodism then by Marx" Facism and socialism are polar opossites anyway as under facism the means of production end up under the control of some sort of authoritarian Fuhrer but under socialism the means of production end up under the control of the workers and/or the public. In this sence capatalism is closer to facism in that under both systems the means of production end up in the hands of a minority. Its ironic that you see socialism as the antithesis of freedom when its capatalism that allows a tiny minoirty of people [the rich] to run the world and control its resources. Socialism gives people more freedom as its puts the resources that control peoples lives under public control.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, they are by and large libertarian documents that allow the people to choose whatever economic system they wish to choose.

Key words 'the people' AKA society. Libertarianism = Socialism.
 
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.

Could you tell me which of marxs idea's you feel where put into practice in starlinist russia?
 
Saboteur said:
Key words 'the people' AKA society. Libertarianism = Socialism.

No, it really doesn't. The constitution neither endorses nor impedes socialism in America. As a nation, we did not begin to implement any socialist ideals until the progressive era, which was brought on by the failure of the pure-capitalism of the robber baron era. Progressivism in America began with Teddy Roosevelt and has continued since. While progressives have certainly won the cultural and ideological war in America and will continue to do so despite which party is in power, we will never be a socialist nation like Sweden.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ever heard of every single Marxist government has been nationalistic?

Be that as it may, nationalism is still a right wing principle, and it’s found in fascism. Therefore I answered your question.

Still I find your use of Marxism and socialism as both meaning different and same things a bit confusing, but I am going to assume you count them as the same.

To answer your questions were is the extreme nationalism in the Scandinavian social democracies? Sweden was even mentioned as Marxist by an article - which were a load of rubbish - presented by yourself, as a neighbour of said country I can tell you that Sweden in no way is to be considered nationalistic. Furthermore that I find the notion that our socialistic institutions, that limits economic freedom, to insure a redistribution that’s perceived as fair by the people – through democracy – somehow limits individual liberty to be extremely uninformed and totally false. If you are going to talk about socialism as a whole you can not limit your argument to the Soviet Union, socialist institutions have been established in many countries without the limitations of individual rights. In fact you may say people have gained the right to survive.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are confusing different ideals.

Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Authoritarianism. Communism / Socialism is the exact opposite of Socialism.

Modern Conservatives are Libertarian on Economic Issues (well not really) and Authoritarian on Social Issues. Modern Liberals are Libertarian on Social Issues and Authoritarian on Economic Issues.

For example, modern conservatives would argue for a near completely free market, but would also argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy, and believe that government is a vehicle to further religious and or cultural beliefs.

Modern liberals would argue that markets must be heavily regulated and wealth redistributed, but would also argue that there is a constitutional right to privacy, and they believe that the government is not a vehicle to further religious and or cultural beliefs.

So, a modern conservative has an economic ideology that is antithetical to fascism, but has social beliefs that at times fascist in nature.

A modern liberal has a worldview that is antithetical to fascism, but has economic beliefs that at times are shared by fascists.

A pragmatist or moderate individual believes that the government is not a vehicle to further religious or ideological beliefs. Is an individual who places science over ideology, and who believes that while the government should by and large stay out of the markets, that some oversight and some regulation is a necessity in a modern society. Otherwise, they are individuals who believe that neither side is fully right or fully wrong. For example, socialism in its pure form does not work, but neither does pure capitalism. Both viewpoints are utopian. However, capitalism tempered with some form of a safety net, worker, and environmental protections, has on balanced proved to be a far better solution than socialism tempered with some capitalism.

Extremism is one of the worst qualities one can have and all totalitarianism begins with extremism. Any time someone says they are very conservative or very liberal. Look out.

Basically, its all about reason and science over ideology.

Bravo wery good post!
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No I'm not kidding you the tennants of Fascism are built on a Marxist foundation and whenever Marxist principles have been implemented it has led to Fascist Authoritarian regimes. Fascism is leftist.

You make it 100% understandable why fascist leaders spent so much time denouncing Marx.:roll:

Also Trojan, you try to make similarities of what you think is "communism" and "fascism". Also when you claim fascism is "leftist", because of its supposed similarities of "communism", couldn't that also make "comminism" as praticed a say "rightist". Because most "communist state" have totally disbanded what communism's ideals are. E.g. equality, you can't have that whilst having a system like that of China and USSR, etc.
 
Herophant said:
If you are going to talk about socialism as a whole you can not limit your argument to the Soviet Union
Unfortunately, after some confusing and long arguements with Trojan before, he has a habit of doing just that. If he can't say "win" an arguement, he'll bring up "Stalin". And he is quite annoying, many times I post I get 500,000 reminders that I am a Marxist, and Trojan does it most of all.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, it really doesn't. The constitution neither endorses nor impedes socialism in America. As a nation, we did not begin to implement any socialist ideals until the progressive era, which was brought on by the failure of the pure-capitalism of the robber baron era. Progressivism in America began with Teddy Roosevelt and has continued since. While progressives have certainly won the cultural and ideological war in America and will continue to do so despite which party is in power, we will never be a socialist nation like Sweden.

Okay but isn't the core of any and all government socialist in some form?

Aren't taxes the epitomy of Socialism?
 
Last edited:
Herophant said:
Be that as it may, nationalism is still a right wing principle, and it’s found in fascism. Therefore I answered your question.

Why do you consider it a right wing principle, is red China right wing, is Venezueala right wing, was the Soviet Union right wing? Absolutely not the idea that Nationalism is restricted to the right side of the political spectrum is a giant falicy never has there been a non-nationalistic socialist state.
Still I find your use of Marxism and socialism as both meaning different and same things a bit confusing, but I am going to assume you count them as the same.

Communism is the purest form of socialism one in which the principles of Marx are followed exactly and Capitalism is totally abolished.
To answer your questions were is the extreme nationalism in the Scandinavian social democracies?
Nationalism is a red herring here like I have explained there are many differences between Socialism and Fascism and there are many different forms of each but they are all connected by one thing a lack of freedom and the authority of the state Communism and Fascism are about as different as an Isocolese triange and an obtuse one, different in the subtlety but not in type when you compare the triangle to a square in this case unregulated Capitalism the differences between the two don't seem very different at all. Read the damn article because I'm sick of explaining what has already been covered.
Sweden was even mentioned as Marxist by an article - which were a load of rubbish - presented by yourself, as a neighbour of said country I can tell you that Sweden in no way is to be considered nationalistic. Furthermore that I find the notion that our socialistic institutions, that limits economic freedom, to insure a redistribution that’s perceived as fair by the people – through democracy – somehow limits individual liberty to be extremely uninformed and totally false. If you are going to talk about socialism as a whole you can not limit your argument to the Soviet Union, socialist institutions have been established in many countries without the limitations of individual rights. In fact you may say people have gained the right to survive.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why do you consider it a right wing principle, is red China right wing, is Venezueala right wing, was the Soviet Union right wing? Absolutely not the idea that Nationalism is restricted to the right side of the political spectrum is a giant falicy never has there been a non-nationalistic socialist state.

Funny thing about nationalism is that it seems to grow in right wing countries and nations under pressure, pre ww2 SU didn’t really have nationalism they were more focused on class and spreading the revolution, not the idea of the supremacy of mother Russia and the inherent greatness of its inhabitants. Furthermore as nationalism is common in modern political parties on the "right" side in opposition to the left I find it fitting to talk about it as a right idea.

Secondly if one were to compare the great social differences between groups in the Soviet Union – leaders and workers – one would probably find that the Scandinavian social democracy’s are de facto closer to the end game goal of socialism, in terms of equality. I have a propsition for you, name a right wing country without severe nationalsim, as i have mentioned several sosialist nations without.


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Communism is the purest form of socialism one in which the principles of Marx are followed exactly and Capitalism is totally abolished.

Thx now i know what you mean.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Nationalism is a red herring here like I have explained there are many differences between Socialism and Fascism and there are many different forms of each but they are all connected by one thing a lack of freedom and the authority of the state Communism and Fascism are about as different as an Isocolese triange and an obtuse one, different in the subtlety but not in type when you compare the triangle to a square in this case unregulated Capitalism the differences between the two don't seem very different at all. Read the damn article because I'm sick of explaining what has already been covered.

Sadly the article is complete rubbish firstly – as you do – it completely ignores the fact that reduction of economic right doesn’t have to mean limitations on personal freedoms, to believe such a thing shows either stupidity or deliberate ignorance as to empirical data.

Let me show how stupid comparing these thing really are. This is just to show how it can be used, the truth is of-course much more intricate.

Capitalism and fascism about as different as an Isocolese triange and an obtuse one, different in the subtlety but not in type when you compare the triangle to a square in this case Democracy the differences between the two don't seem very different at all. Capitalism and fascism denies the majority of the people a say in economic matters, democracy leaves these questions to the people.


You seeme to have forgoten to answer the last part of my previous post.
 
Herophant said:
Thx now i know what you mean.

Except he's wrong. ;) Socialism is a stepping stone to communism according to Marx. Classes still exist in socialism, they do not in communism. Saying communism is pure socialism is a common mistake of people who have obviously not done any research on the subject.
 
Kelzie said:
Except he's wrong. ;) Socialism is a stepping stone to communism according to Marx. Classes still exist in socialism, they do not in communism. Saying communism is pure socialism is a common mistake of people who have obviously not done any research on the subject.


Yea but I know what he means by it. Which can be kind of hard at times, as it seems he takes pride in having is owned biased definitions on every single word. .
 
Herophant said:
Yea but I know what he means by it. Which can be kind of hard at times, as it seems he takes pride in having is owned biased definitions on every single word. .

But his definition's still wrong.
 
Kelzie said:
Except he's wrong. ;) Socialism is a stepping stone to communism according to Marx. Classes still exist in socialism, they do not in communism. Saying communism is pure socialism is a common mistake of people who have obviously not done any research on the subject.

No you're wrong the term socialism today is not what true socialism is the term socialism as it is used today is actually a combination of Capitalism and Communism a third way, however, that is not how the term was used during the time of Fascist Europe, and guess what do you know who else prescribed to this third way of a mix between socialism and capitalism? Mussolini himself advocated the third way the very foundation of Fascism and the modern third way socialism is based on the pretext of the so called third way.

Read this and get back to me:

http://www.geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No you're wrong the term socialism today is not what true socialism is the term socialism as it is used today is actually a combination of Capitalism and Communism a third way, however, that is not how the term was used during the time of Fascist Europe, and guess what do you know who else prescribed to this third way of a mix between socialism and capitalism? Mussolini himself advocated the third way the very foundation of Fascism and the modern third way socialism is based on the pretext of the so called third way.

Read this and get back to me:

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

TOT said:
Communism is the purest form of socialism one in which the principles of Marx are followed exactly and Capitalism is totally abolished.

Now, see, since you mentioned Marx, one would assume you were talking about what he wrote. In addition, you incorrectly defined both socialism and communism (since you based your definition of communism off an incorrect definition of socialism). So you are wrong. And I'm not reading that crap from your make believe doctor. I've got better things to do.
 
Kelzie said:
But his definition's still wrong.

Your historical knowledge is flawed you base your definition on biased dictionary definitions which have no basis in the reality of the social instiutions of Communism and Fascism as they are actually practiced in reality.

The world does not revolve around theory it revolves around real world application of these theories and the results of these applications, your whole theoretical pretense is flawed because it is just that: theoretical, and what is not flawed is the conclusions based on the real world applications of these social experiments.

Unregulated Capitalism is the only economic system condusive to liberty! Regulated Capitalism is Socialism and worse yet it's Fascism.
 
So now TOT is reduced to claiming that all dictionaries and political science texts are wrong, and only he is right?

How funny is that?
 
Kelzie said:
Now, see, since you mentioned Marx, one would assume you were talking about what he wrote. In addition, you incorrectly defined both socialism and communism (since you based your definition of communism off an incorrect definition of socialism). So you are wrong. And I'm not reading that crap from your make believe doctor. I've got better things to do.

Fuc/k what Marx wrote he was a hack and didn't know what he was talking about, the real world application of Marxism is flawed and leads to tyranny, fuc/k Marx read Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government, the foundation upon which our Republic was born, Locke knew what he was talking about, Marx was a hack!
 
Back
Top Bottom