• 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

if a man labors all his days and nights to be able to purchase a piece of land
Land is naturally nature's. Not one person's. Also this "purchasing land" has yet only been found in capitalism.
how is it that any other man can come in and say that his land which he has toiled and labored for his whole life is not his but belongs to the state
Since when does the state come into the equation? Also state-property can be considered a form of private property. In Individual private property, only the individual may say who can or can't use it. In state private property, only the state can say who and who can't use it. Also, in the firdt human societies, private property didn't exist either, it was virtually all communal.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Land is naturally nature's. Not one person's. Also this "purchasing land" has yet only been found in capitalism.

Why is it my responsibility to share my land with anyone if I have payed for it with my own sweat?

If you want to live in pre-enlightenment periods before the population explosion I suggest you invent a time machine.
Since when does the state come into the equation? Also state-property can be considered a form of private property. In Individual private property, only the individual may say who can or can't use it. In state private property, only the state can say who and who can't use it. Also, in the firdt human societies, private property didn't exist either, it was virtually all communal.

The state comes into the equation because in a socialist system it is the state alone which has the authority to take away a mans land and dish it out to the so called: "common good". The state or the masses have no right to dictate the control of the individuals property, that is called tyranny.
 
Last edited:
Why is it my responsibility to share my land with anyone if I have payed for it with my own sweat?
Because it does not really belong to you originally.
If you want to live in pre-enlightenment periods before the population explosion I suggest you invent a time machine.
I am not good with the sciences.
But actually that the population is rapidly expanding is another good reason. Because as you know, in capitalism, people's wealth becomes more and more, so they could say buy "more tracts of land", and then there won't be enough land say for all to own.
The state comes into the equation because in a socialist system it is the state alone which has the authority to take away a mans land and dish it out to the so called: "common good".
Again, socialism is not a statist ideology. It is really just a bunch of social-oriented factions.
The state or the masses have no right to dictate the control the individuals property, that is called tyranny.
It is?
 
Comrade Brian said:
Because it does not really belong to you originally.

So who does it belong to? Mother Earth? Give me a fuc/king break. Possession = 90% of the law.
I am not good with the sciences.
But actually that the population is rapidly expanding is another good reason. Because as you know, in capitalism, people's wealth becomes more and more, so they could say buy "more tracts of land", and then there won't be enough land say for all to own.
Without Capitalism and the free market the population explosion would have led to mass starvation, never in the history of the world has the living standard been so high and hunger been so low as it is under Capitalism.
Again, socialism is not a statist ideology. It is really just a bunch of social-oriented factions.
Socialism in all real world applications has not only been statist but it has violated the will of the citizenry in favor of the state. Socialism is the very embodiment of state power.

Yes the stealing of a mans property without due process is tyrannical. Communists are tyrants just as the feudal lords that came before them. Tyranny can only be defeated through Democracy and the only economic system condusive to Democracy is Capitalism.
 
Last edited:
So who does it belong to? Mother Earth?
Well, yes. And also, property as it first existed was communal in the tribal societies, and these properties have been transformed throughout history into what we see today.
Without Capitalism and the free market the population explosion would have led to mass starvation,
Capitalism is what led to it. Capitaism virtually started with the Industrial Revolution, and this Industrial Revolution also triggered more production than past societies. And with more production comes more population.
never in the history of the world has the living standard been so high and hunger been so low.
Depends where you live, in some 3rd world capitalist countries, some conditions are worse than past ones. But even so, there is a whole lotta room for improvement.
Socialism in all real world applications has not only been statist but it has violated the will of the citizenry in faVor of the state. Socialism is the very embodiment of state power.
Apparantly your definition of socialism is different from mine.
Yes the stealing of a mans property without due process is tyrannical
I view exploitation as tyrannical.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Well, yes. And also, property as it first existed was communal in the tribal societies, and these properties have been transformed throughout history into what we see today.

Oh o.k. so tribal nomadic societies who didn't even have the wheel is what the human race should strive for?
Capitalism is what led to it. Capitaism virtually started with the Industrial Revolution, and this Industrial Revolution also triggered more production than past societies. And with more production comes more population.

No actually increased production was the the answer to increased population, increased population came about through increased knowledge of medicine. Now that increased knowledge of medicine can be attributed to Capitalism because the Doctors wanted to make money, however, that is not a negative for Capitalism that's a positive.
Depends where you live, in some 3rd world capitalist countries, some conditions are worse than past ones. But even so, there is a whole lotta room for improvement.
Nope those governments which you are talking about are not Capitalist they are socialist, because even though within those societies you may own a title of property and land may be privately owned, the state still dictates what to do with said property, in accordance with the common good, which makes it socialist, the key to libery is both economic and political freedom one can not exist without the other.
Apparantly your definition of socialism is different from mine.
Your definition of socialism is theorietical mine is real world.
I view exploitation as tyrannical.

Who is exploited, the Chinese worker making 17 cents an hour because he's working for the betterment of the greater good and the state or the American worker making 17 dollars an hour working because he's working for the betterment of himself and a privately owned Corporation?
 
Last edited:
Oh o.k. so tribal nomadic societies who didn't even have the wheel is what the human race should strive for?
I don't think the human species should be striving for private property. It should be striving for more equality and freedom.
No actually increased production was the the answer to increased population, increased population came about through increased knowledge of medicine. Now that increased knowledge of medicine can be attributed to Capitalism because the Doctors wanted to make money, however, that is not a negative for Capitalism that's a positive.
No, more population arrived because of higher increase in food production, because more agricultural technology was being invented in feudalism, and overtime, this led to enough surplus, so that not as much people had to work agriculturally, and started to work on more industrial things. Thats why capitalism came around.
the key is both economic and political freedom one can not exist without the other.
Capitalism doesn't have economic freedom. A worker is dependant on their wages and really has no other way to survive except by selling their labor. Which is sold in time, so one could say they are enslaved to who they sold their labor to, for a certain amount of time per day. Just so they can live.
Your definition of socialism is theorietical mine is real world.
I won't even bother responding to this.
Who is exploited, the Chines worker making 17 cents an hour because he's working for the betterment of the greater good and the state
Why did you bring up China? It is a mixture af Stalinism and capitalism.
American worker making 17 dollars an hour working because he's working for himself and a privately owned Corporation?
Most American workers don't make 17 bucks an hour, the ave. is about $14 1/2, the ave. where I live is $14. Also when I said "exploitaion" I was refering to the "theory of surplus value". Which Engels summed up very briefly on his intro. to Wage-Labor and Capital. Here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/intro.htm
 
Comrade Brian said:
I don't think the humYan species should be striving for private property. It should be striving for more equality and freedom.

How about I claim your computer on behalf of the greater good? Do you think that would be just?

No, more population arrived because of higher increase in food production, because more agricultural technology was being invented in feudalism, and overtime, this led to enough surplus, so that not as much people had to work agriculturally, and started to work on more industrial things. Thats why capitalism came around.
Ya so food production increases birth rate and life expectancy? Bullshit medicine does that not agricultural production, production is the ends not the means.
Capitalism doesn't have economic freedom. A worker is dependant on their wages and really has no other way to survive except by selling their labor. Which is sold in time, so one could say they are enslaved to who they sold their labor to, for a certain amount of time per day. Just so they can live.
So in a socialist system the citizenry doesn't have to work? The difference is in Capitalism the harder you work the more you'll get, that is the essence of individualism, in socialism it doesn't matte how hard you work because you will always get the same pay. In a Capitalist system the people have a right to choose what ever they want to do with there lives all they have to do is work for it, as opposed to a Communist system were your careers and fate are chosen by the state.
I won't even bother responding to this.
Speechless are we?
Why did you bring up China? It is a mixture af Stalinism and capitalism.
Mao didn't have Capitalism, China didn't allow for Capitalism until they knew that their economy was going to collapse.
Most American workers don't make 17 bucks an hour, the ave. is about $14 1/2, the ave. where I live is $14. Also when I said "exploitaion" I was refering to the "theory of surplus value". Which Engels summed up very briefly on his intro. to Wage-Labor and Capital. Here:

The living standard is higher in the U.S than in any other country, even our poor live like kings compared to the most successful people of China save for maybe the buraucrat tyrants!

lmfao the GDP and the RDG and the unemployment in the U.S. is unmatched in all of the world I won't even read a Marxist web site on principle read this Commie/Fascist:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/
 
How about I claim your computer on behalf of the greater good? Do you think that would be just?
No, that is just stupidity.
Ya so food production increases birth rate and life expectancy? Bullshit medicine does that not agricultural production, production is the ends not the means.
What the hell are you talking about? I was saying that due to surpluses in agriculture, less people would starve. But the main thing is that with more surpluses, as in more technology for more agricultural production per person. Then less people would need to focus on agriculture to keep society intact without collapsing. And thse extra "unneeded" people startd working on more "industrial goods" and as this kept increasing, the Industrial Revolution came about, and thus developed modern capitalism.
So in a socialist system the citizenry doesn't have to work?
When did I say that? Of course people would work, just not in the wage-form that exists in capitalism. Because in this system, the employer does no work yet recieves most wealth.
Speechless are we?
No, its just that you won't bother listening. You have no ears.
Mao didn't have Capitalism, China didn't allow for Capitalism until they knew that their economy was going to collapse.
I wasn't talking about Mao. China became capitalist because the high-state officials got greedy. Which is why I view such a form of state as bad.
The living standard is higher in the U.S than in any other country
Liechtenstein last I heard is the highest. Though the UN did vote Norway as the best overall. But anyways, most countries in W. Europe do have higher standards, less poverty, more social programs, etc.
lmfao the GDP and the RDG and the unemployment in the U.S. is unmatched in all of the world I won't even read a Marxist web site on principle read this Commie/Fascist:
Quit calling me a fascist. I'll never believe in the silly fascist ideals.
Also if you don't read Marx, how will you know what his theories even were?
 
Comrade Brian said:
No, that is just stupidity.

What the hell are you talking about? I was saying that due to surpluses in agriculture, less people would starve. But the main thing is that with more surpluses, as in more technology for more agricultural production per person. Then less people would need to focus on agriculture to keep society intact without collapsing. And thse extra "unneeded" people startd working on more "industrial goods" and as this kept increasing, the Industrial Revolution came about, and thus developed modern capitalism.

When did I say that? Of course people would work, just not in the wage-form that exists in capitalism. Because in this system, the employer does no work yet recieves most wealth.

No, its just that you won't bother listening. You have no ears.

I wasn't talking about Mao. China became capitalist because the high-state officials got greedy. Which is why I view such a form of state as bad.

Liechtenstein last I heard is the highest. Though the UN did vote Norway as the best overall. But anyways, most countries in W. Europe do have higher standards, less poverty, more social programs, etc.

Quit calling me a fascist. I'll never believe in the silly fascist ideals.
Also if you don't read Marx, how will you know what his theories even were?

Unless you respond to the full statements instead of replying to the single lines which you feel you have an argument to this is really a bullshit debate.

This is your whole problem you are refusing to acknowledge the intrinsic flaws of the socialist system which I have pointed out to you in great detail.
 
Vandeervecken said:
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?

More than a dozen people have responded to his theme and not even one agree with him. What does that say? He backs himself up with the rantings of one extremist. This is the far right again refusing to accept responsibility for their own inventions. If things go any more poorly in Iraq you can expect these people to blame Clinton, FDR or little green men but they have proved over and over that they will not take responsibility for anything. The more I see this the more I am driven to the moderate left.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya so food production increases birth rate and life expectancy? Bullshit medicine does that not agricultural production, production is the ends not the means.

Put 2 mice in a cage and feed them more food than they need. The next day take out what the mice didn't eat and replace it with the same amount of food you put in the day before. Do this every day and soon there will be 4 mice. Double the mice so double the amount of food. Soon you have 8 mice, another doubling of the mice so double the amount of food... you guessed it 16 mice, then 32, then 64, then 128. Now, because you have been putting in more food than the mice need with each doubling of the population you know exactly how much food it takes to sustain 128 mice. So put just enough food in the cage to sustain 128 and the population will not double it will remain somewhere between 100 and 140. Now start reducing the amount of food you put in the cage every day little by little. You'll soon have 100 mice, then 80 mice, then 60 mice and so on.

I thought you were smart enough to realize that this is Biological Science not B.S. It is the same for mice, the same for birds and the same for humans.

So in a socialist system the citizenry doesn't have to work? The difference is in Capitalism the harder you work the more you'll get, that is the essence of individualism, in socialism it doesn't matte how hard you work because you will always get the same pay. In a Capitalist system the people have a right to choose what ever they want to do with there lives all they have to do is work for it, as opposed to a Communist system were your careers and fate are chosen by the state.

Speechless are we?

The job I do is not something I want to do. Spending 40 hours a week overseeing the movement of freight is not what I call my dream. But I have a house and a car to pay for and my acrylic painting and photography skills, as great as they are, have not been recognized by the art community in as much as my art does not command $2000.00 a piece.

The state may not have chosen my job for me but that doesn't mean I chose my job either. It's just a fact of life anyway. Also I work hard and my job is physical at times however I do not get much in return when it comes to increase time. I get about a 2 or 3% increase every year while the CEO of the company I work for gets a nice 20% increase on top of an $8,000,000.00 bonus every year. I do not know him personally but I imagine his day is mostly spent at home he has some things to sign sent to him every once in a while. And he probably just calls his assistance when some real work needs to be done and he'll just look at 2 options and choose one in the end.... Tough.:roll:

The living standard is higher in the U.S than in any other country, even our poor live like kings compared to the most successful people of China save for maybe the buraucrat tyrants!

The poor live like the poor do everywhere.... Poorly.:(
 
Inuyasha said:
More than a dozen people have responded to his theme and not even one agree with him. What does that say? He backs himself up with the rantings of one extremist. This is the far right again refusing to accept responsibility for their own inventions. If things go any more poorly in Iraq you can expect these people to blame Clinton, FDR or little green men but they have proved over and over that they will not take responsibility for anything. The more I see this the more I am driven to the moderate left.

Trojan has never been known for being the smartest person, or being fair. But one person did believe him: AustralianLibertarian. Of course the guy didn't really make any arguement. But still the commies, socialists, and fascists all have disagreed with him.
 
Here this ought to solve all the problems.


An Easy Guide to Political Ideologies Using Two Cows.

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
APPLIED COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
MILITARISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. The government turns your cows into thousands of pairs of shoes.
TIN POT DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots you, and sends the cows to Zurich.
PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the President is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate." The cows sue you for breach of contract.
BUSH DEMOCRACY: The son of the last Republican President promises to protect you and your two cows under an impenetrable "missile shield" if you vote for him. You vote for his rival, but he still gets in. The economy grinds to a halt, your pastures are turned over to oil exploration companies, and both of your cows, formerly valued at millions on the NASDAQ, are sold by your investors to recoup their tech stock losses. The Military-Industrial Complex still receives billions in corporate welfare to develop cow-based defenses ("fetchez la vache") that don't work but antagonize your neighbors.
BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains, and they go mad. The government does not do anything.
EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. At first, the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
PURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
APPLIED CAPITALISM: You ship both of your cows to the developing world and pay peanuts to have them milked there by children. You then ship the milk back to your own country and pay expensive PR companies millions to create a happy smiley image for your McCorporation and do very, very well.
HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the right to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because of bad feng shui.
TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.
COUNTERCULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like ... these two cows, man. You have "got" to have some of this milk.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
AMERICAN CORPORATE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the 2 cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts that you have reduced your expenses. Your stock goes up.
A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge for storing them for others. If they give milk, you tell no one.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.
 
Inuyasha said:
More than a dozen people have responded to his theme and not even one agree with him. What does that say? He backs himself up with the rantings of one extremist. This is the far right again refusing to accept responsibility for their own inventions. If things go any more poorly in Iraq you can expect these people to blame Clinton, FDR or little green men but they have proved over and over that they will not take responsibility for anything. The more I see this the more I am driven to the moderate left.


Why don't you answer the fuc/king question then instead of running around talking sh!t behind peoples back? What principles found in Fascism are of the right? Name one principle found in Fascism which is intrinsic to a right wing philosophy. You can't because there is none, yet there are numerous principles in Fascism which are inherently found soully in a leftist philosophy.
 
Trojan knows that communism has absolutely no connection to fascism. All he's trying to do is antagonize the communists here and grab a internet high by insulting them, as is clear with his posts here.
 
Saboteur said:
Put 2 mice in a cage and feed them more food than they need. The next day take out what the mice didn't eat and replace it with the same amount of food you put in the day before. Do this every day and soon there will be 4 mice. Double the mice so double the amount of food. Soon you have 8 mice, another doubling of the mice so double the amount of food... you guessed it 16 mice, then 32, then 64, then 128. Now, because you have been putting in more food than the mice need with each doubling of the population you know exactly how much food it takes to sustain 128 mice. So put just enough food in the cage to sustain 128 and the population will not double it will remain somewhere between 100 and 140. Now start reducing the amount of food you put in the cage every day little by little. You'll soon have 100 mice, then 80 mice, then 60 mice and so on.

I thought you were smart enough to realize that this is Biological Science not B.S. It is the same for mice, the same for birds and the same for humans.
Ok sir if you're so smart what do you surmize is the causal relationship between food production and a decline of infant mortality and higher life expectancy? Advancement in medical knowledge has played a far higher roll in the increased population than increased production and in fact increased production came about as an answer to the question of how to feed the higher population.


The job I do is not something I want to do. Spending 40 hours a week overseeing the movement of freight is not what I call my dream. But I have a house and a car to pay for and my acrylic painting and photography skills, as great as they are, have not been recognized by the art community in as much as my art does not command $2000.00 a piece.

The state may not have chosen my job for me but that doesn't mean I chose my job either. It's just a fact of life anyway. Also I work hard and my job is physical at times however I do not get much in return when it comes to increase time. I get about a 2 or 3% increase every year while the CEO of the company I work for gets a nice 20% increase on top of an $8,000,000.00 bonus every year. I do not know him personally but I imagine his day is mostly spent at home he has some things to sign sent to him every once in a while. And he probably just calls his assistance when some real work needs to be done and he'll just look at 2 options and choose one in the end.... Tough.:roll:

Aww poor baby you didn't choose your job so tell me sir when did dictator Bush force you to supervise freight for a living? I want to be a lawyer, what am I doing about it? I'm going to college to be a lawyer all courtesy of Federal loans, so don't tell me people can't do whatever the hell they want to in this country it's your choices which have led to your lot in life, it's called individual responsobility.

The poor live like the poor do everywhere.... Poorly.:(

Ya sure thing pal the poor in Capitalist systems have t.v.'s, refrigirators, microwaves et al, now if that's a poor standard of living you don't realize how good you've got it.

60 minutes actually did a show about the poor in America back in the 80's and the Soviets played it as anti-American propoganda, but when the Soviets saw the poor in America watching t.v. and pulling large quantities of food of of their refrigirators and then hopping into their automobiles, the show had the complete opposite effect.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Trojan knows that communism has absolutely no connection to fascism. All he's trying to do is antagonize the communists here and grab a internet high by insulting them, as is clear with his posts here.

Why don't you answer the fuc/king question then instead of running around talking sh!t behind peoples back? What principles found in Fascism are of the right? Name one principle found in Fascism which is intrinsic to a right wing philosophy. You can't because there is none, yet there are numerous principles in Fascism which are inherently found soully in a leftist philosophy.
 
The foul-mouthed torrent really helps give you credibility.

I'd also like to know how a public post in a threat you are active in can be called, "behind your back?"

Anyone else reminded of Star Trek's Kahn

"Mine is the superior intelect!" As he is once again outsmarted by everyone around him.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Aren't you the one who said that communism was the same as fascism?

Yes Communism in every nation it has been implemented has led to fascist, tyrannical, authoritarian rule.

Fascism is a socialist system based on the tennants of Marx.

So like I said:

Name one principle found in Fascism which is intrinsic to a right wing philosophy. You can't because there is none, yet there are numerous principles in Fascism which are inherently found soully in a leftist philosophy.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Name one principle found in Fascism which is intrinsic to a right wing philosophy. You can't because there is none, yet there are numerous principles in Fascism which are inherently found soully in a leftist philosophy.

This has been answered several times. Ignoring an answer you cannot rebut does not make it go away.
 
Back
Top Bottom