NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello Everyone!

What category would you place Fascism under?

For what?

id put it under Fascism

"Failed" category

It's been growing a lot lately...

Sorry I was just writing the options and I didnt think it the Poll would post until I had finshed writing the options!

...My post still stands.

...My post still stands.Well a lot of Idelogies have failed over the last 100 years, including Democracy and Communism
Im betting your a communist? It wont come as a shock when you say that you are!

a combination between communism and conservative.

who put facism under communism?

they could not be more different.

in fact, the first people hitler went after were not the jews, but the communists (yes, there was a communist party in the democratic pre-hitler germany, as there is a communist party in today's american political system, although it is somewhat of a joke)

Well a lot of Idelogies have failed over the last 100 years, including Democracy and Communism
Im betting your a communist? It wont come as a shock when you say that you are!
Nope.

According to my political chart, I'm neither communist nor capitalist. I'm stuck in the middle. Like a bisexual stuck between a supermodel and a male model.

Bisexuals make for the best analogies. :D

I'd say a mixture of Conservativism, Communism and Capitalism.

Authoritarian Socialist - a facist desires both government economic control AND social control

Actualy, Fascism is it's own feild and cannot be labled with such political surnames. Sence Fascism wants to end politics in the nation by makeing it obsolete, it therfore ends the ideas of right and left. Fascism was built of both the right and left, accepting what it likes and ditching what it doesn't. It is rightist because it is patriotic and spiritual, but it is not conservative. Fascists believe that conservatives are guilty of misguided patriotism and slowing scientific proggress. Fascism is leftist in the sense that it supports such leftist ideas as syndicalism, and the guided state economy, but it is not liberal. Fascists believe liberalism to be the primary source of decadence in the world. While the old system pits patriotism against proggress, Fascism aims to unite them. You cannot have a nation to be proud of if the nation has no proggress, and there will never be proggress without a dynamic nation to promote it. Internationalism has failed at every turn. Fascism is other.

I think it'd be an easier question to answer if you'd stick with the Political Compass's terms for describing a political stance. By this I mean specify whether you mean their social policy or economic policy. You have conservative and liberal (social) and capitalistic and socialist (economic) on there.

a combination between communism and conservative.Fascism isnt Conserative at all. In fact its anti-conservative as Conservatives only ever want to keep the status-quo.
There is certainly some Communism in Fascism with the Revolutionary spirit and demand for better quality of life among working classes. But Fascism goes beyond Communism in that it doenst call for such self-destructive and pointless 'class war' it calls for class collaboration in improving the Social Conditions of a state/nation.

While it does not neatly fit any of the above, being truly its own category, fascist thought is essentially conservative... because it allows of no possibility for critique.

they could not be more different.
....um, actually, they're quite similar.

Fascism isnt Conserative at all. In fact its anti-conservative as Conservatives only ever want to keep the status-quo.
There is certainly some Communism in Fascism with the Revolutionary spirit and demand for better quality of life among working classes. But Fascism goes beyond Communism in that it doenst call for such self-destructive and pointless 'class war' it calls for class collaboration in improving the Social Conditions of a state/nation.

i ment conservative by authoritarian and communist by they are against belief in a god and wish to have all enterprise owned by the government.

No a Fascist State allways allows constructive criticism in the press or whereever. Criticism can be vital to a states development and progress and as such wont be restricted.

Fascism isnt Conserative at all. In fact its anti-conservative as Conservatives only ever want to keep the status-quo.

No, the main belief behind conservativism is that it emphasises tradition as a source of wisdom, legitimacy through prescription and all that.

Not a far cry away from Fascism

There is certainly some Communism in Fascism with the Revolutionary spirit and demand for better quality of life among working classes. But Fascism goes beyond Communism in that it doenst call for such self-destructive and pointless 'class war' it calls for class collaboration in improving the Social Conditions of a state/nation.

Fascism doesn't call for that.

And don't bring up Nazi electioneering, since that was soley to get as many votes as possible so that the party could enter the Reichstag as "wolves in sheeps clothing."

While it does not neatly fit any of the above, being truly its own category, fascist thought is essentially conservative... because it allows of no possibility for critique.
Which is decidedly not an aspect of political conservatism.

Fascism is state authoritarianism. So is communism and socialism.

I don't know why, but I think this Teu. guy will be remembered for a while.

No a Fascist State allways allows constructive criticism in the press or whereever. Criticism can be vital to a states development and progress and as such wont be restricted.
In a fascist state the government controls the press.

Fascism is state authoritarianism. So is communism and socialism.

Depends if you consider Anarchism as a school of thought within socialism or not.

Which is decidedly not an aspect of political conservatism.

What do you consider as aspects of political conservatism?

No, the main belief behind conservativism is that it emphasises tradition as a source of wisdom, legitimacy through prescription and all that.

Not a far cry away from Fascism But Fascism doesnt promote tradition as the solution to it's problems it promotes all-encompassing solutions that go beyond left or right political ideology and promotes 'progress' and not maintaining the 'statas quo' in it;s thinking.



Fascism doesn't call for that.

And don't bring up Nazi electioneering, since that was soley to get as many votes as possible so that the party could enter the Reichstag as "wolves in sheeps clothing."Thats exactly what Fascism calls for if you bothered to read the Doctrine of Fascism or any books that werent written by Liberals or Communists.
And for the record I couldnt care less about Hitler or Nazis. They wernt Fascists but I have allready expalined that in other threads.

Fascism is state authoritarianism. So is communism.

do you have any idea what you are talking about?

communism is an economic system, where the wealth is shared to everyone.

authoritarianism is a political system, where one figure is an absolute authority, unquestionable by the people below him.

yes, you can have an authoritarian communism, as the russians or chinese did

you can also have a democratic communism (none has existed yet)

you can have an authoritarian capitalism, as the british empire did (free trade, but with a queen)

you can have a democratic capitalism, as we have now in america.


authoritarianism<---------------------------> democracy

capitalism<-------------------------------> communism




fascism is a combination of authoritarian capitalism that ignores the needs of the people in order to maximize facilities in war.

one people that belives it is better than all others (with extreme patriotism to the nation and undying loyalty to the leader) and that anyone outside the 'social norm' are inferior and sub human. the first step is to opress the different inside the borders, and the next is to subjigate the rest of the world to it.

fascism does not exist without a military.

true communism (shared wealth and all that) cannot exist without the belief that all people are equal, no matter how different they are form the 'normal' and thus the communistic philosophy goes hand in hand with that of a democracy (which we never truly had in this country until women's suffrage, but that's for another time)

the fact that the people who put the communism into place in russia were corrupt and took the wealth for themselves, forsaking the people who put them into power and setting themselves up as dictators has no relationship to a true democratic communism.

Fascism is Authoritarian State Capitalism. The combination of politic and corporate.

And Anarchism is not contained within socialism. It is neither left nor right, it rejects all authority, all politics and all power. It is therefore an inherent rejection of the political spectrum.

In a fascist state the government controls the press.Yes but Constructive Criticism is still allowed believe or not.

as we saw in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, corporations were pretty much allowed to do what they wanted, at the expense of the working people. Both governments had good relationships with the business world, and they often used each others money/influence/power to accomplish their needs. I find these quotes to be very convincing:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."- Benito Mussolini

"Fascism is capitalism without the delusions."- Leon Trotsky

Fascism can be anything, the government may control everything, but it can still have a liberal mind set just as much as a conservative mindset. Fascism is it's own category...not it any sub-category...except for government technically. :)

Firstly, Nazism and Fascism are not the same thing. There is no racism in the entire Fascist doctrine. Secondly, socialism and communism were always supposed to be a democracy. Thirdly, as for conservatism, the whole tradition thing is basically apart of the right allready, without conservatism. Conservatists take it to such a level that change becomes impposible. Fascism is anti-conservatism. Fascism also introduced the idea that the press should tell the truth. If a paper can be proven lying than it can be punished. Anybody that is insulted by a paper or other media must have the freedom to defend himself himself through the same media outlet. This includes the nation. Fascism outlaws things like protests because under Fascism they are obsolete. No one should listen to you if you can't prove your serious about your veiws. So instead of yelling away, why not work yourself into a position where people will listen? If the enviroment for this exist, protests are no longer needed.

Fascism will use anything and everything to achieve it's ends. The enemy is always the other. Communists, capitalists, democrats, liberals, conservatives... all of them could use fascism, and all of them could be the enemies of the fascist state. Fascists only hold to one idea: power in the state.

you can also have a democratic communism (none has existed yet)
A few examples of democratic socialism are the Netherlands and Sweden.

But Fascism doesnt promote tradition as the solution to it's problems it promotes all-encompassing solutions that go beyond left or right political ideology and promotes 'progress' and not maintaining the 'statas quo' in it;s thinking.

It does hark back. The name is a dead give away. Typically fascists throw up great individuals in the nations history and generally hark back to a golden age that use to exist before the [insert group/ideology] took over.

Thats exactly what Fascism calls for if you bothered to read the Doctrine of Fascism or any books that werent written by Liberals or Communists.
And for the record I couldnt care less about Hitler or Nazis. They wernt Fascists but I have allready expalined that in other threads.

Books written by Liberals and Communists make up very little of my reading material.
I admit I have not read the "Doctrine of Fascism," but you seem to have. So I am sure that you can point to certain extracts that support that view.

And duely noted you don't consider the Nazis Fascist.

as we saw in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, corporations were pretty much allowed to do what they wanted,
No, corporations were allowed to do whatever the government told them to do.

Fascism can be anything, the government may control everything, but it can still have a liberal mind set just as much as a conservative mindset. Fascism is it's own category...not it any sub-category...except for government technically. :)


fascism is a form of government that falls under the political spectrum.

as i've already posted, it is an authoritarian capitalism with an unhealthy focus on the military.

fascism a big fan of natural selection, feeling that only the strongest companies survive, only the strongest people survive, and only the strongest races survive.

to ensure that only your race survives, it must eliminate all other races that it considers 'sub-human'

'join or die'

A few examples of democratic socialism are the Netherlands and Sweden.


i didn't say socialism, i said communism

socialism is a more subdued form of communism, but it is more than purely an economic system.

think of it as a watered-down form of communism with a bit of a democratic government thrown in.

communism can exist independent of government (ie: it can exist under any government)

socialism requires a certain kind of government to work

No, corporations were allowed to do whatever the government told them to do.

No, actually. Although they did often do the will of the government, the government supported them back by arresting all the socialists and trade unionists who fought against corporate oppresion. There were hardly any workplace or consumer safety regulations in Germany and Italy at that time. In the end, it was a mutally beneficial relationship at the expense of the people. See the Mussolini quote on my first post.

socialism is a more subdued form of communism, but it is more than purely an economic system.

Why is it that Socialism existed before Communism then?

No, corporations were allowed to do whatever the government told them to do.


any free-trade government will automatically have the backing of the big businesses.

the president has no real authority over the companies, but if he asks nicely, he can get them to work in his favor, because they know it will help them in the end.

same thing with fascism. it's not set in stone that they scratch eachother's backs, but it helps them both, so why not?

free trade = approval of the corporations

Why is it that Socialism existed before Communism then?


things get more and more extreme as time goes on.

socialism was a stepping stone to communism, as king/queendoms were a stepping stone to fascism

This is where non-fascists start telling real Fascists what were supposed to think.

"as i've already posted, it is an authoritarian capitalism with an unhealthy focus on the military."

China is authoritarian capitalism. Fascism is guided capitalism. Mussolini called it "Channeling the movement of capital to the benifet of the nation." It is like the soviet planned economy, but it still uses a tamed kind of capitalism with limits set to it to prevent crime. Fascism does not place anything unhealthy on the millitary. A Fascist state wants a millitary at least as big as any other. The millitary is the only way to protect the nation. Fascism supports the millitary, but no more than it does other matters, with full devotion and drive, because it veiws millitary values as good.


"to ensure that only your race survives, it must eliminate all other races that it considers 'sub-human'"

But thats an oxymoron. While Fascism does believe in social darwinism, it does not believe you have to take any action against others. The theory of social darwinism states that the weaker will collapse on their own. Fascism does not believe in race because it divides the state. Fascism allows companies to put each other out of business, but only if it was because one was more efficient or better quality. It ends the wage struggle by making wages equivalent to the technological power to produce. Internationaly it looks other nations right in the face and does what it needs to survive.

i didn't say socialism, i said communism

socialism is a more subdued form of communism, but it is more than purely an economic system.

think of it as a watered-down form of communism with a bit of a democratic government thrown in.

communism can exist independent of government (ie: it can exist under any government)

socialism requires a certain kind of government to work

As Lenin said, "The goal of socialism is communism". So I'll grant that it isn't true communism, however socialism is the means to the end. They're almost the same thing. I know, because I am one, and I use both terms, as well as most of the socialists/communists I know.

things get more and more extreme as time goes on.

socialism was a stepping stone to communism, as king/queendoms were a stepping stone to fascism
Really, you should try reading the 'Utopian' Socialists. Who were certainly extreme. Or even Bakunin,* one of the early anarchists.


*Whether Anarchism is socialist or not is neigther here nor there. Bakunin certainly considered himself a socialist.

This is where non-fascists start telling real Fascists what were supposed to think.

"as i've already posted, it is an authoritarian capitalism with an unhealthy focus on the military."

China is authoritarian capitalism. Fascism is guided capitalism. Mussolini called it "Channeling the movement of capital to the benifet of the nation." It is like the soviet planned economy, but it still uses a tamed kind of capitalism with limits set to it to prevent crime. Fascism does not place anything unhealthy on the millitary. A Fascist state wants a millitary at least as big as any other. The millitary is the only way to protect the nation. Fascism supports the millitary, but no more than it does other matters, with full devotion and drive, because it veiws millitary values as good.

fascist nations have militaries as large as any others, but the difference is what they do with them.

the fascism makes its people feel secure by bringing them into the 'group' and there is nothing that pleases the group better than seeing people who are not in the group 'get what is coming to them' (the he man woman hater's club hanging a 'no girls' sign on the treehouse door)

in order for the fascism to feel superior, they must prove it, and that is where the military comes into play.


"to ensure that only your race survives, it must eliminate all other races that it considers 'sub-human'"

But thats an oxymoron.

exactly

Fascism (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.Fascism)

It's not particularly close to any of those on the poll.

Fascism (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.Fascism)

It's not particularly close to any of those on the poll.


that's a good site

better than the other one.

Honestly, Fascism reminds me a lot of Marx's "dicatorship of the proletariat," as it tends to arise by legitimate means, then stamp out anything that doesn't agree with it.

First of all, anyone who put Fascism under communism hasn't clue one about either. Communism by definition is the lack of a state, usually refering to the condition where the state has withered and died. Fascism, on the other hand, refers to a state with a ruling oligarchy of absolute power. The two could not be more different.

The question that we are supposed to be answering itself is nonsensical. It is a great deal like asking is Red:

Blue
Green
White
Yello
A combination of the above
Other

Red is Red and Fascism is Fascism. It is it's own political ideology.

And no, it has nothing to do with the dictatorship of the proletarait. Dictatorship of th eproletariat refers to all working men being equal partners in running the socialist body. Fascism by its definition requires a narrow oligarchy.

Fascism is a combination of Economic Authoritarianism and Social Authoritarianism. The only people free of ties to it are libertarians.

Fascism is a combination of Economic Authoritarianism and Social Authoritarianism. The only people free of ties to it are libertarians.

i think you've made the most simple and agreeable answer of anyone yet.

Simplest perhaps, but he is absolutely wrong.

Libertarianism, in the American sense of the word, will invariably lead to a fascist ruling elite as more and more wealth is transfered to a smaller and smaller group and with wealth being equivalanet to power in a libertarian state, fascism is inevitable.

Socialism and communism on the other hand believe in economic democracy and social justice both, without the necessary result of a dictatorship or oligarchy.

Simplest perhaps, but he is absolutely wrong.

Libertarianism, in the American sense of the word, will invariably lead to a fascist ruling elite as more and more wealth is transfered to a smaller and smaller group and with wealth being equivalanet to power in a libertarian state, fascism is inevitable.

Socialism and communism on the other hand believe in economic democracy and social justice both, without the necessary result of a dictatorship or oligarchy.
Not if libertarian principles are accepted, and the necessary safeguards are in place (the night-watchman principle.) I an NOT advocating anarcho-capitalsim, as that is what you are thinking about.

Socialism denies the individual the economic liberty that is offered in a capitalist economic condition, and denying liberty is wrong. For liberty is not, as Marxists postulate, where necessity ends, but where choice begins. And one can make a choice involving how to fulfill their necessary needs.

Libertarian principles, mind you by the American definition fo the term is essentially that the state exists soley to protect from force and fraud.

However, as capitalism invariably does, the wealth will continue to get focused in the hands of the few resulting in all of the power being in the hands of the few. Once this happens the rich essentially become dictators. The state protections against force and fraud become moot because with all the money in the hands of the few, they are going to be incredibly corrupt, meaning they can literally get away with murder.

Capitalism contains no economic liberty. What capitalism does is it allows extorion of the proletariat by the Capitalist by threatening thme with death if they do not work. It will of course be argued that people can go itno business for themselves, but the capitalist powerhouses have already guarantteed that most start up businesses are going to fail if they enter into a realm where the capitalists can make significant profits there. It can also be argued that people get to choose their employer however they are all more or less the same. It is literally like a slave getting to pick the slave master. Doesn't make them any less of a slave.

What capitalism denies is the right to subsistance by forcing people to work for the capitalist or face death. Threatening people with death is not a right. Buying and selling people is not a right. This is why any argument that by denying capitalism you are denying rights is laughable.

I think Fascism is extremely-socially-authoritarian & economically centrist.

Libertarian principles, mind you by the American definition fo the term is essentially that the state exists soley to protect from force and fraud.



This counts as force or fraud. If people become so powerful that they challenge the government and begin to enter it's sphere, then there is a legitimate reason to break up the organization. There are safeguards.

[QUOTE=]Capitalism contains no economic liberty. What capitalism does is it allows extorion of the proletariat by the Capitalist by threatening thme with death if they do not work. It will of course be argued that people can go itno business for themselves, but the capitalist powerhouses have already guarantteed that most start up businesses are going to fail if they enter into a realm where the capitalists can make significant profits there. It can also be argued that people get to choose their employer however they are all more or less the same. It is literally like a slave getting to pick the slave master. Doesn't make them any less of a slave.
But that is totally untrue. A person can choose to do what they will with their lives. They can found their own business, they can work for the government, they can become a hermit if they damn well please. That is freedom, freedom to choose what you are going to do. In capitalism people are free individuals, then you can choose who to work for, you can form an agreement between two or more free individuals as to what you are going to be paid, and if you don't like your current job, then you can go do something else. No one is a slave in capitalism, as slavery implies a total lack of choice.

Meanwhile, in marxism, and other similar philosophies, you ARE a slave. You are indebted to society, just as cruel a master as any in the past. You are permanently indebted to society, involunatarily (unlike in capitalism, where debt is voluntarily incurred through living beyond your means.) There is no choice of master. And even though society provides all your needs for life, that is not freedom. After all, Southern plantation owners provided for the needs of their slaves. Did that make them any less slaves?

What capitalism denies is the right to subsistance by forcing people to work for the capitalist or face death. Threatening people with death is not a right. Buying and selling people is not a right. This is why any argument that by denying capitalism you are denying rights is laughable.
No one is threatening anyone with death. In fact, capitalism allows people to not work. Capitalists will very often found private philanthropical organizations. If someone wants to, they can mooch off of these freely offered resources. No, capitalism entails choice.

And beyond that, libertarianism leads individuals to value themselves above society, it leads them to value their responsibility to succeed. They respect their persons, the culture of everyone is directly in opposition to fascism, but...

socialism leads to an increased reliance and trust on the state, and this leads to an environment that is highly conducive to fascism.

you wanna know how to make a fascist?
take a petty bourgeois or upper proletarian european social democrat, make him walk to work beacause there is a transit strike, fire him from his job do to the firm moving to another country, then on his walk back home have him mugged by whatever immigrants are common to his nation. then have him stop at a bar filled with other people of a similar background who had a similar day, let them get good and drunk... chances are they will all be advocating a fascist platform long before last call... unfortunately most of them will have forgotten their epiphanies by the next morning.

socialism leads to an increased reliance and trust on the state, and this leads to an environment that is highly conducive to fascism.

except that the 'state' in fascism consists of a dictator.

by the very definition of the word 'democracy' ( demos=people cracy=government "the people's government") in a socialism(which, by its very nature is democratic) you are the government.

people trusting elected representatives for support does not lead to an unbreakable dependance on one single dictator, it leads to a greater trust in the common goals of the nation, and ultimately, the world.

except that the 'state' in fascism consists of a dictator.

by the very definition of the word 'democracy' ( demos=people cracy=government "the people's government") in a socialism(which, by its very nature is democratic) you are the government.

people trusting elected representatives for support does not lead to an unbreakable dependance on one single dictator, it leads to a greater trust in the common goals of the nation, and ultimately, the world.
Not necessarily, as a fascist state can rely upon a collective of a majority, which can be just as tyrranical as a dictator. For truthfully, are not mobs democratic? Do not mobs lynch people?

No, the reliance upon the state can lead to a tyranny more terrifying than any of any dictator.

Hey, I've got a busy day tomorrow, so I'm going to hit bed early, I'm off.



_

This counts as force or fraud. If people become so powerful that they challenge the government and begin to enter it's sphere, then there is a legitimate reason to break up the organization. There are safeguards. Quite frankly that runs absolutely contrary to Libertarian ideology. Once you start capping the wealth any individual or organization is allowed to achieve it is not libertarian because you ahve taken away from what you consider economic freedom.

But that is totally untrue. A person can choose to do what they will with their lives How many people have any real choice other than to sell their labor power to the capitalist? Very, very few. Those who have no other choice cannot be designated as free by any stretch. They can found their own business, Which is almost guranteed to fail because capitalism is deliberately stacked against start-ups and it will almost certainly costt hem everything int he attempt. It is a ton of risk on something almost guaranteed not to work. Yes, some businesses do make it, just like some people win the jackpots in a casino but the rule is the house always wins and the existing businesses are the house. they can work for the government, Which is still selling their labor power to the capitalist. they can become a hermit if they damn well please. Doubtfull, given the amount of unowned land out there zero. That is freedom, freedom to choose what you are going to do. That is slavery. They must work for the capitalist or almost certainly die. In capitalism people are free individuals, then you can choose who to work for, you can form an agreement between two or more free individuals as to what you are going to be paid, and if you don't like your current job, then you can go do something else. I reject your premise. It is not two free individuals, it is a capitalist forcing you to work for them under threat of death. You get to choose who you work for to a very limited extent but the point is that you are forced to work for someone, as is true of all top-down economic systems. If you leave, you are almost certainly going to be paid less and be treated just as badly. Not much of an option. No one is a slave in capitalism, as slavery implies a total lack of choice. Work for the capitalist or die. One choice is no choice.

Meanwhile, in marxism, and other similar philosophies, you ARE a slave. You are indebted to society, just as cruel a master as any in the past. You are permanently indebted to society, involunatarily (unlike in capitalism, where debt is voluntarily incurred through living beyond your means.) There is no choice of master. And even though society provides all your needs for life, that is not freedom. After all, Southern plantation owners provided for the needs of their slaves. Did that make them any less slaves? Where do you get this stuff? I don't think I have ever seen a less accurate account of socialism. You even put the people claiming Russia was communist to shame. Bravo.

You get to choose what field you work in, who you work with, you actually own the facilities you work on and in, you get the full value of the labor instead of part of it going to the capitalist, I get as much say as everyone else in running thihngs. If that is slavery then sign me up to be a slave.

No one is threatening anyone with death. In fact, capitalism allows people to not work. Capitalists will very often found private philanthropical organizations. If someone wants to, they can mooch off of these freely offered resources. No, capitalism entails choice. Those organizations seldom even provide for basic subsistence. That is hardly any way to exist and their resources are limited, meaning that finding one is no guarantee of surival, even if they take you in which is itself not guaranteed. Further, under libertarianism these organizations wouldn't exist because the tax code would be revamped to the point where the very reason they are created and funded, tax deductions, vanishes. It is the very government libertarians rail agaisnt that makes those thinks practical.

And beyond that, libertarianism leads individuals to value themselves above society, it leads them to value their responsibility to succeed. They respect their persons, the culture of everyone is directly in opposition to fascism, but...

socialism leads to an increased reliance and trust on the state, and this leads to an environment that is highly conducive to fascism.

Libertarianism merely leads to everyone being forced to serve under a handful of extremely wealthy dictators. Meanwhile, also libertarianism hinges on relying on the state to prevent force and fraud when the ultra wealthy mega corps are going to be able to comfortably fit any watchdog organizations set up in their pockets. The individual workers have virtually zero chance of succeeding either, any more so than the workers at Wal-Mart have chance of becoming president.

WTF? Socialism by its very nature IS the masses becoming the state to the point where state is indistinguishable from populous. To rely on the state in a socialist society is no different than relying on yourself.

Not necessarily, as a fascist state can rely upon a collective of a majority, which can be just as tyrranical as a dictator. For truthfully, are not mobs democratic? Do not mobs lynch people?

No, the reliance upon the state can lead to a tyranny more terrifying than any of any dictator.

that's called a tyranny by majority, and it's when 51% of the population takes the rights away from the other 49%

it's just as likely to happen no matter what economic system you are taking part in, and it's the bastardization of the democratic process.

ideally, a democracy is when the people protect and serve eachother. socialism and communism are simply the monetary incarnations of that.

Socialism by its very nature IS the masses becoming the state to the point where state is indistinguishable from populous. To rely on the state in a socialist society is no different than relying on yourself.

that's "yourself" in the plural sense.

Quite true, but the fact of every society ever conceived requires relying on others at some level. It is unavoidable. At least in socialism you are guaranteed a voice which is more than you get in capitalism.

Fascism is an Authoritarian Right-wing ideology. That would put it closest to conservatism among those poll options.

It's just corporate welfare. A mixture of bullsh*t ideas.

From a purely economic point of view, fascism is left of left.

From a purely social point of view, fascism is right of right.

Libertarianism merely leads to everyone being forced to serve under a handful of extremely wealthy dictators. Meanwhile, also libertarianism hinges on relying on the state to prevent force and fraud when the ultra wealthy mega corps are going to be able to comfortably fit any watchdog organizations set up in their pockets. The individual workers have virtually zero chance of succeeding either, any more so than the workers at Wal-Mart have chance of becoming president.

WTF? Socialism by its very nature IS the masses becoming the state to the point where state is indistinguishable from populous. To rely on the state in a socialist society is no different than relying on yourself.

Nice mind-creations.

Fascism is fascism, seeing you put nonsensical categories show you dont know anything about fascism (I know little to but i know its not in any category but fascism). Fascism is almost the direct opposite of communism.
The left of the diagram is less equal where right/down is more

Hitler's Nazism Fascism Absolutism Theocracism Constitutional Monarch/Democratic Republic Republic Real world Communism Direct Democracy Socialism Marxism Communism

Nazism is actually a Socialism in theory

the fascism makes its people feel secure by bringing them into the 'group' and there is nothing that pleases the group better than seeing people who are not in the group 'get what is coming to them'[QUOTE] This doesnt happen in a Fascist State and you show know evidence to support this. Your talking about persecuting people who arent in the Party? Well thats is what happen to people in East Germany. People who had wives or husbands that wernt in the Communist Party were made to feel rejected, unworthy and miserable and not important. No-where in any Fascist Doctrine does it say that you have to be a member of the ruling party.

[QUOTE]in order for the fascism to feel superior, they must prove it, and that is where the military comes into play. Yet again you are making baseless acuisations. Only Fascist Italy ever tried to expand itself but then again so did the Democracies like the USA, British Empire, Spain, France etc...

people trusting elected representatives for support does not lead to an unbreakable dependance on one single dictator, it leads to a greater trust in the common goals of the nation, and ultimately, the world.But today we are seeing the opposite, we are not seeing people trust the Democracies. A lot of the world doesnt trust Bush, Blair the main so-called 'democracies warriors'

People electing candidates on popularity has proven futile and outdated. What is the point in electing someone who in the end fails to do the job and then 4 years later another person comes along and you vote them into office and they are just as bad.
In a future Fascist state government positions, and this included city, state, regional, national and leadership positions will be done Meritocratically. Meritocracy will ensure that only the 'best' and 'most capable' get thourhg to positions where they can be best utilised. It will work as any promotion and demotion system does until the candidate was where they are best suited. In order to progress to another level they will have to prove themselves and can be instantly dismissed if they cant handle the job.
Different and harder test will be provided for them and they will have to pass each test before they can move up another rank.

This will ensure quality civil servants and get rid of overpaid 'career' politicians we have now!