Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Understanding Communism and Capitalism
#21
In practice, both ideologies behave the same way. In theory though, they have a fundamental difference. Communists believe that all is a result of the will of the people acting in a collective manner. Fascists consciously turn everything over to the State. There is no delusion about who runs/controls everything.
Reply
#22
I think the posing of this question is rather obsolete. The only right road for any nation is capitalism, because this is the best system we have derived so far.
But let's have a look into the future.
Twenty X-th century. Globalization is over. Internetization is over. Decentralization is over. States exist nominally or with minimal influence.
Population growth is at its lowest or equal to zero. The technological level is extremely high. Money don't rule.
Communism? S2
Reply
#23
Green Wrote:I think the posing of this question is rather obsolete. The only right road for any nation is capitalism, because this is the best system we have derived so far.
True, but to make "Capitalism" work properly you need a people with a certain state of mind. When people can't handle liberty it will become a mess, the same will happen when liberties are lost. One of the reasons why Europe is more approachable by socialism is IMO because the people there are more used to civil law and many look at it as supreme.

Capitalism is also not a goal IMO.

Quote:But let's have a look into the future.
Twenty X-th century. Globalization is over. Internetization is over. Decentralization is over. States exist nominally or with minimal influence.
Population growth is at its lowest or equal to zero. The technological level is extremely high. Money don't rule.
Communism? S2
Knowledge/information/etc is very powerful, I don't think communism can survive when people have access to them. We will also never be Angels. :lol:
Reply
#24
Right here is another definition of Fascism that pretty much goes along with my definition.

Fascism

Fascism is a form of socialism. The best example of Fascism was Nazi Germany. Fascism is the public ownership of all property except in name. It allows citizens to pretend that they own property, but they must use it in accordance with the wishes of the state. Since ownership means the ability to control a piece of property, the ownership is actually in the hands of the government.

Fascism is often confused with other aspects of the Nazi regime. The Nazis were racists and nationalists. These are not necessary components of Fascism, though. Fascism is simply government ownership of all property in fact, with private ownership of property in name.

In every significant way, Fascism resembles Communism. It also has a record of massive slaughter, scapegoats, starvation, and destruction of wealth. It has the same moral base as Communism. It is founded on Collectivism. They are different faces of the same evil system.


The only thing I would take issue with is his statement that Fascism is a part of socialism. I would change that from "socialism" to "Collectivism". Other than that, the definition is pretty close to what I have been contending all along.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#25
Fascism versus socialism From answers.com
Fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism.

While certain types of socialism may superficially appear to be similar to fascism, it should be noted that the two ideologies clash violently on many issues. The role of the state is an example: socialism considers the state to be merely a "tool of the people," sometimes calling it a "necessary evil," which exists to serve the interests of the people and to protect the common good. (Certain forms of libertarian socialism reject the state altogether.) Meanwhile, fascism holds the state to be an end in and of itself, which the people should obey and serve, rather than the other way around.

Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production.

A fascist government is usually characterized as "extreme right-wing," and a socialist government as "left-wing". The fascists themselves often rejected their categorization as right-wing, claiming to be a "third force". Fascists, like Marxists, were critical of the capitalist liberal democracies, but unlike the Marxists, their criticisms focused more on the liberal democratic aspects than the capitalism. Hannah Arendt, Friedrich Hayek, and others argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed "socialist" governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles. Many socialists and communists also reject those totalitarian governments, seeing them as fascism with a socialist mask. (See political spectrum for more on these ideas.)

Socialists and other critics of Arendt and Hayek maintain that there is no ideological overlap between Fascism and Marxism; they regard the two as utterly distinct. Since Marxism is the ideological basis of Communism, they argue that the comparisons drawn by Arendt and others are invalid.





Some historians and theorists regard fascism and "Soviet Communism" (or more specifically, Stalinism) as being similar, lumping them together under the term "totalitarianism". Others see them as being so dissimilar as to be utterly incomparable.

According to the libertarian Nolan chart, "fascism" occupies a place on the political spectrum as the capitalist equivalent of communism, wherein a system that supports "economic liberty" is constrained by its social controls such that it becomes totalitarian.

Hannah Arendt and other theorists of totalitarian rule argue that there are similarities between nations under Fascist and Stalinist rule. They condemn both groups as dictatorships and totalitarian police states. For example, both Hitler and Stalin committed the mass murder of millions of their country's civilians who did not fit in with their plans.

In 1947, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises published a short book entitled "Planned Chaos". He asserted that fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships and that both had been committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters. He argued that Mussolini's major heresy from Marxist orthodoxy had been his strong endorsement of Italian entry into World War I on the Allied side. (Mussolini aimed to "liberate" Italian-speaking areas under Austrian control in the Alps.) This view contradicts the statements of Mussolini himself (not to mention his socialist opponents), and is generally viewed with skepticism by historians. Critics of von Mises often argue that he was attacking a Straw Man; in other words, that he changed the definition of "socialism" in his book, for the precise purpose of accommodating fascism and Nazism into it.

Critics of this view point out that Mussolini imprisoned Antonio Gramsci from 1926 until 1934, after Gramsci, a leader of the Italian Communist Party and leading Marxist intellectual, tried to create a common front among the political left and the workers, in order to resist and overthrow fascism. Other Italian Communist leaders like Palmiro Togliatti went into exile and fought for the Republic in Spain.

The Marxist concept of dictatorship of the proletariat alluded to by Von Mises is not the same as the dictatorship concept employed by fascists, argue proponents of communism. Dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to mean workers' democracy, or dictatorship by the working class, rather than dictatorship by the capitalist class. They claim that this concept had been distorted under Stalin to mean dictatorship by the General Secretary over the party and the working class. In this, Stalin deviated from Marx, and therefore it cannot be said that the Stalinist form of government is Marxist. Opponents of Communism, however, argue that the Soviet Union was dictatorial already under Lenin.

The fascist economic model of corporatism promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state, a concept that is anathema to classic socialism.

The fascist states from the period between the two world wars were police states, as were the ostensibly socialist USSR and the post-WWII Soviet bloc states. Conversely, there have been multi-party socialist states that have not been police states, and non-socialist states that have been police states.

Reply
#26
While your posts here are acceptec definitions, the only true definition of each form of "ism" is that of the economic model. The rest is simply manifestations thereof.

As I stated above, the only difference in the concept of socialism and Fascism, ir Capitalism for that matter, is the means with which the state handles production, With socialism, the means of production are owned by the state, with Fascism the means of production are heavily regulated and controled, and with Capitalism the means of production are owned by the individual citizens.

And the term "Corporatism" is really a misnomer, as the State and the Corporations did not really work together. The State made the rules, not the individuals owners.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#27
OK.
Reply
#28
John Wrote:with Fascism the means of production are heavily regulated and controled, and with Capitalism the means of production are owned by the individual citizens.

These are not opposites, the difference is fairly slight.

In a "free enterpise capitalist society" the state can take away private property -- this is not something new, really, the SC only confirmed what was done for years in states like NJ. This is done for the best of "community".

In a fascist state, this is done for the best of the "nation" or "state".

Observe that since a fascist state is based on the private initiative to build the economy, it cannot grab too much of private possessions; otherwise the population will lose the stimulus and the economy will go down the drain. Same applies to a "free capitalist" society like the US.

Now, do we have any evidence that fascist governments actually grabbed more private property than the "free" governments do? (not counting the property owned by the state's enemies, of course).

Do we have any evidence that the taxation rate in Nazi Germany was higher than in the US today? (taxation is just another mechanism for grabbing private property).

Unless you can present such evidence, it is prudent to consider fascism as a variation of state-manipulated capitalism, as exists in the West today.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#29
I tend to agree with you Michael. Trouble is that there exists almost no society that adheres to any one particular model in it's purist form.

And truth be told, the US has been incorperating Fascist tendencies for years, since the New Deal. Most of these Leftists may really not know exactly where they are heading, but clearly they are trying to push us more in the direction of the Fascist model, it they had their way.

However, I believe that the tide is very slowly shifting back to the older system. I certainly hope so.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#30
The economic ideology of fascism is meaningless. Fascism now means something different. If you look the word up in the dictionary, the definition will be something like 'Any form of government which places the power of the state above everything else'. Machievelli gave a good description of it - the belief that the more powerful the state is, the better everyone's lives will be. That's certainly what Hitler and Mussolini believed, even though they may have used the more intellectual definition as a false cover.

You may say 'Then communism and fascism are the same, because communism too has a meaningless intellectual definition and the real form'. Well, the intellectual definition of communism is still meaningful because people around the world still fervently believe in it, or they did during the Cold War. Few have ever fervently believed in the economic model of fascism - those who did believe strongly in fascism believed in the power of the state, not the intellectual definition.
Reply
#31
Anon Wrote:Few have ever fervently believed in the economic model of fascism

Not so Anon. The truth is that in this country, millions on the political Left believe absolutely in the Fascist economic model. It has been slowly applied for years, creaping in under the guise of many things, mostly in the need to help the little guy be protected from the mean old rich.

The Democratic Party is chock full of Freindly Fascists and the Republicans have a fair share as well. Please read this article by Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, and he will show you how this has come about and that it is still going on.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#32
Anon Wrote:Few have ever fervently believed in the economic model of fascism - those who did believe strongly in fascism believed in the power of the state, not the intellectual definition.

Actually, there is a much simpler reason: Fascism does not offer a different economic model *at all*. Typically, a fascist government would interfere in the economy, but the amount of interference does not qualify as a distinct economic model, as is the case with communism.

The most significant economic activity typical for fascism involve large public works like highway building: both founders of fascism, Hitler and Roosevelt, uses this tool heavily for jumpstarting the economy.

If you examine these two figures closely, you will see how heavily they borrowed from each other.

On the other hand, left national socialists did have a distinct economic program, and it did include elements of communism. Read Strasser.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#33
Quote:Well, the intellectual definition of communism is still meaningful because people around the world still fervently believe in it, or they did during the Cold War.
Huh? Fervent belief in "something" makes this "something" meaningful? How come?
Reply
#34
A better word to use than meaningful would have been 'important'.

Let's say that someone believes that aliens are riding on the comet Halle-Boppe and are going to come to Earth and spirit away selected Earthlings. Is this person's beliefs important? Not really. Now, is Christianity important? Yes, because billions of people subscribe to it and it effects their behavior.

So what I'm saying is that the popular belief of fascism is more important than the economic definition of fascism, so fascism has now taken on the popular definition. However, if mv is right they're one and the same almost.

This is what *I* think fascism is: the belief that the more the state is empowered, the more the lives of the people will improve.
Reply
#35
Anon Wrote:This is what *I* think fascism is: the belief that the more the state is empowered, the more the lives of the people will improve.

That is what is common with ALL forms of Collectivism, whether it be Fascism or Socialism. And even though you and most people don't look at Fascism as an economic definition, that still does not make it not so.

The same thing with Liberal. Everybody's brother and sister mususe the word "liberal", but mususing it does not make it so either. Same with 'disrespect'. Disrespect is not a verb, yet people constantly try to use it as such.

The point is that unless words mean something that is constant, they will amount to confusing things that are poor in defining things and hinder, rather than help the language. Fascism is strictly an economic principle, and the rest of the attrubutes are manifestations, not characteristics. Sorry, but a spade is a spade, is a spade, is..............
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#36
Quote:So what I'm saying is that the popular belief of fascism is more important than the economic definition of fascism, so fascism has now taken on the popular definition.

Yes, but the fascism brand name is seriously discredited---unlike the communism or progressist brand names. This unfairness leads to the persistent problem where basically fascist ideas are not presented under their proper names, but masquarade under different names and causes all kind of difficulties to everyone.

For example, Justice Ruth Baader had to go into lengthy bizarre explanations of her decision on the property rights, instead of simply saying: "I'm a fascist and proud of it".
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#37
mv Wrote:For example, Justice Ruth Baader had to go into lengthy bizarre explanations of her decision on the property rights, instead of simply saying: "I'm a fascist and proud of it".

What I find so interesting is that the very folks who are willing to castigate others for being Fascist are, in fact, idealogical Fascists themselves.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#38
The "Free Enterprise" economic model is based most profitably on "enlightened self-interest".

It is also formulated best by Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".

There first I think was the concept of growing a bigger pie through trade and dollar velocity.

Government has a place in the equation for the "self interest of the whole"
(populace)

Billions of interactions cannot even be understood, much less orchestrated....by anyone I know...and I know some pretty bright folks.

The default option seems to be free Enterprise...combined with a good dollop of philanthropy as we see here in the US, government sponsored, or better in my mind, privately sponsored.
Best regards
Ken
Reply
#39
Heck of a discussion. I read many books about communism and communist dissensions years ago. 1 comment I'll always remember was when 2 Communists came together,sometime late in Stalin's rule and 1 said,"You know Communism is fascism as well don't you"?

JL is using the strict dictionary view of fascism,but people like me use the word to describe COERCION from a government,Stalin,Hitler,what difference did it make?
Reply
#40
I don't know if I agree with that. Totalitarianism is the result of unenlightened people trying to initiate communism too quickly. Stalin was a fascist.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)