Socialism = Fascism

[Kelzie]

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.

There has NEVER been unregulated capitalism. Just like there has NEVER been a real world application of communism. When discussing ideologies, one must use theoretical definitions, since there has never been a pure representation of any ideology.

 

[Kelzie]

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!

Seeing as there has never been a real world application of Marxism, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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?

NO! what I am claiming is that you're wrong and I'm right, which I am.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seeing as there has never been a real world application of Marxism, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Bullshit the Soviet Union applied every single god damn tennant of Marx, they believed the state would whither, but guess what? Under Marxism the state does not whither it grows to astronomical proportions because without extensive buraucratic and dictatorial control there is no way for the Community to decide what the so called Common good actually is.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seeing as there has never been a real world application of Marxism, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Bullshit there hasn't, there was unrestrained Capitalism in the U.S before that Socialist tyrant FDR took over. And now look where we're at a system of government that ****s the individual in favor of the government, a government, of, by, and for the Government. You hate Bush? Guess where the precedent came from?

 

[Kelzie]

Bullshit the Soviet Union applied every single god damn tennant of Marx, they believed the state would whither, but guess what? Under Marxism the state does not whither it grows to astronomical proportions because without extensive buraucratic and dictatorial control there is no way for the Community to decide what the so called Common good actually is.

You obviously know nothing about either Marxism or the USSR. From the very beginning, the Communist reign was a perversion of Marxism. To start with, according to Marx, a revolution cannot occur until a nation has industrialized. That is absolutely the first step. Lenin believed he could force a revolution before industrialization (Russia was still mostly agricultural at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution) and split the Communist Party into two, the Bolsheviks (meaning majority) and the Mensheviks (meaning minority). Hopefully you know what happened next. From the very start of Communist rule in Russia, it did not follow Marxism and it only got worse. Educate yourself.

 

[Kelzie]

Bullshit there hasn't, there was unrestrained Capitalism in the U.S before that Socialist tyrant FDR took over. And now look where we're at a system of government that ****s the individual in favor of the government, a government, of, by, and for the Government. You hate Bush? Guess where the precedent came from?

Actually, the US was very protectionist of its domestic market. That would be restrained capitalism, by the way.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You obviously know nothing about either Marxism or the USSR. From the very beginning, the Communist reign was a perversion of Marxism. To start with, according to Marx, a revolution cannot occur until a nation has industrialized. That is absolutely the first step. Lenin believed he could force a revolution before industrialization (Russia was still mostly agricultural at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution) and split the Communist Party into two, the Bolsheviks (meaning majority) and the Mensheviks (meaning minority). Hopefully you know what happened next. From the very start of Communist rule in Russia, it did not follow Marxism and it only got worse. Educate yourself.

Yadayadayada Stalin took over and implemented forced industrialization on a scale not seen again until the fascist green revolution, so like I said every planket of Marx was implemented by the Soviets, those who claim Stalin wasn't really a Marxist don't understand that he was the one who really implemented true Marxism, Lenin towards the end actually wasn't a true Marxist he actually came to the conclustion that a certain measure of private enterprise was needed in direct contradiction to the teachings of Marx, however, that all changed with Lenins death.

 

[Vandeervecken]

NO! what I am claiming is that you're wrong and I'm right, which I am.

I've provided cites from reputable political science texts that back mine. You have not. Your delusion is amusing. The fact you dismiss such cites out of hand while claiming they do not know what they are talking about vastly amuses.

I've not had so many good laughs since Bozo went off the air.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I've provided cites from reputable political science texts that back mine. You have not. Your delusion is amusing. The fact you dismiss such cites out of hand while claiming they do not know what they are talking about vastly amuses.

I've not had so many good laughs since Bozo went off the air.

Good for you way to use your brain . . . dance puppet dance.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, the US was very protectionist of its domestic market. That would be restrained capitalism, by the way.

Ya and guess what protectionism is horse sh!t and goes against every thing that the modern right stands for.

 

[Comrade Brian]

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?

Trojan is one of the most arrogant people on this forum. E.g. several times he has quite arrogantly posted at least part of the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence and then claimed they prove Marx was entirely wrong. Behaviour like that of Trojan's annoys me the most.

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!

Since you have already shown you don't even know what Marxism is, I don't take it seriousely what you have to say. Marx also touched more broader aspects than just communism, some of the most-used theories in economics, hstory, and sociology were formulated by Marx to at least a large extent.

NO! what I am claiming is that you're wrong and I'm right, which I am.

That is the same type of arrogancy that makes most people think your rock-stupid.

Bullshit the Soviet Union applied every single god damn tennant of Marx

Not even close! Nowhere has absolutely used "Marx's tennants". USSR disbanded many practices that Marx advocated.

Under Marxism the state does not whither it grows to astronomical proportions because without extensive buraucratic and dictatorial control there is no way for the Community to decide what the so called Common good actually is.

First off Marxism is not a society, it is a collection of ideas and theories.
Secondly, you have no application of history for today, many earlier societies regulated themselves without a ultra-large state, many even one with hardly a state.

Socialist tyrant FDR took over

I don't understand why so many capitalists despise FDR and call him a "socialist tyrant", I would think a capitalist should thank him. If it weren't for his social programs and policies, capitalism may have disintegrated in the US. So in a sense he "saved" capitalism.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Yadayadayada Stalin took over and implemented forced industrialization on a scale not seen again until the fascist green revolution, so like I said every planket of Marx was implemented by the Soviets, those who claim Stalin wasn't really a Marxist don't understand that he was the one who really implemented true Marxism, Lenin towards the end actually wasn't a true Marxist he actually came to the conclustion that a certain measure of private enterprise was needed in direct contradiction to the teachings of Marx, however, that all changed with Lenins death.

Stalin was NOT a Marxist. He theorized and advocated "socialism in one country", which broke the Marxist tradition of internationalism. He also heavily bureaucratized the Soviet State, suppressed any resistance to, himself. Also made the USSR a totalitarian state, this again contradicted Marx when Marx said:"Democracy is the road to socialism."

Lenin was a Marxist, though he realized the fastest way to industrialize Russia was through the limited-market policy called the "New Economic Policy", because instead of trying to organize and plan everything as socialism requires, capitalism is just chaotic and will do it more easily.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Stalin was NOT a Marxist. He theorized and advocated "socialism in one country", which broke the Marxist tradition of internationalism. He also heavily bureaucratized the Soviet State, suppressed any resistance to, himself. Also made the USSR a totalitarian state, this again contradicted Marx when Marx said:"Democracy is the road to socialism."

Lenin was a Marxist, though he realized the fastest way to industrialize Russia was through the limited-market policy called the "New Economic Policy", because instead of trying to organize and plan everything as socialism requires, capitalism is just chaotic and will do it more easily.

Tell me how else could a social construct; such as, Marxism exist without the implementations made by Stalin?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trojan is one of the most arrogant people on this forum. E.g. several times he has quite arrogantly posted at least part of the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence and then claimed they prove Marx was entirely wrong. Behaviour like that of Trojan's annoys me the most.

Since you have already shown you don't even know what Marxism is, I don't take it seriousely what you have to say. Marx also touched more broader aspects than just communism, some of the most-used theories in economics, hstory, and sociology were formulated by Marx to at least a large extent.

That is the same type of arrogancy that makes most people think your rock-stupid.

Not even close! Nowhere has absolutely used "Marx's tennants". USSR disbanded many practices that Marx advocated.

First off Marxism is not a society, it is a collection of ideas and theories.
Secondly, you have no application of history for today, many earlier societies regulated themselves without a ultra-large state, many even one with hardly a state.

I don't understand why so many capitalists despise FDR and call him a "socialist tyrant", I would think a capitalist should thank him. If it weren't for his social programs and policies, capitalism may have disintegrated in the US. So in a sense he "saved" capitalism.

Your lack of knowledge of the roots of Communism and it's real world applications leave me to the conclusion that you are not even a real Marxist, the failure or success of social experiments are not based upon the theory, they are based upon the real world applications of these experiments, we do not live in a theoretical world based on good intentions, we live in a world that is governed by the outcomes of the actions which governments take, and the historical proof is that whenever Marxism has been tried it has lead to tyranny and authoritarian control by the state. The theory is inconsequential compared to the outcome of the application of that theory.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Tell me how else could a social construct; such as, Marxism exist without the implementations made by Stalin?

I find your question void, Marxism and Stalinism are contradictory, as in Marxist theory and Stalinist theory.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I find your question void, Marxism and Stalinism are contradictory, as in Marxist theory and Stalinist theory.

Stalinist theory is based on Marxism and its forced application against the will of the masses, anyone who denies this is decieving themselves. Your lack of knowledge of the roots of Communism and it's real world applications leaves me to the conclusion that you are not even a real Marxist, the failure or success of social experiments are not based upon the theory, they are based upon the real world applications of these experiments, we do not live in a theoretical world based on good intentions, we live in a world that is governed by the outcomes of the actions which governments take, and the historical proof is that whenever Marxism has been tried it has lead to tyranny and authoritarian control by the state. The theory is inconsequential compared to the outcome of the application of that theory.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Stalinist theory is based on Marxism

It is, though I find that they changed considerable parts.

its forced application against the will of the masses, anyone who denies this is decieving themselves.

I would not agree if you are talking about Marxist theory, but Stalinist-yes.

Your lack of knowledge of the roots of Communism and it's real world applications leaves me to the conclusion that you are not even a real Marxist

Again your arrogancy.

the failure or success of social experiments are not based upon the theory, they are based upon the real world applications of these experiments

I agree.

we do not live in a theoretical world based on good intentions, we live in a world that is governed by the outcomes of the actions which governments take

Pretty much agreed, but I think you put too much importance in govt.

and the historical proof is that whenever Marxism has been tried it has lead to tyranny and authoritarian control by the state

No, a good example is the Paris Commune of 1871, it succeeded in doing many of Marx's predictions in 3 months, unfortunately it was suppressed by Thiers, and later thousands were massacred by him. Also again, you imply Marxism is a society-it is not. The reason why I find that an authoritian state has arisen many times is that Stalin's theories became mmuch widley accepted by Marxists, though now most are trying to get rid of them. Also another reason why I find an authoritian state has arisen, was because of Stalin's successes in industrialization, as most "communist states" are underdeveloped, so that would kind of make sense. And finally another reason is that I find that most leader that claim to be Marxist, are many times, not. Anyone can go around saying they are Marxist, and in effect in generally poorer countries, this stirs up support.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It is, though I find that they changed considerable parts.

I would not agree if you are talking about Marxist theory, but Stalinist-yes.

Again your arrogancy.

I agree.

Pretty much agreed, but I think you put too much importance in govt.

No, a good example is the Paris Commune of 1871, it succeeded in doing many of Marx's predictions in 3 months, unfortunately it was suppressed by Thiers, and later thousands were massacred by him. Also again, you imply Marxism is a society-it is not. The reason why I find that an authoritian state has arisen many times is that Stalin's theories became mmuch widley accepted by Marxists, though now most are trying to get rid of them. Also another reason why I find an authoritian state has arisen, was because of Stalin's successes in industrialization, as most "communist states" are underdeveloped, so that would kind of make sense. And finally another reason is that I find that most leader that claim to be Marxist, are many times, not. Anyone can go around saying they are Marxist, and in effect in generally poorer countries, this stirs up support.

Yadayadayada a commune of 1871? How many were involved in this Commune? The problem of Marxism is the scale on which it is implemented, if Marxism is used on a small scale where everyone knows eachothers name it actually can work but on a large scale a dictator is needed to determine the common good which leads to tyranny, that is why every single real world application of Marxism on a scale worth mentioning has ended in totalitarianism, authoriatrianism, and tyranny.

Just as the head cannot live without the body, political liberty cannot live without economic freedom.

The right of a man to be secure in his life, liberty, and property, are not rights created by a government or by positive law they are the natural rights inherent to every man regardless of race, creed, or religion, without them freedom can not be achieved. Whenever these natural rights are tampered with by any form of government, tyranny will be the end result as has been proven throughout the course of human events. And when these natural rights are violated by the government that government, which can only justly rule through the consent of the governed, must be either abolished or altered so as to best satisfy mans inherent right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Yadayadayada a commune of 1871? How many were involved in this Commune?

About as many that lived in and around Paris in March-May of 1871. I think it was a couple million or something.

if Marxism is used on a small scale where everyone knows eachothers name it actually can work

I agree, why do you think communists also advocate communes, which are small communal-type villages and towns.

on a large scale a dictator is needed to determine the common good which leads to tyranny, that is why every single real world application of Marxism on a scale worth mentioning has ended in totalitarianism, authoriatrianism, tyranny.

I think a better way would be a popularily-elected council, not based on corporate-funded campagns, and where there is little power to be gained. Also if it was a large council, power would be more equalized and less to each person, also as you noted before, the smaller-the more workable, so the "representative" would in general know the local populace, and could not gain power. Also on larger issues, have a popular vote.

Just as the head cannot live without the body, political freedom cannot live without economic freedom.

I agree, this is why socialists are often suppressed in capitalistic-systems, because the economy is in effect run by businesses, anf their owners represent a small minority of people.

The right of a man to be secure in his life, liberty, and property, are not rights created by a government or by positive law they are the natural rights inherent to every man regardless of race, creed, or religion, without them freedom can not be achieved

How is private property natural?
Though in general I do agree with the rest, even though I find it somewhat utopian.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

About as many that lived in and around Paris in March-May of 1871. I think it was a couple million or something.

I agree, why do you think communists also advocate communes, which are small communal-type villages and towns.

I think a better way would be a popularily-elected council, not based on corporate-funded campagns, and where there is little power to be gained. Also if it was a large council, power would be more equalized and less to each person, also as you noted before, the smaller-the more workable, so the "representative" would in general know the local populace, and could not gain power. Also on larger issues, have a popular vote.

I agree, this is why socialists are often suppressed in capitalistic-systems, because the economy is in effect run by businesses, anf their owners represent a small minority of people.

How is private property natural?
Though in general I do agree with the rest, even though I find it somewhat utopian.

That's the whole point our nation was based on the tenants of Locke, before you fuc/king socialists got a hold of it we were Utopian we were the best that was and ever could be achieved, the socialists have destroyed our concepts of moral absolutism and natural rights. Marx was a demigod and Locke would have kicked his ass in a debate. Before you socialists came into the mix our country was in a perpetual state of peace, there were of course inequalities that had to be rectified but only because the South didn't follow the tenants of Locke in the first place, the south looked out for the common good instead of the individual rights of all men and that's what allowed them to consider slavery moral. Since the implementation of socialistic principles in the U.S we have been in a continuous state of war since 1917, our blood has been spilled on a scale never before seen in the history of one nation and all in the name of the common good, until the rights of the individual are regained this will continue. The common good is not found in the good of the society but it is found in the individual, through the liberty of the individual the good of the society can be achieved what is good for the individual will inevitably lead to the welfare of the society as a whole.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Since the implementation of socialistic principles in the U.S we have been in a continuous state of war since 1917

Why 1917? Socialists have been around the US before the Civil War.


Also Trojan, this is why I find that rather utopian. You have just basically said a 1000x the same thing. Not to mention a lot of it is not based upon scientific thought.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why 1917? Socialists have been around the US before the Civil War.

Socialists never had any real power in the U.S until 1917 when Wilson decided that the common good of the world trumped the good of the individual U.S. citizen who would have to sacrifice his blood in a war that didn't concern him.

Also Trojan, this is why I find that rather utopian. You have just basically said a 1000x the same thing. Not to mention a lot of it is not based upon scientific thought.

No as a matter of fact I have based everything I say on empirical evidence, never has there been a nation based on the principles of Marx which has not led to tyranny, you are basing your ideology on emotion and theory, I am basing mine on the real world applications of these theories.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Socialists never had any real power in the U.S until 1917

No, there was The International Workingmen's Association and the 2nd Comintern, each were quite large. Not to mention various revolutions that were always suppressed.

when Wilson decided that the common good of the world trumped the good of the individual U.S. citizens who would have to sacrifice their blood in a war that didn't concern them.

Are you implying WW1 or becoming a part of the Entente group? Or both?

No as a matter of fact I have based everything I say on empirical evidence

Yeah right, since when was private property natural?

The rest of your post has been explained in previous posts.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, there was The International Workingmen's Association and the 2nd Comintern, each were quite large. Not to mention various revolutions that were always suppressed.

Are you implying WW1 or becoming a part of the Entente group? Or both?

Yeah right, since when was private property natural?

The rest of your post has been explained in previous posts.

And this comes down to the crest of our argument, you don't think that private property is a natural right, I do and here's why: if a man labors all his days and nights to be able to purchase a piece of land, how is it that any other man can come in and say that his land, which he has toiled and labored for all the days of his life, is not his but belongs to the state? The state has no right to infringe on the the economic freedom of any man for to do so is tyranny in the extreme. Without economic freedom one can not achieve liberty in the broader sense.