NationStates Jolt Archive

... are all the same.

Really, you people share so much in common with each other. Its funny how the nazis talk bad about "liberals" and the commies about "fascists." You are BOTH liberal fascists!

You both argue in favor of government. By and large, you think governments are things which should have more power, control, and wealth, and can be trusted to make the world just like you want it.

You both have primitive economic understanding.

You're both basically anticapitalist.

You both think your way of government is some kind of miraculous utopia.

Both idealogies have a history of producing THE most murderous tyrannical governments.

You both have some sort of obsession with uniforms, marching and man-love. Makes me wonder.

Well thats it, stay tuned for more analysis later!

... are all the same.

Really, you people share so much in common with each other. Its funny how the nazis talk bad about "liberals" and the commies about "fascists." You are BOTH liberal fascists!

You both argue in favor of government. By and large, you think governments are things which should have more power, control, and wealth, and can be trusted to make the world just like you want it.

except that half of the communists here are anarchists.

Hmm looks like someone doesn't like to read history books. You do realize Nazis were the antithesis of a left wing organization, right? You do realize that a left wing authoritarian Communist government isn't facism? Just because you can make a few generalizations fit doesn't mean they are anything alike. Also the Nazi party had a profound economic understanding, it turned Germany from near collapse to the powerhouse of Europe in almost no time.

/not a nazi or communist

What about a capitalist corporate police state like imperialist Japan during WWII which butchered about 30 million East Asians in the quest for wealth and resources? The USA has also committed heinous crimes against innocent civilians around the world in order to protect "advanced" capitalist interests. Nazis, commies, and capitalists can all be evil and narrowminded, since humans no matter what creed and ideology, are inevitably corrupt and selfish.

You do realize Nazis were the antithesis of a left wing organization, right?

No. You better explain.

You do realize that a left wing authoritarian Communist government isn't facism?

Not a bit. So you better explain here too.

Also the Nazi party had a profound economic understanding, it turned Germany from near collapse to the powerhouse of Europe in almost no time.


Thats like saying Hooked on Phonix has profound literary meaning because it helped some people from total illiteracy to read.

Thats like saying Hooked on Phonix has profound literary meaning because it helped some people from total illiteracy to read.
No it isn't, because Hooked on Phonics' purpose is not to make someone into a highly learned and cultured individual. Hooked on Phonics aims to teach the illiterate to read, and in many cases it effectively and efficiently fulfills its stated purpose. The Nazi party stated that it would improve the economy, and it fulfilled its purpose through massive military spending and stimulating arms suppliers. Of course, the ends do not justify the means and Nazism's prosperity at the suffering of millions of Europeans stricken by war disqualifies Nazism as an ethical philosophy.

No. You better explain.



Not a bit. So you better explain here too.



Thats like saying Hooked on Phonix has profound literary meaning because it helped some people from total illiteracy to read.
Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) - is a type of fascist/totalitarian ideology.

Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)- refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement

Also: This expansion propelled the German economy out of a deep depression and into full employment in less than four years. Public consumption during the same period increased by 18.7%, while private consumption increased by 3.6% annually.

It was hardly a perfect economic system, but it was pretty damn effective for what they needed to get down. Specifically conquer Europe.

Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) - is a type of fascist/totalitarian ideology.

Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)- refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement

Right, well lets pretend for a moment I don't really buy into the "left/right" dichotomy. How is one authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (Nazi Germany) different from another authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (the USSR)? And why should that make any difference to me, whether some commiefascists claim to be "right wing" and others claim "left wing?" I call a spade a spade, thats the point of this thread.

Yeah, so, how about the fact that morality seemed to enter the discussion for no reason?

Anyway, National Socialism (Nazism), as a form of fascism, does share a lot of traits with the so-called "communist" regimes that the world has experience: USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea.

These nations, like Nazis, use totalitarian governments. The government controls everything, particularly the economy. They also all make the claim of providing universal employment (the Nazis were pretty good at this...everyone else, not so much).

Now, as far as being good or bad, these governments have historically done good for about 5-10 years, then gone bad.

The Nazis did pull Germany out of a depression
The USSR did mitigate violence in the Balkans
China did manage to feed the entire f*ing country, which is no mean feat.

Communism and fascism are very different, idealogically.
Realistically, they're awfully similar.

Right, well lets pretend for a moment I don't really buy into the "left/right" dichotomy. How is one authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (Nazi Germany) different from another authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (the USSR)? And why should that make any difference to me, whether some commiefascists claim to be "right wing" and others claim "left wing?" I call a spade a spade, thats the point of this thread.
I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to say either one of these was good. They both did a crapload of evil things. That doesn't mean Communists=Nazis. They had completly different economic and political systems. Thats like saying Democracy=Monarchy because both America and England had civil wars. They were both were certainly not "liberal facists". Just read some Wikipedia, they have more information than most people would ever need.

Your examples are pretty weak too.

You both think your way of government is some kind of miraculous utopia.
So do Americans, thats why we're trying to spread it across the middle east.

You both have some sort of obsession with uniforms, marching and man-love.
So does the Navy.

[QUOTE=Chofesh
Communism and fascism are very different, idealogically.
Realistically, they're awfully similar.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much my point. They think they are supporting different things and opposing each other, but they support the same thing and should really learn to get along better if they want their goals achieved.

[QUOTE=Santa Barbara]... are all the same.

Really, you people share so much in common with each other. Its funny how the nazis talk bad about "liberals" and the commies about "fascists." You are BOTH liberal fascists!

You both argue in favor of government. By and large, you think governments are things which should have more power, control, and wealth, and can be trusted to make the world just like you want it.

You both have primitive economic understanding.

You're both basically anticapitalist.

You both think your way of government is some kind of miraculous utopia.

Both idealogies have a history of producing THE most murderous tyrannical governments.

You both have some sort of obsession with uniforms, marching and man-love. Makes me wonder.
[QUOTE]
Hmm.. how are Nazi's liberal? How are communists for that manner? Both seem kind of illiberal, assuming you're refering to the dictatorships of Germany and the USSR, and not just some far left theorists who probably can be called "liberal", though in the most general sense of the term. What particular brand of communism are you talking about? Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist... what? If you're talking about the Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist, there may be something to be said for the whole government as utopia thing, but even a brief reading of Marx will inform you that the abolition of the state is the ultimate goal of Marxist communism (and is even the justification in Stalinist thought.. though suffice it to say that didn't work out). Essentially the TEMPORARY strengthening of the state is supposed to pave the way for it's abolition, so no, communists don't think government is a great thing. Oh, and "miraculous" is by no means an appropriate term, as the Marxists like to term their theory as "scientific" (thus resulting from a gradual process), and the Nazis, too, actually develop a form of government, rather than having it spontaneously come into existence by divine intervention... but enough on that.
By the way, "Anti-capitalist" is pretty general. By similar criteria, it seems logical that Neo-Liberals and Fascists are the same because neither theory is based on equality.
Uniforms.. so it seems you ARE talking about the USSR and similar states. Okay. A great many today wouldn't even consider those communists and even if we all accept "communist" applies there, realize that that is still a general term, like "Liberal" for example. I mean, Libertarians, Welfare Liberals, and what we presently call "Conservatives" all fit in the general category of Liberalism, however much people seem to ignore it.

And.... man-love?

Of course the Nazis belief in white supremacy and the communists belief in equality of mankind would pretty much prevent any sort of collaboration even though both ideologies are manifested as totalitarian fascist regimes.

I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to say either one of these was good. They both did a crapload of evil things. That doesn't mean Communists=Nazis.

Well, my point was not literally that the two terms are synonymous. Exagerration is needed to get the point across. My point is the similarities, and there are more of them than either side likes to admit.

Its easy to point out differences. It helps both commies and nazis feel special to pretend they're unique and and opposite spectrums. It's harder to point out similarities.


You both think your way of government is some kind of miraculous utopia.
So do Americans, thats why we're trying to spread it across the middle east.

Only about half of Americans tend to think that at any given time. But you're right, America does share a lot in common with communism and nazism.


You both have some sort of obsession with uniforms, marching and man-love.
So does the Navy.

Yeah but the Navy is not a political idealogy.

Hmm.. how are Nazi's liberal? How are communists for that manner?

Exactly. Neither one is. Hell, liberals aren't liberal.

Well, my point was not literally that the two terms are synonymous.
Then don't say that.

Only about half of Americans tend to think that at any given time. But you're right, America does share a lot in common with communism and nazism.
So does every government in the world in you use ideas that generalize enough. I mean come on, "both argue in favor of government." Yeah governments tend to justify their existence. Its what they do.

Yeah but the Navy is not a political idealogy.
It is part of the government though, and alot of people subscribe to its ideals.

Exactly. Neither one is. Hell, liberals aren't liberal.
I'm going to have to say logic disagrees with you. Math too, seeing as how 1=1

Of course than there's that whole private property thing... that should be a difference, eh? Class struggle as opposed to corporatism, too.

Now, I'm generally thinking about the ideologies themselves... I mean, it's a foregone conclusion that the USSR etc. were pretty similar to Nazi Germany, but your modern day communist in the West is probably not going to argue that the USSR was a good thing.. you know, considering that it pretty well did the opposite of what it was supposed to do. Instead of eliminating alienation from the products of your labour, it intensified it. Rather than putting the means of production in the hands of the proletariat, it put them in the hands of The Party. Never mind that it was still using workers to produce surplus value. Oh yeah, and if you're looking at it from the Orthodox Marxist point of view, Marxist-Leninism ignored the supposedly scientific dialectic, skipping the (theoretically) vital industrial, capitalist stage in the state's development, paving the way for tyranny by concentrating power in the politburo.

I'm going to have to say logic disagrees with you. Math too, seeing as how 1=1
I take that comment to mean that those that CLAIM to be Liberals do not actually base their ideology on liberty.. of course, that's probably Welfare Liberals he's refering to rather than, say, Neo or Classical Liberals... that's a debate for another time, though.

Exactly. Neither one is. Hell, liberals aren't liberal.
Jebus man, I have no idea what you are yammering on about, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. :confused:

Anyway, National Socialism (Nazism), as a form of fascism, does share a lot of traits with the so-called "communist" regimes that the world has experience: USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea.
These nations, like Nazis, use totalitarian governments. The government controls everything, particularly the economy. They also all make the claim of providing universal employment (the Nazis were pretty good at this...everyone else, not so much).
Now, as far as being good or bad, these governments have historically done good for about 5-10 years, then gone bad.

The Nazis did pull Germany out of a depression
The USSR did mitigate violence in the Balkans
China did manage to feed the entire f*ing country, which is no mean feat.

Communism and fascism are very different, idealogically.
Realistically, they're awfully similar.
Too true idealogically Communism doean't even have a central gov't; however you find someone who is willing to take complete control of an entire country and then just give it all up to be a commoner. The Nazis did do some good in repairing the German economy but this was one of many ways to distract the Germans and the world from the attrocities they were committing and had in the planning stages. Nazi idealogy is based around hatred and a "pure" race which in and of itself is not possible given that we are all full of junk DNA that makes us anything but pure.

I take that comment to mean that those that CLAIM to be Liberals do not actually base their ideology on liberty.. of course, that's probably Welfare Liberals he's refering to rather than, say, Neo or Classical Liberals... that's a debate for another time, though.
Fair enough, but if you mean something say it. Don't say something totally different than what you mean with no further clarification and expect the right response.

Fair enough, but if you mean something say it. Don't say something totally different than what you mean with no further clarification and expect the right response.
In a perfect world, mate.


But SERIOUSLY: Man-love?

In a perfect world, mate.


But SERIOUSLY: Man-love?
Yeah, I'm not quite sure I get that reference either. Especially since Nazi's killed gay men just like they did with jews.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure I get that reference either. Especially since Nazi's killed gay men just like they did with jews.
Well, I suppose it may be some reference to certain sources that suggest that Hitler himself, as well as Rohm and some others were, indeed, homosexuals, but the Fuhrer went about hiding this fact from the public to stick with their pure Nazi rhetoric, possibly realizing that he needed to feed the hate-fire with more scapegoats and he's be in real trouble if the population found out the truth. [EDIT]As for the communists... I don't really know about what the USSR was like in that regard, but the philosophies of Engels, Gramsci, and other Marxists certainly lend themselves to Feminist and Queer (This terms seems to be used surprisingly often in academic discourse.... odd) Theories.
Wanna clarify, Santa Barbara?

Fundamental differences:
Communism = Economic system
Nazism = Political ideology
Facism = System of government

Well, I suppose it may be some reference to certain sources that suggest that Hitler himself, as well as Rohm and some others were, indeed, homosexuals, but the Fuhrer went about hiding this fact from the public to stick with their pure Nazi rhetoric, possibly realizing that he needed to feed the hate-fire with more scapegoats and he's be in real trouble if the population found out the truth.

Really, when people accuse great leaders of being homosexual, it's usually some propaganda they've pulled out of their rear end to make them look bad. There is rarely any evidence or grounding for the ideas.

Really, when people accuse great leaders of being homosexual, it's usually some propaganda they've pulled out of their rear end to make them look bad. There is rarely any evidence or grounding for the ideas.
Well, there have been a couple books written on the subject, if you want to give them a look-over. For instance, The Hidden Hitler, which was written by German historian Lothar Machtan. It's been a few years since I've read it, so I could hardly outline the evidence he uses. Feel free to look into it... or dismiss it without a second thought. Your call.

...Nazis...commies...You are BOTH liberal fascists!


A "liberal fascist" is a political impossibility. Liberalism is the direct opposite of fascism. It is like having a totalitarian anarchist or a communist monarchist or a compassionate conservative...they just don't go together.

Nazis and commies really are the same - they both are authoritarian socialists, and both epouse a very racist/suppressive doctrine towards man

A "liberal fascist" is a political impossibility. Liberalism is the direct opposite of fascism. It is like having a totalitarian anarchist or a communist monarchist or a compassionate conservative...they just don't go together.
Or a libertarian socialist?

... are all the same.

Really, you people share so much in common with each other. Its funny how the nazis talk bad about "liberals" and the commies about "fascists." You are BOTH liberal fascists!

Uh, no.

You both argue in favor of government. By and large, you think governments are things which should have more power, control, and wealth, and can be trusted to make the world just like you want it.

Uh, no. Quite the opposite, I want the removal of centralised government.

You both have primitive economic understanding.

That's why Marx was a leading economist I suppose.

You're both basically anticapitalist.

That's kinda the point.

Both idealogies have a history of producing THE most murderous tyrannical governments.

Authoritarianism has, yes. Though Capitalism has its fair share of death and suffering upon its hands.

You both have some sort of obsession with uniforms, marching and man-love. Makes me wonder.

Uh, no.

Or a libertarian socialist?

Why not? You can be libertarian socially in a planned economy.

Saying that Nazis and Communists are the same is like saying Christians and Catholics are the same.

Yes, it is. And Catholics *ARE* Christians, you dolt.

That was easy.


Come back and post something once you've educated yourself a little more in the ways of Nazism or Communism.

Come back when you have an argument that actually goes toward *your* point, not mine. Really, I expected more from such an enlightened nazi/commie such as yourself. (Not really.)


That's kinda the point.

Aha, so you agree you're both anticapitalists....

Wanna clarify, Santa Barbara?

Humor. Its a funny thing to imagine nazis as gay, because nazis would never admit to being gay even if they were. In fact they are so vehemently anti-gay it sounds a bit like a reaction complex due to closet homosexuality.

Jebus man, I have no idea what you are yammering on about, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

Oh, I do. Liberals aren't liberal just because they have the same root word. In the USA, 'liberals' tend to favor policies that RESTRICT freedom. Amusing, no?


So does every government in the world in you use ideas that generalize enough. I mean come on, "both argue in favor of government." Yeah governments tend to justify their existence. Its what they do.

How does someone arguing for a non-existent government type fall into the category of self-existence justification? It doesn't. There is no communist government trying to preserve itself, there are just communists trying to preserve their failed idealogy.


Nazism involves more government ownership than in capitalism. It is a step towards higher nationalization. It is only a matter of degree that it doesnt go all the way towards full blown communism. Am I exagerrating when I say they are exactly the same? Of course. Does that mean they are the exact opposites when their practioners claim it? Not at all.

Why is suggesting they are more similar than you think such a hostile concept? I would suggest its because they are such volatile concepts that people feel compelled to "root" for one or the other, and in doing so they must accept how different (and thus more justified in rooting for) the idealogies are. Not just accept, but emphasize - demonizing the enemy, so to speak. And since no one who sides with either 'communists' or 'nazis' wishes to be associated with their 'enemies,' lumping them in the same group offends a lot of people. Well, tough titties. :D Truth hurts.

How does someone arguing for a non-existent government type fall into the category of self-existence justification? It doesn't. There is no communist government trying to preserve itself, there are just communists trying to preserve their failed idealogy.

Just a quick rebuttal. You're right there are no communist countries. Except for Cuba, but they are pretty small and don't really count. Oh yeah and China, but they only have over A BILLION PEOPLE. I guess that means communism is a non-existent government type.

Just a quick rebuttal. You're right there are no communist countries. Except for Cuba, but they are pretty small and don't really count. Oh yeah and China, but they only have over A BILLION PEOPLE. I guess that means communism is a non-existent government type.

Well, isn't it? I mean the communist apologies are ALWAYS talking about how the USSR, Cuba, China... none of them are "truly" communist.

That aside, communists (as in the communists who argue in favor of communism, as in the ones in NS and online in general) are not all arguing for their government. A government does argue for its own existence, yes. The same cannot be said for everyone arguing for communism.

And when I said "argue in favor of government," I meant in favor of increased government power wealth control etc, not "in favor of a specific administration."

Well, isn't it? I mean the communist apologies are ALWAYS talking about how the USSR, Cuba, China... none of them are "truly" communist.

That aside, communists (as in the communists who argue in favor of communism, as in the ones in NS and online in general) are not all arguing for their government. A government does argue for its own existence, yes. The same cannot be said for everyone arguing for communism.

And when I said "argue in favor of government," I meant in favor of increased government power wealth control etc, not "in favor of a specific administration."
Who the hell cares what communist apologists say on an online forum? The CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html) says different
Government type: Communist state

The people online are arguing for a political ideal of much as anything. Libertarians and anarchists and fundementalists do the same thing with their causes.
And so what, alot of people that aren't communists or nazis have argued in favor of increased governmental power, pretty much since the idea of government began.

Who the hell cares what communist apologists say on an online forum?

This is an online forum, so I'm supposed to in theory act as if I care what they say.

I don't, in reality...

And so what, alot of people that aren't communists or nazis have argued in favor of increased governmental power, pretty much since the idea of government began.

So what? So, they're all the same in that rather fundamental regard. No elaborate complex point.

Nazis, commies, Republicans.... they all tend to think more highly of Big Brother than others. They share a family, a family where they are the children and government is daddy.

Communism and Fascism have unbelievable parallels.

State control of industry and services is the real biggie here, as is State control of society.

Communist governments will always have to resort to social authoritarianism. How else are they going to strip us fat cat Kulaks and greedy capitalist pigs of our wealth? You don't suppose people are just going to give up their property, do you? You're going to have to take it by force.

Fascists and Nazis will always resort to social authoristarianism, since how else are you going to kill ethnic minorities and government opposition?

Communist governments will always nationalise industry. If industry remained in private hands, it wouldn't be communism.

Fascist governments nationalise industry too, although sometimes not to quite the extent of communists.

Both systems also rely heavily on nationalism and the cult-like worship of the leader.

The government styles are synonymous, almost completely. The only difference is what they're trying to achieve. Their implementation, however, remains vastly similar.

Communism and Fascism-Both highly collectivist.

Original govt. of US and to a lesser extent the current govt.-Highly individualistic.

Aha, so you agree you're both anticapitalists....

Yes. Fascists believe in an authoritarian economy and protectionist trade policy (though the difference is, there is private enterprise under a fascist government as opposed to a Stalinist one). Theres no denying that.

Communism and Fascism have unbelievable parallels.

Ack, please. Stalinism and Fascism have unbelievable parallels. Not communism at a whole.

State control of industry and services is the real biggie here, as is State control of society.

When it should be worker control of both.

Communist governments will always have to resort to social authoritarianism. How else are they going to strip us fat cat Kulaks and greedy capitalist pigs of our wealth? You don't suppose people are just going to give up their property, do you? You're going to have to take it by force.

The solution is to make private property unprofitable in comparison with goods produced under collective ownership. For example, a communally owned farm outcompeting a private farm, and the communal workers receiving a better quality of life than those that work private farms, thus increasing the pressure on private farms to pay better wages in order to stop their labour force leaving, and so on until the communal farm wins. Think of this on a national scale. Gradually the underclass takes over.

Communist governments will always nationalise industry. If industry remained in private hands, it wouldn't be communism.

Yes, however the socialisation process doesn't have to be violent, as stated above, a concerted effort to make the private industry unprofitable is what is required.

Humor. Its a funny thing to imagine nazis as gay, because nazis would never admit to being gay even if they were. In fact they are so vehemently anti-gay it sounds a bit like a reaction complex due to closet homosexuality.

Nazi Germany was not vehemently anti-gay. The Nazis attempted to "re-educate" gay men into heterosexuals, and did not bother lesbians at all. Hitler imprisoned many homosexuals but the official Nazi anti-gay position was not very different from any other part of the world... after the concentration camps were liberated, the Allies immediately arrested the homosexuals they found in the camps.

Nazi Germany was not vehemently anti-gay. The Nazis attempted to "re-educate" gay men into heterosexuals, and did not bother lesbians at all.

Yeah well there are plenty of nazis today who are. Probably, because homosexuality seems to be more of an issue today in general.

But your statement leads me to think it likely of the nazi mentality to, if a nazi discovered himself to be gay, try to "re-educate" himself to be straight... hence the closet homosexual comments.

Yeah well there are plenty of nazis today who are. Probably, because homosexuality seems to be more of an issue today in general.

But your statement leads me to think it likely of the nazi mentality to, if a nazi discovered himself to be gay, try to "re-educate" himself to be straight... hence the closet homosexual comments.
"Re-education" of homosexuals was a policy around the world that most western democracies also believed was effective. In the 1950s the British and American government administered drugs and therapy for homosexuals in the hope that they would become straight. American white supremacists tend to be anti-gay because they generally come from the Bible belt but in Europe, many prominent Neo Nazis are actually openly gay.

Nazism involves more government ownership than in capitalism. It is a step towards higher nationalization. It is only a matter of degree that it doesnt go all the way towards full blown communism. Am I exagerrating when I say they are exactly the same? Of course. Does that mean they are the exact opposites when their practioners claim it? Not at all.

You do realize that the only industry the Nazis nationalized were a few public utilities like the railroads, right? Manufacturing, agriculture.. all of the commanding heights of the economy down to the small businesses were never, ever nationalized under Hitler's rule, rhetoric in the National Socialist's platform aside.

Hitler was even SUPPORTED by the conservative, capitalist factions within the Reichstag who represented the interests of big business and large property owners. The only people putting up and semblance of a fight against them was the KDP; the capitalists basically saw Hitler as their personal 'attack dog' because, anti-semitism aside, his interests and their interests were basically the same.

Surely you are not adressing Communism as the Marxist ideal it should truly be, but the corrupt, Soviet etc Communists, which are anything but communist. The problem with the "Communist" (I use the term loosely) Soviets, was that to some extent they had gone so far left that they had become far right. Soviet Russia was really nothin more than a dictatorship, and therefore not Communism. You really should look more clearly at the Communist Ideal, and you would realise that Communism and Facism ideals, are completely different

The solution is to make private property unprofitable in comparison with goods produced under collective ownership. For example, a communally owned farm outcompeting a private farm, and the communal workers receiving a better quality of life than those that work private farms, thus increasing the pressure on private farms to pay better wages in order to stop their labour force leaving, and so on until the communal farm wins. Think of this on a national scale. Gradually the underclass takes over.


But actually, the guys on the Kolkhoz won't enjoy a better standard of living. The capitalist farmer gets to keep all of his produce and sell the excess. The communist farmer has to surrender his produce to the will of the collective, which will redistribute is around the farm.

This works well for a farmer who isn't very good at farming, because he still gets enough grain even if he didn't produce anything close to that amount. However, good farmers, kulaks, will have their superior produce taken from them in the public farm. If they go private, they can keep whatever they want.

The result will be that all the capable farmers go and farm privately while all the incapable ones join the collective farm. The collective farm will produce little and its quality will be shoddy. How will this make it seem more favorable than good old capitalist farming?

... are all the same.

Really, you people share so much in common with each other. Its funny how the nazis talk bad about "liberals" and the commies about "fascists." You are BOTH liberal fascists!

You both argue in favor of government. By and large, you think governments are things which should have more power, control, and wealth, and can be trusted to make the world just like you want it.

You both have primitive economic understanding.

You're both basically anticapitalist.

You both think your way of government is some kind of miraculous utopia.

Both idealogies have a history of producing THE most murderous tyrannical governments.

You both have some sort of obsession with uniforms, marching and man-love. Makes me wonder.

Well thats it, stay tuned for more analysis later!

No. Nazies are technically socialist which are like communists. They are actually racist fascists. Fascists are the strongest are better then everyone else (Strongest means influences, connections, wealth etc)

Communists are everyone is equal and have equal wages.

Both have strong knowing of economy. Mercantilism is much better then capitalism.

Both are antiliberal. Take Chinese communism. They pick your job not much say there or freedom.

Both try to take over the government as seen by Benito and Lenin. Adolf was first chancelor and then threatened the chancelry to elect him dictator (funny system) with storm troopers who he later killed.

The murderous stuff is common with all revolutionaries like robespiarre.

Fascism is as far away from communism you can get without being rascist or antireligious group. They have similarities but to accomplish different tasks. America had some similarities to germany in ww2 but they were the complete opposite.

The farming question is really different depending on what country you're in. The semi-feudal third world has small-holding peasants, often dominated by corrupt landlords, as the dominant mode of production there. Whereas in the advanced capitalist countries, the independant small-holding farmer is rapidly becoming extinct.

Most agricultural workers in the US and the industrialized world are waged laborers: agricultural proletarians if you will, people who don't and probably never have owned their own land. They're workers whose means of production happen to be threshers and incubators. In such a case, under a socialist system the factory farm would be nationalized and placed under worker control, just like a factory anywhere else.

The few smallholding farmers who remain, employing little or no waged labor, should be allowed to keep farming their holdings and gradually eased into more collective forms of ownership and cultivation. Shoving people into one big cooperative, often far away from the land a family has owned or worked for generations, is a surefire way to create enormous discontent (like what happened under Stalin). Mao adopted a form of voluntary collectivization, which seemed to work a hell of alot better. And no, the Great Leap Forward errors did not result from collectivization ITSELF; it's more complicated than that, and I'll get into it if anyone asks.

Really, you people share so much in common with each other. Its funny how the nazis talk bad about "liberals" and the commies about "fascists." You are BOTH liberal fascists!

You both argue in favor of government. By and large, you think governments are things which should have more power, control, and wealth, and can be trusted to make the world just like you want it.

You both have primitive economic understanding.

You're both basically anticapitalist.
There are many differences between Nazis and Communists. Both ideologies are authoritarian, but quite different on economics. Fascists (and Nazis) tend to be pro-business so they do not do much regulation. They are for big government because they always want huge militaries and restrictions on civil liberties.

Mussolini's, Hitler's, and Pinochet's dictatorships were basically fascist, but all enjoyed very good relationships with business, and were pro-capitalist. In Stalin's USSR however, the people suffered the same restrictions on civil liberties, but private business was also crushed - in stark contrast to fascism.

Right, well lets pretend for a moment I don't really buy into the "left/right" dichotomy. How is one authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (Nazi Germany) different from another authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (the USSR)?
Both ideologies are authoritarian, but quite different on economics. See above.

You seem to equate "big government" with "anti-capitalist". But if you think about it, it's really not true. You could have an extreme fascist system, which would be total economic freedom, but would be a totalitarian dictatorship on personal freedom.

Right, well lets pretend for a moment I don't really buy into the "left/right" dichotomy. How is one authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (Nazi Germany) different from another authoritarian political movement oppressing a nation (the USSR)? And why should that make any difference to me, whether some commiefascists claim to be "right wing" and others claim "left wing?" I call a spade a spade, thats the point of this thread.
Ah yes, another typical black/white rant....

Surely you are not adressing Communism as the Marxist ideal it should truly be, but the corrupt, Soviet etc Communists, which are anything but communist. The problem with the "Communist" (I use the term loosely) Soviets, was that to some extent they had gone so far left that they had become far right. Soviet Russia was really nothin more than a dictatorship, and therefore not Communism. You really should look more clearly at the Communist Ideal, and you would realise that Communism and Facism ideals, are completely different


Yea we have one person that actually was able to realize that. Stalinism was more of a dictatorship then communism.

Scale: Up less equal down more equal

Nazism(Reality)
Fascism(Richest/most powerful/ most influences win)
Despotism (Stalin was there)
Miekism (I invented this. Send a telegram to Jibea if you want to know more)
Theocracy(Had orders such as deacon, priets, etc)
Democratic Republic (Middle)
Con Mon (Britian)(Probably my least favorite)
Republic(Romans)
Direct Democracy(I only known its use from Pericles)
National Socialism (What it should be)
Socialism(Starts with an s)
Communism(Everyone equal. Always fall since in reality no one is equal)

Both are antiliberal. Take Chinese communism. They pick your job not much say there or freedom.
It used to be like that but nowadays China is more capitalist than the USA.

... are all the same.

Really, you people share so much in common with each other. Its funny how the nazis talk bad about "liberals" and the commies about "fascists." You are BOTH liberal fascists!
Are you denying that fascists exist?

You both argue in favor of government. By and large, you think governments are things which should have more power, control, and wealth, and can be trusted to make the world just like you want it.
Nope. Communism requires abolition of the state. As Lenin said, "When there is the State, there will be no freedom; when there is freedom, there will be no State".

You both have primitive economic understanding.
Hey, I'm an economic dunce, but I understand quite a lot for my age.

You're both basically anticapitalist.
"The Nazi Party is founded on the principle of private property"
- Adolf Hitler

You both think your way of government is some kind of miraculous utopia.
Well, I don't. But it would be a damn sight better.

You both have some sort of obsession with uniforms, marching and man-love. Makes me wonder.
What are you talking about?!

Well thats it, stay tuned for more analysis later!
I can't wait...

Mercantilism is much better then capitalism.

Erm, how? Mercantilism cannot work in more than one country.

(Interesting, seeing as communism could only work in many countries...)

Lets compare and contrast fascism and communism
Similarities:
The revelutions.
Antiliberal.
Dictators/Strong leaders
Some how fail

Differences:
One everything is equal the other no one is equal (Like my beliefs but different hierchy)
Communist share fascist take
Communist make a 3rd world country 2nd world and fascism leaves the world type in tact (Stupid yea
Nazis made the first highway (Nazis are similar to fascist)
One is all about control the other is all about equality
One is the overall benefit the other is about individual benefit
One is about the working man the other could care less

"Why? Why should the worker control a business that they didn't take the time, money, and effort to create? Why can't someone who knows what they're doing manage their OWN business, instead of forcibly making perhaps a bunch of incompetent workers do it? "

questions New Genoa.

This is a very important contradiction that shouldn't be glossed over with idealism. There is a contradiction between leadership and the led, even in socialist society, and you are correct that a group of workers with no experiance in management probably couldn't manage a factory or public enterprise all by themselves, at first.

The solution is to gradually involve workers in the technical and managerial aspects of production, while attempting to erase the distinctions between worker, manager, and technician. Mao's Three-in-One committees are a relatively decent example of this. Workers are trained in these aspects of production, while technicians and managers also are required to take part in industrial labor alongside the people they oversee. For example.. you have a three part committee consisting of a section of workers, a section of Party cadre (ideological and political leaders), and manager-technicians. Each section has a different function: one takes part in productive labor, another manages the technical aspects of production, and the last oversees and addresses the concerns, questions, and ideas put forward by the workers themselves. After a certain period of time, the functions rotate: i.e. the worker section is in charge of the concern/complaint department for a week, the managers work, and the cadre oversee management. After this period, it's reversed; worker section takes on management, cadre work on the line... etc. And the committee itself is democratically elected and subject to immediate recall.

In this way, workers recieve the technical tools necessary to manage a shop or factory on their own while the interests of the ideological and managerial workers becomes more closely aligned with that of the workers themselves; until, eventually, the distinction between the two becomes meaningless.

This is an oversimplification really; Bob Avakian's "Grasp Revolution, Promote Production" is a good piece of work to look at in regards to this subject from a revolutionary communist perspective. And before somebody decides to flame the RCP, as often happens, for promoting Avakian's work too much, actually READ what he's saying and decide its merits for yourself. it should be available at www.rwor.org somewhere for online perusal.