Communism and Fascism

[SultanOfSurreal]

You did not like ahunda's post?

i said it was a very good post. it naturally only scratches the surface though because one post cannot hope to encapsulate all that communism and fasicsm mean. that's all.

[thegreekdog]

So, essentially what Sultan is saying is that no one understands either governmental ideology (except him apparently).

why should i elaborate when your understanding of communism consists entirely of talking points like "they hate freedom"

That's not my understanding. That's your understanding of me; because, as per usual, rather than debate or argue, you choose to attack the debator/arguer. I'm surprised you got through as much of high school as you apparently did. And they don't hate freedom, they hate dissent. In practical terms, despite being bitter enemies, both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany went out of their way to silence dissent, both before the war, during the war, and after the war (in the case of the Soviet Union). Further, my understanding of both communism and fascism were not evident in any of these posts except to say that they were fairly similar. I didn't say they were the same, I didn't use them in the context of calling Obama either of those things (because he's not), although I believe the president leans towards socialism.

maybe you should actually read some marx and think about how stalinism and maoism are different from communism

I've read Marx. His theories are different than the practical implications of communism, yes. If you read my posts, I've hedged that the practical application of communism is much different than the theories of socialism or communism. In fact, not to get off topic, but I would argue that Maoism is a lot more like fascism than Marxist socialism.

you live in a world where every system that opposes your own narrow experience with capitalism is identical. you use wikipedia as a primary source and fail even to understand that. it is ridiculous and insane and until you take the time to learn a fucking thing, i have no interest in discussing the vagaries of political philosophy with you

I don't live in that world. You apparently live in a world where anyone who thinks communism, in practical application, didn't work, is a moron (which, of itself, is insane). I don't use wikipedia as a primary source. I use my vast knowledge of European history as a primary source. However, because the people on this website, you included, are so insistent on "source" and "link," I chose wikipedia, which seems to be the library for all evidence on this website.

[Snorri1234]

His point is that there was never a practical application of communism on a grand scale. You simply can't point out sovjet russia or china as examples that prove communism fails since they're not actual correct applications. They didn't even start out that way.


Of course, you can easily argue that the reason it hasn't been implented on a grand scale is because it doesn't work.

[thegreekdog]

His point is that there was never a practical application of communism on a grand scale. You simply can't point out sovjet russia or china as examples that prove communism fails since they're not actual correct applications. They didn't even start out that way.


Of course, you can easily argue that the reason it hasn't been implented on a grand scale is because it doesn't work.

If that was his point, I agree with him. However, I believe his point was that he's smarter than the rest of us combined and that we should all just shut up (unless we agree with him).

[MrWainthrope]

I do not think that Communism or Fascism are workable methods of government in this century.


Democracy is the only answer.

[PLAYER57832]

You did not like ahunda's post?

i said it was a very good post. it naturally only scratches the surface though because one post cannot hope to encapsulate all that communism and fasicsm mean. that's all.

True, but was greekdog claiming to be an expert? I don't think so. I think he was opening a dialogue.
And, because he (or I) misused the terms in the past does not mean he/I will in the future. I like what you have to say many times, but in this case it seems like you are just attacking, not adding anything.

[SultanOfSurreal]

And they don't hate freedom, they hate dissent.

well that's entirely different

I've read Marx. His theories are different than the practical implications of communism, yes. If you read my posts, I've hedged that the practical application of communism is much different than the theories of socialism or communism.

if you've read marx you should realize that no nation has ever tried to institute communism. in every case where there's been a communist revolution, it has immediately been subverted by the bourgeoisie and used as just yet another means to subjugate the proletariat. marx talks about the danger of this very thing, by the way

you're asking the wrong question when you ask "can communism ever be practically implemented?" in this or another thread, sully points out something we recognize universally: communism works on a small scale. people share and work together to achieve common goals, because humans are inherently social animals. so we understand instinctively that the principles of communism are good and that they are acceptable to people generally. why then this conclusion by so many that it could never work in practice, on a large scale?

the real question is, "are the forces opposed to communism, the wealthy elite, too entrenched in modern society to ever allow the formation of a true communist state?" and to that, i am not cynical enough to say no. i am cynical enough to say that we may be hundreds of years off of that day though.

[PLAYER57832]

the real question is, "are the forces opposed to communism, the wealthy elite, too entrenched in modern society to ever allow the formation of a true communist state?" and to that, i am not cynical enough to say no. i am cynical enough to say that we may be hundreds of years off of that day though.

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

The key is always limits. The main reason communism cannot work on a large scale is that while it is possible to have a group of people more or less happy with the same level, same values, it gets harder with more people. The closest to that "ideaL" are perhaps the scandinavien countries, (but only close and only perhaps). And, they are historically among the most homogenous societies there are.

Many people just like to be better than those around them .. some do it through sports, some through various other achievements and some through economics.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

communism is not about turning everyone into identical robots, even though the mechanism of rewarding work is radically different.

and seriously, you of all people should know that we are nowhere near... whatever it is you seem to think modern america and europe are near. here in america the gulf between the well-being, happiness, and living conditions of the very poor and the very rich are staggering, as bad as they've ever been. we do have a sizable group in our society that marx would call petty-bourgeoisie -- the middle class. but they're basically wage slaves happy with the pittances their overseers find fit to provide them with. their well-being is on the wane, as well.

whether you like it or not, our system is entirely founded upon the exploitation of the labor of many for the benefit of the few. there is no way around it in any capitalist system, despite what apologists would have you believe. communism IS utopian, and i doubt it can be effectively instituted in one country, much less the world, at the time being, for reasons i alluded to earlier. socialism is a more realistic and attainable goal in today's society (which is why i laugh when people hurl "socialist" at obama as if it's an insult, though i'm sad to say he's nothing near it)

[Phatscotty]

---comunism sucks you are dumb-----

[SultanOfSurreal]

---comunism sucks you are dumb-----

---you are human filth and should jump off the nearest tall building-----

[thegreekdog]

First off, thanks for the serious reply Sultan. Needless to say I'm surprised.

Second off, I sort of agree with you. Most parts of the modern world aren't "ready" for communism, despite Marx's assertions that we were back in the 19th century. I don't know if that's because the "borgeouis" are too firmly entrenched or not. I think there's some human nature involved with it: jealousy, lust, greed, among other things. As I may have stated in another thread, I think in order for communism to work, nationalism must not exist; in other words, communism is a worldwide kind of theory. I think also, in addition to human nature, there are pitfalls with the nature of resources, namely that they are scarce and we have to fight over them. Perhaps in the future this won't be the case.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

communism is not about turning everyone into identical robots, even though the mechanism of rewarding work is radically different.

and seriously, you of all people should know that we are nowhere near... whatever it is you seem to think modern america and europe are near. here in america the gulf between the well-being, happiness, and living conditions of the very poor and the very rich are staggering, as bad as they've ever been. we do have a sizable group in our society that marx would call petty-bourgeoisie -- the middle class. but they're basically wage slaves happy with the pittances their overseers find fit to provide them with. their well-being is on the wane, as well.

whether you like it or not, our system is entirely founded upon the exploitation of the labor of many for the benefit of the few. there is no way around it in any capitalist system, despite what apologists would have you believe. communism IS utopian, and i doubt it can be effectively instituted in one country, much less the world, at the time being, for reasons i alluded to earlier. socialism is a more realistic and attainable goal in today's society (which is why i laugh when people hurl "socialist" at obama as if it's an insult, though i'm sad to say he's nothing near it)

I did not say we were there. However, in the late 70's to early 80's we had essentially eradicated hunger here in the US. Homelessness was essentially limited to those who, well really did "choose" that lifestyle by getting hooked on drugs, being lazy etc. (NOT completely, but for the most part). That is what I meant by "we were getting close".

Of course, in the US, this all began to reverse with Reagan. (Ironic, isn't it , that the better things got generally, the harder it got for those at the bottom?)

Even today, though in EUROPE, the difference between the wealthy and the poor is not that great, in terms of things that really matter like access to food, decent housing, healthcare, education, etc.

No, they are absolutely not communistic, but they are probably closer to Marx's real ideal than at any time in history since the hunter-gatherer days.

[MeDeFe]

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

communism is not about turning everyone into identical robots, even though the mechanism of rewarding work is radically different.

and seriously, you of all people should know that we are nowhere near... whatever it is you seem to think modern america and europe are near. here in america the gulf between the well-being, happiness, and living conditions of the very poor and the very rich are staggering, as bad as they've ever been. we do have a sizable group in our society that marx would call petty-bourgeoisie -- the middle class. but they're basically wage slaves happy with the pittances their overseers find fit to provide them with. their well-being is on the wane, as well.

whether you like it or not, our system is entirely founded upon the exploitation of the labor of many for the benefit of the few. there is no way around it in any capitalist system, despite what apologists would have you believe. communism IS utopian, and i doubt it can be effectively instituted in one country, much less the world, at the time being, for reasons i alluded to earlier. socialism is a more realistic and attainable goal in today's society (which is why i laugh when people hurl "socialist" at obama as if it's an insult, though i'm sad to say he's nothing near it)

I did not say we were there. However, in the late 70's to early 80's we had essentially eradicated hunger here in the US. Homelessness was essentially limited to those who, well really did "choose" that lifestyle by getting hooked on drugs, being lazy etc. (NOT completely, but for the most part). That is what I meant by "we were getting close".

Of course, in the US, this all began to reverse with Reagan. (Ironic, isn't it , that the better things got generally, the harder it got for those at the bottom?)

Even today, though the difference between the wealthy and the poor is not that great, in terms of things that really matter like access to food, decent housing, healthcare, education, etc.

No, they are absolutely not communistic, but they are probably closer to Marx's real ideal than at any time in history since the hunter-gatherer days.

Almost 25% of all income in the USA go to the richest 1% of the population. People having a roof (of sorts) over their head, getting (tax-payer funded) healthcare when they're close to death and turn up in ER, and going to schools that, to put it mildly, have not fared too well in international comparisons does not a nation close to communism make.

[thegreekdog]

In all seriousness, was there a time in history where there was a nation "close to communism?"

[PLAYER57832]

In all seriousness, was there a time in history where there was a nation "close to communism?"

First, I goofed above, the last part was supposed to say "Europe" is closer now, I did not mean to imply the US.

Per the US, while the gap between the wealthy and poor in the US has always been higher than in many industrialized nations, but the "floor", the level below which people "could not" drop was much higher in the late 70's and early 80's. For a while, childhood hunger was essentially eradicated in the US, homelessness was minimal. None of those things ever disappeared completely, but that is what I meant by "closer".

And I goofed above, I meant to say that Europe is fairly close. However, "fairly close" does not mean "the same as" by ANY means.

bottom line .. It does not bother me that some people get extremely wealthy. What bothers me is when it somehow becomes acceptable for people to work 40 hours or more a week and STILL not be able to buy basic food, basic safe housing, basic clothing and medical care. If you are hiring people under those conditions, other than "starter teens" and are not in similar straights yourself.. then you are NOT taking a true profit, you are expecting we taxpayors to subsidize your employees, and therefore your business.

Wealth is fine, but it has to be from PROFIT, not cutting corners at taxpayer expense.

[PLAYER57832]

In all seriousness, was there a time in history where there was a nation "close to communism?"

Well, there is "close" and "close". It is definitely not communism.

If you live in Denmark you have gotten tax-supported medical care, a very high minimum wage, subsidies for all your children, and various other benefits. If you qualify for college, you usually don't have to pay (there are exceptions) and the trade schools are very well funded, as a rule. The standard of living for even the poorest person is pretty much middle class.

Things are changing recently, but that is how it has always been. Politically, it is not communistic, but economically, I would say they are probably closer than any modern country has been, even probably China and Russia. (perhaps not China, but definitely Russia). AND they did it without a revolution, without even ousting their monarche.

Now, I am not going to claim its some kind of paradise, but that was not the question. The question was whether it approached communism. Economically, it approaches it far more than we do.

[Snorri1234]

Even today, though in EUROPE, the difference between the wealthy and the poor is not that great, in terms of things that really matter like access to food, decent housing, healthcare, education, etc.

Yes, but the gap between the wealthy and poor is still great judged purely on wealth. The fact the poor people also have things is more of a result of the nations amassing greater and greater wealth than any concentrated effort to decrease the gap.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Even today, though in EUROPE, the difference between the wealthy and the poor is not that great, in terms of things that really matter like access to food, decent housing, healthcare, education, etc.

Yes, but the gap between the wealthy and poor is still great judged purely on wealth. The fact the poor people also have things is more of a result of the nations amassing greater and greater wealth than any concentrated effort to decrease the gap.

this is a key point

remember that any single nation's capitalistic systems function within the sphere of a global capitalist system, where the divisions between rich and poor are even more striking, and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few even more appalling.







people in the us (and denmark and the netherlands, and on and on) are able to enjoy a privileged, post-industrial, first-world lifestyle only on the backs of slave labor in Africa, east Asia, and elsewhere.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

read the stats on this page and tell me that capitalism can be anything other than a vehicle for promoting human misery

[Titanic]

people in the us (and denmark and the netherlands, and on and on) are able to enjoy a privileged, post-industrial, first-world lifestyle only on the backs of slave labor in Africa, east Asia, and elsewhere.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats

read the stats on this page and tell me that capitalism can be anything other than a vehicle for promoting human misery

It dusn have to be on the back of slave labour, or be for promoting human misery. Capitalism can be a very good thing, and be used to free people and give opportunities. Look at Muhammad Yunus and the Grammen Bank, or micro-economic aid giving, when capitalism is used properly it can be the greatest force of good, but when abused I agree it can be downright evil. Don't put all of it in the same category as there are genuinely some decent people who use it for the right reasons.

[ahunda]

I am not comfortable with reducing this whole socialism debate to the question of wealth distribution.

For starters: This whole idea, that in a socialist society everybody would get the same salary, is a common misconception. Quoting old Marx himself, describing a communist society: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Since individuals have different abilities & needs, this leaves a lot of leeway (is this the right word in this context ?) how to distribute work, goods & wealth in a socialist society.

Some socialists have no problem with the concept of private property, when it comes to personal possessions or an own house. Others argue, that in a truly socialist society, there would simply be no need for any private property anymore, since everything will belong to everybody anyway, and everybody will have access to everything he might need. Some want to do away with the monetary system altogether.

Marx wrote quite a bit about the "commodity fetishism" in capitalism, where everything is ascribed a certain value and consequently is reduced to a commodity with its value. Where humans can only perceive the world around them in terms of value, and everything becomes a commodity to them. The destruction of our natural environment is closely tied to this phenomenon, since nature has become nothing more than a factor in cost-benefit calculations.

But also humans themselves become a commodity. They sell themselves, their time & labour, as a commodity on the market. And all this of course affects the psychology of the individuals as well, their self-conception as human beings in this world, their relationship to the world, other human beings, society, family, etc.

And then there is this one central point in socialist theory, that is the private ownership of land & means of production (capital). This is not merely a question of unfair wealth distribution. It is a question of power.

Private ownership of land & means of production divides society into classes: Those who own land & means of production (capitalists) and those who don´t.

The capitalists are then free to not work themselves, but let their capital "work" for them, employ other people & earn a profit off their work. The have-nots on the other hand are forced to sell themselves, their minds & energy, their time & labour, and spend most of their life-time under the totalitarian rule of their bosses. Because, let´s face it, in all our oh-so-free western societies, democracy ends at the doors of the factories. Once you enter your work-place, you are subject to more or less complete outside rule. Someone used the word "salary slaves" already.

So there goes socialist theory, telling you: As long as there is private ownership of land & means of production, there is a ruling class and a subjugated class. And in consequence, there is no equal rights, no equal chances, no true democracy & freedom in any capitalist society.

So please: If you are discussing socialism, don´t ignore the questions of power & freedom. It´s not about the pay-cheque, it´s so much more ...

And in the end, a short comment on "human nature" and the ever repeating argument of greed & competition, that are part of this nature and supposedly make socialism impossible.

Yes. I guess, those things are indeed part of our nature. And capitalism builds on them. It encourages & rewards them, it forces us to be egoistical, and it forces us into competition with/against each other. Competition is a constant state of war, and it erupts into real all-out war & armed conflict all around the world all the time.

Compassion & solidarity are part of our nature too though. And socialists want to build society on these aspects of us. Encourage them instead of our negative egoistical drives. And you all should maybe ask yourselves, what kind of self-conception you are carrying around with yourselves. How you see yourselves & your fellow man. What values you truly hold, and on what values you want to base the society you are living in.

[thegreekdog]

Sultan, I've said it before and I'll say it again... I'd rather be a poor person in the US than middle class in the former Soviet Union (or Cuba). Now, before you go off on a rant, I know those countries weren't true "communist" countries... relax. Until Communism actually work such that closing the gap between rich and poor does not result in the new "middle class" (for lack of a better term) being poorer than the poor in a capitalist society, I'll stick with capitalism, thanks.

I believe Ben Franklin (or maybe Winston Churchill?) said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for the others. I think capitalism might be the worst economic system, except for the others.

[MeDeFe]

Exactly what capitalism are you talking about, tgd?

Capitalism without any restraints? Capitalism with some restraints? Heavily regulated capitalism?

Or something completely different?

[thegreekdog]

Exactly what capitalism are you talking about, tgd?

Capitalism without any restraints? Capitalism with some restraints? Heavily regulated capitalism?

Or something completely different?

Capitalism with some restraints.

[MeDeFe]

Exactly what capitalism are you talking about, tgd?

Capitalism without any restraints? Capitalism with some restraints? Heavily regulated capitalism?

Or something completely different?

Capitalism with some restraints.

You dirty socialist!

At least in the eyes of the "true conservatives".