NationStates Jolt Archive

Which of these four -isms would you want to live under (weather you would want to or not):

Fascism: some people are better than others because of their race, religion, parents etc. society does whatever it can to help these people reach their potential as it will help the rest of society in the long run.

Communism: all objects/ideas are owned by everyone in the society (could also mean nobody owns it); everyone has access to any resource that anyone else has access to

Feudalism: nearly everyone is a serf(slave) that works for their lord; in payback the serf for his/her labour the lord protects, feeds, and shelters the serf.

Anarchism: the federal government is non existant, local governments are in countrol of their areas; the governments have freedom to rule as the locals want

Hedonism.

Fascism or Feudalism if I were at the top of society, but throwing out that assumption I'd say Anarchism.

If it actually was proper theoretical communism, I'd choose that.
I don't like being oppressed, and in Anarchy the risk of meeting someone stronger than me is just too great...

Fascism or Feudalism if I were at the top of society, but throwing out that assumption I'd say Anarchism.
Feudalism and Fascism would be great if you were at the top. Odds are that you would be in the poor/inferior majority.

If it actually was proper theoretical communism, I'd choose that.I do mean proper theoretical communism

Anarchism for life man :)

Well, I assume we are assuming that we would be an average citizen.. So here goes:

The ability to own property and practice my religion how I choose is very important to me so thet rules out Feudalism and Communism.

Fascism is often limits basic human rights and requires people my age to go to war to preserve the restriction, so no to that one.

At least in Anarchism I could defend my property and say what I want, so that one.

Feudalisim is great its not about oppresion but about an agreement for one party to give ones decendents up for servertude forever and in return are garranteed a place to stay and protection.

Theoretical communism. 'Practical' will do, too.

Yet in realistic fashion, if communism on paper could exist instantaneously in the real world, it would be a fact of human experience that a bureaucracy would form, and society would go back to a state of government, one which would be highly corrupt. Because after all, theoretical communism is a state of governmentless society. But there is no way to maintain that status quo, because there is no way to control the urges to control and dominate.

The same sort of thing can be said about anarchy. It cannot be maintained because doing so would be against anarchy in principle. And in a society without laws or government, people would rise to power to restore or create a new order. It's a fact of life.

The same depressing things can be said about fascism and feudalism. Yet, at least with fascism it is stable to a degree, as long as you keep your mouth shut. And at least with fascism, the economy is a major factor in government administration and funding. I think I would grudgingly choose fascism.

Fascism, because I would find a way into an indispensible position.

I was struggling with Fascism and Feudalism i went with Feudalism as im clearly Noble but not even VolkDeutches(Sp) :p

I'm descended from Pomeranian nobility :) I guess I'd choose feudalism if I could use my blood-line to establish power. In fact, in Mecklenburg, is a castle once owned by my Kleweno family, before they were evicted by the National Socialists who made it a munitions warehouse. It's being used as a nursing home now. But I could have the castle given to me by the German government if I moved to Germany and was able to afford whatever property tax on the castle ;)

Feudalism, baby; party at Baron Drzhen's castle!

Theoretical communism. 'Practical' will do, too.
Seen that nightmare in practice... Really, nothing worth dying for or even working towards to. I know what I'm talking about - I'm from Poland.

"Communism" without state could do the work - so I picked up anarchism.

Anarchism, easy. It's like Communism, sans horrible logistics.

You guys who voted for anarchy, do realize that, not only can you kill whomever you want, but anybody could kill you at any time.

Feudalism would be the ism with the best economy. The economy would be free to advance as quickly as it wanted. There would also be a large rich-poor gap. Moving from serf to lord status would be nearly impossible, but moving from lord to serf staus would be quite easy. This ism has the potential for the best lifestyle and has a huge risk of individual economic failure.

Communism would be the opposite. There would be no risk of person failing finacially. All the safety-nets would cause economic growth to be quite slow.

Facism has the potential to be the most productive society. Focusing resourses on the smartest will cause new ideas and technologies to emerge quickly. Forced mating of the healthiest and the smartest would cause the future generations to be better inventors and could make healthcare unnessisary. Although there will be extensive discrimination and the least political freedoms.

Anarchism would put the individual befor the society. The government would only exists to ensure that anarchy exists, and has as little power as is nessisary to do so. Lack of government standardization would cause problems for people developing new ideas, many ideas would have to be reinvented in each region.

Anarchism: people are totally free to do what they want, when they want; whether they want to walk their dog or kill another person, they are free to do so

Hmm, note to self, read post before voting.

My view on Anarchism is similar that of theoretical communism. I don't think the traditional definition of "anarchy" fits the actual political model. Would any society, with or without government, stand for someone wantonly killing people? So I should have voted Communism. Oh well.

You guys who voted for anarchy, do realize that, not only can you kill whomever you want, but anybody could kill you at any time.

For me, that is preferable to somebody taking my property away (feudalism, communism) or taking my rights away (fascism). I figure I’d die actively fighting a communist government or a feudal government, and I would probably be killed for criticizing El Duce in fascism. At least in anarchism, the people I’m fighting are not more powerful than me.

Would any society, with or without government, stand for someone wantonly killing people? So I should have voted Communism. Oh well.

It would probably end up like the old west. When somebody commits a murder, the town would just get together and hang them

You guys who voted for anarchy, do realize that, not only can you kill whomever you want, but anybody could kill you at any time.
I don't think I would kill anyone, and I would probably not have greater risk of getting killed than in any of the other. People in general like having friends and partners and wealth, they don't like warring. Thus, if no one had the power to force others into things they don't want the "good guys" could gang up and outgun any of the "bad guys" who disturbed the peace whenever nececssary, while being free to think of constructive things most of the time. In any of the other systems, some of those I call bad guys would be in power all the time, so anarchy couldn't possibly be worse.

It would probably end up like the old west. When somebody commits a murder, the town would just get together and hang them
Being free to kill someone means people can kill you back. While the government will not do anything about it, the people can.

All the isms should be equal. Each one gives something up but gains something in return.

As much as I hate to say this, fascism would be the most lenient and civilized choice on the list.

I'd like Fascism as long as it were ME in charge, if not then Anarchism.

IF I CAN'T BE IN CHARGE THEN NOONE CAN. Grrrr.

At least you're allowed to change jobs and get paid for your work. Under communism, you're either a production line slave, cannon fodder or secret police agent. At least fascism citizens don't have to worry about their stomachs or spying on one another.

Because I live (too) near Russia and think that the next World War will be fought sooner or later, I think communism.

Personally, I prefer Rastafarianism. There aren't many rules, you're in a very exclusive group, and they have those kewl hats to wear. :)

Fascism. Definatley.

1. Snappy uniforms look damn good on me
2. The world is heading for it closed eyes at full speed, so we'd better get used to the thought

Fascism. Definatley.

1. Snappy uniforms look damn good on me

Why did I forget about that one? I admire Nazi uniforms, but loathe the ideology.

http://www.1944militaria.com/ystrapft.jpg

At least under fascism, you fight for your country and race. Not for some false ideology made up by a traitor of the Jews!

Personally, I prefer Rastafarianism. There aren't many rules, you're in a very exclusive group, and they have those kewl hats to wear. :)

“Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.”

- Adolf Hitler

I don't see how Jamaica's a very successful country. It's got an out off control murder rate.

Kewl hat? At least a Wehrmacht hat looks like a hat!

http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/v/visor-heer-general-1.jpghttp://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/v/visor-heer-general-2.jpg

If wars were fought on the coolness of hats, the Nazis would rule the universe.

If wars were fought on the coolness of hats, the Nazis would rule the universe.

Seig heil to that comment!

The Nazis have the best uniforms in history to date. The current Chinese service uniforms only match up closely. That's partly because they've borrowed some Wehrmacht styles, some U.S. styles and Chinese uniqueness.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/china.army.ap/story.china.pla.afp.jpg

I choose you, anarchism.

As much as I hate to say this, fascism would be the most lenient and civilized choice on the list.
Why so? Your point of view was the reason why the Nazist taken over Germany and triggered WWII. Because everyone thought that this "law & order" thing will be better for everyone! In Poland even Jews said "at least he will bring order". Look what happened thereafter... The only reason why history repeat itself is because people just don't get any point from past generations... What do you support? Uniformed society? Corporative economy? Cool flag? Or maybe war and Holocaust? I see NOTHING civilised in wars and genocide...

You guys who voted for anarchy, do realize that, not only can you kill whomever you want, but anybody could kill you at any time.
Anarchism is not anarchy! Anarchism doesn't mean disorder - it means self-organisation. You may say that it's utopian idealism but you can't say it's about giving freedom to kill whoever you want. Just read some Anarchist FAQ. Saying otherwise is just ignorance.

Why so? Your point of view was the reason why the Nazist taken over Germany and triggered WWII. Because everyone thought that this "law & order" thing will be better for everyone! In Poland even Jews said "at least he will bring order". Look what happened thereafter... The only reason why history repeat itself is because people just don't get any point from past generations... What do you support? Uniformed society? Corporative economy? Cool flag? Or maybe war and Holocaust? I see NOTHING civilised in wars and genocide...


Anarchism is not anarchy! Anarchism doesn't mean disorder - it means self-organisation. You may say that it's utopian idealism but you can't say it's about giving freedom to kill whoever you want. Just read some Anarchist FAQ. Saying otherwise is just ignorance.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO someone's grumpy. :D

Why so? Your point of view was the reason why the Nazist taken over Germany and triggered WWII. Because everyone thought that this "law & order" thing will be better for everyone! In Poland even Jews said "at least he will bring order". Look what happened thereafter... The only reason why history repeat itself is because people just don't get any point from past generations... What do you support? Uniformed society? Corporative economy? Cool flag? Or maybe war and Holocaust? I see NOTHING civilised in wars and genocide...

At least Hitler rebuild Germany in such a short time. He turned a loser country into a world power. If his war plans were more patient, there's also a chance of a Nazi conquest of Europe.

What do I support? I support nationalism ('bout time my race stand up for themselves), capitalism (the only economic theory that is true), conservatism (liberals disguise corruption as progress), endorsement of scientific education (we need more engineers, inventors and scientists for a more advanced future), and militarism (only by threatening war can peace be maintained). I've said this many times before (in other threads), I admire Hitler's nationalism (how he managed to rally the spirit of all Germans behind him and rebuild Germany so quickly), but not his racism (I sympathize with the Jews because of their millenium of suffering, leading to an undying spirit of nationalism).

Vote RED

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO someone's grumpy. :D

Yeah, PMS happens here.

Facism without the racist overtones of the Nazis.

I crave order and stability. More than that I want to be in control.

To keep that control the Special Police would "keep files" on everyone.

Hardened criminals would be treated as non-citizens, ie no right to vote in the people's council.

The people's council would administer the day to day dealings of the government and I as Lord Protector would be able to veto any bill passed by the people's council.

States and protectorates would be looked after by governors, which I hand pick.

Not that I have put any thought into this at all...

Vote RED

I don't know what color Spanish communists preferred to wear. They must have loved the attention from charging bulls.

I would never go for neither communism nor fascism (no guarantee that you will be appropriately fed).
Especially when thinking of communism, one can understand that it is a utopia and it is just impossible to apply it to humanity. Fascism is not that good either because of the constant threat of war, one leader decides to go to war and its people don't really have a say about it (I mean they can't even protest and politely disagree).
Anarchism sucks also because it just means no government at all, and that is impossible as one would expect the fittest would survive and the weakest people will ultimately be persecuted or die. (ie Social Darwinism, the "survival of the fittest").
Therefore, I had to choose, reluctantly, feudalism. At least in feudalism, there is a guarantee that people will be fed and will not die (that also, surely, depends on the lord's wishes), but at least there is a possibility that if the lord is not a bad guy, and that he is somewhat kind, you can easily survive in a feudal society. Of course, doesn't mean you have the same rights as the lord but at least you can be treated fairly and have enough to survive.
Thus, from such a difficult choice, in my view, feudalism is the one that makes most sense.

At least Hitler rebuild Germany in such a short time. He turned a loser country into a world power. If his war plans were more patient, there's also a chance of a Nazi conquest of Europe.

What do I support? I support nationalism ('bout time my race stand up for themselves), capitalism (the only economic theory that is true), conservatism (liberals disguise corruption as progress), endorsement of scientific education (we need more engineers, inventors and scientists for a more advanced future), and militarism (only by threatening war can peace be maintained). I've said this many times before (in other threads), I admire Hitler's nationalism (how he managed to rally the spirit of all Germans behind him and rebuild Germany so quickly), but not his racism (I sympathize with the Jews because of their millenium of suffering, leading to an undying spirit of nationalism).
He did not rebuild germany. All Hitler did was build a weapons industry/army, make people feel that they sacrificed for the war instead of suffered for the defeat (though they had the same shortages) and blow up a lot of things before anyone had time to react. He did not achieve anything positive (unless you think "rally the spirit of all germans" behind genocide was good).

Also, you are way off if you think that nazis and fascist support capitalism and science. The nazi economic system was "Zwangswirtschaft". If you don't know what economic fascism is you may think of it as socialism without equility but with militarism. The state determined who produced what, how it was produced, to whom it was sold and at what price. There is no element of capitalism in that. As for science, the only "science" that fared well was race-pseudobiology and the kind of technology that Hitler thought was good for the war effort. There was close to no academic freedom, to make "research" you had to say things the nazis liked. For example modern physics was entirely suppressed until Hitler heard of the atomic bomb.

Seen that nightmare in practice... Really, nothing worth dying for or even working towards to. I know what I'm talking about - I'm from Poland.

...
Take a look at my profile, and you'll know that I lived under Communist government. That was no piece of cake, but no nightmare either.

Take a look at my profile, and you'll know that I lived under Communist government. That was no piece of cake, but no nightmare either.

doesn't work

doesn't work
Quite so. A verry bad system... but for me it's 'been there, done that', so it wins over fascism, feudalism, and anarchism.

Feudalisim is great its not about oppresion but about an agreement for one party to give ones decendents up for servertude forever and in return are garranteed a place to stay and protection.

Feudalism:
I get a place to stay from someone - the noble - who doesn't legally own it. He grants me that place to stay just because he took it away from me by force.
And the only danger he protects me from, is another noble who would do nothing else than grant me a place to stay and protect me from other nobels.
And of course live a life in luxury from the profit he makes on my labor.
Seems to me, feudalism and capitalism are almost the same thing.

Especially when thinking of communism, one can understand that it is a utopia and it is just impossible to apply it to humanity.

can you please read up on communism before posting about it. the only thing stopping communism from working is people who dont think it'l work. it did work for thousands of years in nomadic/tribal society.

Anarchism sucks also because it just means no government at all, and that is impossible as one would expect the fittest would survive and the weakest people will ultimately be persecuted or die. (ie Social Darwinism, the "survival of the fittest").

anarchism is not impossible, it is currently operating on a large scale system throughout the world. the UN is the only type of world government that is operating at the moment, and thatis not verry powerfull at all, when you consider what america did with iraq. (i'm not saying that what they did to iraq was bad, i am not stating an opinion. it is fact, the UN did not sanction the war on iraq)

capitalism (the only economic theory that is true)...conservatism (liberals disguise corruption as progress)...militarism (only by threatening war can peace be maintained)
1. capitalism is not an ecenomic theory, it is an economic system and therefore cannot be true or false, only efficient and effective.
2. conservatism and liberalism have nothing to do with corruption and progress.
3. militarism is no different from terrorism, and look what that has done to the world.

with that out of the way, i support communism.
there is so much more freedom in communism (see "the bourgeoisie and the prolitariat" from "communist manifesto" by marx and engles)
and everyone is equal, no racial prejudice, no exploitation of the worker, no slave labour. no free-for-all or anything goes

Anarchism is not anarchy! Anarchism doesn't mean disorder - it means self-organisation. You may say that it's utopian idealism but you can't say it's about giving freedom to kill whoever you want. Just read some Anarchist FAQ. Saying otherwise is just ignorance.

No, Anarchism does mean anarchy, because the fact is as soon as this happened everyone with a gun would go and take everything they could from everyone without a gun. (Ok, it wouldn't be quite that extreme, but on a global rather than county scale that's the way it would work.) That's just how it would work. You can't seriously believe - and this goes to you Communists as well - that it is wise and intelligent to build an economic or social model based on what you would like Humans to be, instead of what Humans are.

there is so much more freedom in communism (see "the bourgeoisie and the prolitariat" from "communist manifesto" by marx and engles)

!!! ^^; That's the funniest thing I've read for days! I thank you.

Having said that, it would depend on a few factors. I'm most tempted by Feudalism; if the Lord were reasonably kind and reasonably wise, I wouldn't have too much of a problem there. The only other option is, surprisingly, Anarchism; mainly because then I would have the chance to defend myself and wait it out until various ruling groups formed, and then I could join the most reasonable one of those.

Feudalism:
I get a place to stay from someone - the noble - who doesn't legally own it. He grants me that place to stay just because he took it away from me by force.
And the only danger he protects me from, is another noble who would do nothing else than grant me a place to stay and protect me from other nobels.
And of course live a life in luxury from the profit he makes on my labor.
Seems to me, feudalism and capitalism are almost the same thing.

:rolleyes:

can you please read up on communism before posting about it. the only thing stopping communism from working is people who dont think it'l work. it did work for thousands of years in nomadic/tribal society.

Hmm, I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that tribal and nomadic societies didn’t have Millions of people. Also, those society were extremely regimented and had class divisions. Not communist at all.

anarchism is not impossible, it is currently operating on a large scale system throughout the world. the UN is the only type of world government that is operating at the moment, and thatis not verry powerfull at all, when you consider what america did with iraq. (i'm not saying that what they did to iraq was bad, i am not stating an opinion. it is fact, the UN did not sanction the war on iraq)

The UN, doesn’t resemble anarchism , even metaphorically. Do you know how much bureaucracy and red tape it has? Quite a bit.

1. capitalism is not an ecenomic theory, it is an economic system and therefore cannot be true or false, only efficient and effective.

Which capitalism is.

2. conservatism and liberalism have nothing to do with corruption and progress.

Sure they do. People that subscribe to those narrow ideologies cause it.

3. militarism is no different from terrorism, and look what that has done to the world.

Ooh, a fun game! Let’s see,
Medical research is no different from HIV, and look what that has done to the world.

with that out of the way, i support communism.
there is so much more freedom in communism (see "the bourgeoisie and the prolitariat" from "communist manifesto" by marx and engles)
and everyone is equal, no racial prejudice, no exploitation of the worker, no slave labour. no free-for-all or anything goes

Yep. In the ideal communist state, everyone is poor, not just a few people. On top of that, they are all expressionless cogs in the machine. Nice goal. :rolleyes:

Hmm...

Oppression, conscription, and human rights abuse don't sound particularly appealing, so that rules out fascism.

I don't want to live out my entire life as a slave, working the land for a lord to take my produce and sell it back to me at inflated prices before going back to my hovel. No feudalism for me, thanks.

Anarchism looks good at a distance, but in an anarchic society there will always be some asshat who takes over and sets up a fascist or feudal society.

So that leaves communism. I'm not particularly happy about that, but its probably the best of them.

I'm descended from Pomeranian nobility :) I guess I'd choose feudalism if I could use my blood-line to establish power. In fact, in Mecklenburg, is a castle once owned by my Kleweno family, before they were evicted by the National Socialists who made it a munitions warehouse. It's being used as a nursing home now. But I could have the castle given to me by the German government if I moved to Germany and was able to afford whatever property tax on the castle ;)

Feudalism, baby; party at Baron Drzhen's castle!

Whatever. When the revolution comes, you'd be one of the first against the wall. ;)

At least you're allowed to change jobs and get paid for your work. Under communism, you're either a production line slave, cannon fodder or secret police agent. At least fascism citizens don't have to worry about their stomachs or spying on one another.
Emm... Remember the Gestapo? Secret police in a fascist society. Thousands were thrown into concentration camps for questioning/opposing the sate in Nazu Germany.
And seems like people have a weird concept of anarchism. People are no more free to murder under anarchism than they are under democracy. Anarchism, to my understanding anyways, means only no government, not no laws. The word you should use to describe the state you call anarchy is anomie - orderless chaos.

@Zrrylarg: What existed for thousands of years was more like anarchism than communism, but the two are fluffy and merge together somewhat. Unfortunately, it only operated on small scales - still does, in some tribal societies. And the anarchism that operates on the world scale is totally different from the anarchism that would operate on a smaller scale. It probably should be called anomie or chaos, rather than anarchy. And I'd call capitalism an economic theory. Whether it is actually true is something I'm beginning to doubt. And for anyone who is exploding there, please explain to me the humongous differential in wages and costs of living, which don't jibe with the laws of a free market.

@Begark: The 'anarchy' you describe is, as I keep saying, actually anomie. And it is the system that more or less exists on a global scale today - with the minor controlling influence of supranational organisations like the UN and the EU. I agree with you about basing a societal model on ideal humans - that's why I'm no longer a communist.

@Undelia: Saying that "Medical research is no different from HIV" is the same kind of comparison as "militarism is no different from terrorism" is totally false. He's comparing two... not exactly ideologies, more like viewpoints/methods of doing something, whereas you are comparing, basically, a cure with a disease. I'm assuming you meant us to take that, yeah? Militarism a cure for terrorism? Riiiiight.

EDIT: Forget to mention, I'm voting anarchism. Idealistically, I'm an anarcho-communist. Realistically, the system we have is better than any of the above, unless people change. Fascism is a corporate state - no thanks. Communism - well, that worked so well, didn't it? Nice ideology, at least parts of it, but implementation? Ouch. Feudalism? I don't fancy living in a mud hut and eating turnips for the rest of my life. So anarchism wins out. And if anyone says anything along the lines of "But anyone can come along and murder you", I will scream. Same goes for democracy duckies! And, like I said, in anarchism, there are rules, just no government. Basically, it's direct democracy.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO someone's grumpy. :D
Because you disagree with me doesn't mean that you are justifed to insult me.
Take a look at my profile, and you'll know that I lived under Communist government. That was no piece of cake, but no nightmare either.
It depends on who you where in this system. It's fine until you happen to be "trouble-maker". This also applies to all "non-official" (i.e. illegal, non-party, pro-democratic, etc.) labour unions.
No, Anarchism does mean anarchy (...) You can't seriously believe - and this goes to you Communists as well - that it is wise and intelligent to build an economic or social model based on what you would like Humans to be, instead of what Humans are.
Please, tell me how humans behave. Maybe you have an answer better then scientific psychology or meta-physical religion.

Most people have a warped view of anarchy which is "you can do whatever you want and there is no order".

No.

Anarchism does not mean loss of order. Anarchism means loss of federal government. Local governments would have control over their own areas, which would work in theory because you're dealing with small groups of people, and a local council is better at making a decision for that area than people hundreds of miles away who have never even been there.

However it's never really been tested.

Look at all the Commies!

No Socialism? :(

Theoretical communism is a grand idea, but it does just not work today.

Hedonism.
Yes I concur and welcome back Gymoor!! :)

Unlike most of those, fuelisim offers you protection. So what if I had to be a serf? At least I'd be safe.

No Socialism? :(

Theoretical communism is a grand idea, but it does just not work today.

Yeah, why no Socialism?

But with Socialism absent I picked communism, becuase on a small scale it can work. Even better than that though, I still get to retain my personal rights.

You guys who voted for anarchy, do realize that, not only can you kill whomever you want, but anybody could kill you at any time.
i voted anarchism because that "killing is legal" part means that law and order would be born and enforced on the local level according to local needs. if some asshole is going around killing people, then others will band together to stop him. unlike now where we rely on "outsiders" to take care of our problems.

i voted anarchism because i didnt like any of the choices. it seemed to me that anarchism offered the most control over my own life. if i get along with my neighbors and work hard, my life has a good chance to be OK.

I don't know what color Spanish communists preferred to wear. They must have loved the attention from charging bulls.

We are talking about colour blind animals here, you do realise that?

Anachism ... HotRodia

Good lord, I didn't realise you were a fellow traveller, or is it just the least worse of the four options for you?

The UN, doesn’t resemble anarchism , even metaphorically. Do you know how much bureaucracy and red tape it has? Quite a bit.


I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant we don't have a global government - thus, we have global anarchy. Bigger countries can push smaller countries around.

Unlike most of those, fuelisim offers you protection. So what if I had to be a serf? At least I'd be safe.
Except Lord's wars and total restriction of your rights. You have to belive in what you are told you to belive. You can't leave village without Lord's approval, you can't do anything if your wife or daughter is raped by someone with higher status... Where's that safety?

Fascism is fuelled by prejudice and hate.

Anarchism is fuelled by the egos of those emotionally weak enough to disregard others.

Feudalism is the establishment of a slave state.

I'd choose utop--er, communism.

However it's never really been tested.
It has. The Goths were under a system of anarchy for a time. Look how long that lasted.

Anarchism is fuelled by the egos of those emotionally weak enough to disregard others.

...

I'd choose utop--er, communism.

Pop quiz time: what type is the final state which communism seeks to bring into being?


Hint: The answer starts with 'a' and ends with '-narchist'.

*rubs chin thoughtfully*

Hmm... after careful consideration...

I choose Alcoholism. :D

...

It depends on who you where in this system. It's fine until you happen to be "trouble-maker". This also applies to all "non-official" (i.e. illegal, non-party, pro-democratic, etc.) labour unions.

...
Same thing with fascism and feudalism -- those systems tend to tolerate no troublemaking as well.

If the Soviet Union were to survive into the 21st Century, I think I would be a doctor, the same way as it is now.

Anarchism here.

Completely free from the economic and social constraints of society, I would probably go and live in the woods or somewhere that the gangs of violent looters probably wouldn't come looking for me.

I could steal myself some clothes and survival gear, hunt my own food, brew my own booze, and I wouldn't have to pay any taxes or adhere to any of society's rules and regulations.

Under the other three options I would always be serving somebody or something else, but in an anarchy situation I could take care of myself exclusively.

Fascism, as it would provide the most stable environment of the choices allowed.
It would also provide fodder for revolution and plant the seeds for cooperative rebellion.

I would probably prefer either fascism or feudalism. It really depends on how much either of those institutions would interfere with the practical necessities of life. I would probably pick fascism over feudalism because I could get power and chicks with greater ease.

I would not like communism because of fact that I do not wish to share toothbrushes, and because of the fallacy of the commons(I might not mind a socialist state like the USSR so long as I get some proper prestige).

I also would hate anarchism, I would in that situation become a hermit or try to find an organization that was planning to bring in a totalitarian government in through military dominance. Man was never meant to be as free as the anarchists desire.

I guess I'll have to go with fuedalism, as the lesser of four evils. Personally, I'd rather not be in any of those systems.

I'd love to live in an anarchy, because there would be no federal government to raise an army and stop me. It'd be so much simpler for me to build my perfect utopian society. :p

I'd love to live in an anarchy, because there would be no federal government to raise an army and stop me. It'd be so much simpler for me to build my perfect utopian society. :p

Unless of course a mob came to your perfect society and started killing and raping things.(yeah, my totalitarian group would end up the same way)

I voted for Anachism, 'cause I like Ana.

Oh - you meant Anarchism?

Well, that would be better than the other "isms" you've allowed us a choice of, anywho.

I am torn between Communism (complete control and safety) and anarchism (complete freedom). I chose the latter, as it has a more positive statement to make about faith in human beings.

Unless of course a mob came to your perfect society and started killing and raping things.(yeah, my totalitarian group would end up the same way)So would feudalism - ask the Romanovs

Anarchism because I am an anarchist (specifically an anarcho-communist). Communism is basically a form of anarchy, actually (Marx actually explained this, though briefly). Fascism and feudalism suck, though. Too hierarchial and authoritarian.

If you've got a big enough gun, anarchism WORKS. Just give me a second to find my Rocket Propelled Nuclear Grenade launcher and we'll see what we can do...

Anarchism because I am an anarchist (specifically an anarcho-communist). Communism is basically a form of anarchy, actually (Marx actually explained this, though briefly).
Maybe it is at "the end of the world" beacuase Marx belived that vicotory of Communism will be the end of the history as we know it. Is we see it - history survived, Communism didn't. I'm social anarchist but we sometimes have hard times with local commies. Besides communism in practice is very close to fascism, not anarchism. Some ideas are good, maybe most - but some of them (i.e. statism) made all "socialist states" corrupted.

Anarchism, just for the hell of it.

So would feudalism - ask the Romanovs
They were already capitalists when the dynasty fell.

Please, tell me how humans behave. Maybe you have an answer better then scientific psychology or meta-physical religion.

Humans behave with the intent of looking out for themselves and their families first. They cannot empathise easily with others - you might say "Oh God, that's terrible!" when you see a news report about X, and you might even raise some money for it. But at the end of the day, you care about yourself first and others second. Communist societies can't work because Humanity has to be forced to work in some way or another, but at least in Capitalism it's because you get something out of it, not because you will be shot if you don't. Anarchy doesn't work because Humanity doesn't have a broad enough sense of community - anarchy might work fine for your subdivision/housing estate/village, maybe even for a small town, but once it gets to the point where there are more people you don't know than you do know, you're getting into a situation where people will feel little, if any, empathy and therefore, crime gets opened up. The only response is a vigilante group of some sort, which will probably end up taking power.

Unless of course a mob came to your perfect society and started killing and raping things.(yeah, my totalitarian group would end up the same way)
That's what machine guns are for. :p

I'm an Anarcho-Socialist, guess what I voted?

Anarchism, most definately!

I support democracy, so fascism...nah
I am a huge capitalist, so uhhh....commies!
I am a lazy ass and don't feel like working for other people so, Feudalism is out of question

But with anarchism I can finally kill all the people I hate and torch my neighbors house, THAT, would be swell!

Why so? Your point of view was the reason why the Nazist taken over Germany and triggered WWII. Because everyone thought that this "law & order" thing will be better for everyone! In Poland even Jews said "at least he will bring order". Look what happened thereafter... The only reason why history repeat itself is because people just don't get any point from past generations... What do you support? Uniformed society? Corporative economy? Cool flag? Or maybe war and Holocaust? I see NOTHING civilised in wars and genocide...


Anarchism is not anarchy! Anarchism doesn't mean disorder - it means self-organisation. You may say that it's utopian idealism but you can't say it's about giving freedom to kill whoever you want. Just read some Anarchist FAQ. Saying otherwise is just ignorance.
Anarchy is the polar opposite of whatever form of government is at the other extreme, perhaps Stalinism? Stalinism is order at the expense of anything and everything else. Anarchy is disorder at the expense of anything and everything else. It isn't just a rather extreme form of Libertarianism ... the term is very specific and doesn't allow for a lot of leeway. When you define a social system, you can't even include anarchy because it's the absence of any social system.

"Self-organisation" is a social and political technique, not a form of government. Democracies are self-organized. Most Libertarian forms of government as self-organized. Anarchy, by definition is not only not "self-organized," it's not organized at all. Anarchy is the absense of any social organization.

What you are tihking of may be an extreme form of Libertarianism, but it's not anarchy.

Anarchy, by definition is not only not "self-organized," it's not organized at all. Anarchy is the absense of any social organization.

The point about anarchism is not that it is an absence of social organisation, instead it is an absence of heirarchical social organisation (or stratification, if you prefer). Anarchism depends heavily upon organisation: this can be seen whether you are looking at the smallest scrappiest anarchist collective, or at the anarchist brigades of the Spanish and Russian Civil Wars.

@Undelia: Saying that "Medical research is no different from HIV" is the same kind of comparison as "militarism is no different from terrorism" is totally false. He's comparing two... not exactly ideologies, more like viewpoints/methods of doing something, whereas you are comparing, basically, a cure with a disease. I'm assuming you meant us to take that, yeah? Militarism a cure for terrorism? Riiiiight.

I see you utterly failed to grasp the metaphor. Medical research has yet to and may never cure HIV, yet research is not like HIV. Militarism has not yet to and may never cure terrorism. That does not mean it is terrorism. Obviously preventative measures should be applied to both of these afflictions, so they do not occur in the fist place and require a possible "cure".

Obviously preventative measures should be applied to both of these afflictions, so they do not occur in the fist place and require a possible "cure".

So, are you saying that whenever one is covertly supplying weapons to despotic warlords in foreign countries in order to destabilise a hostile regime, one should always wear a condom?

Anarchism: people are totally free to do what they want, when they want; whether they want to walk their dog or kill another person, they are free to do so
It's prolly been pointed out already, but that's not what anarchism is. Anarchy and chaos are two very different things.

Too bad I clicked the poll before I read your premise..

So, are you saying that whenever one is covertly supplying weapons to despotic warlords in foreign countries in order to destabilise a hostile regime, one should always wear a condom?

Funny. No, I’m saying that good boarder security prevents penetration by terrorists.

Unfortunately, feudalism is greatly misunderstood by most people today.

People had much greater social mobility in feudalism than in capitalism:

1. if you happened to help a young marquis jumping out of the window of neighbouring liege's wife's bedroom, you could become a gentry;

2. peasants wondered all over Europe/India/China (and all other feudalist societies) as "pilgrims" -- alleging that their loyalty to a higher idea superceded the obligation to the overlord;

3. if you prefered joining a monastery to toiling land, you were free to do so (i.e in Christianity and Buddhism -- in Hindhuism, that would be an ashram and in Islam there were no monasteries, but for males there were derwish orders);

4. for men there was a possibility to join mercenaries.

In capitalism, impoverished masses couldn't afford to stop working in a copper mine excpet perhaps on a Sunday afternoon.

To wit: feudalism was the most humane social order in human history.

In capitalism, impoverished masses couldn't afford to stop working in a copper mine excpet perhaps on a Sunday afternoon.

The US is still predominantly capitalistic, and plenty of people seem to climb the ladder just fine.

Yeah, why no Socialism?

But with Socialism absent I picked communism, becuase on a small scale it can work. Even better than that though, I still get to retain my personal rights.Socialism is not an option because it is basicly a less extreme version of communism. If you look at the rest of the options they are all extreme choices.

Humans behave with the intent of looking out for themselves and their families first. They cannot empathise easily with others
That's true. I don't see anything contradictory towards anarchism.
Anarchy doesn't work because Humanity doesn't have a broad enough sense of community - anarchy might work fine for your subdivision/housing estate/village, maybe even for a small town, but once it gets to the point where there are more people you don't know than you do know, you're getting into a situation where people will feel little, if any, empathy and therefore, crime gets opened up. The only response is a vigilante group of some sort, which will probably end up taking power.
They do have sense of community but situation what you are talking about is a good point. The problem lies not in basic human behavior (and humans are social creatures - we know that from the begining - read Aristotele for example) but in social structure. Capitalism alienates I know this from my personal life. There is a significant problem about labour rights in capitalism - that when they are not strong enough to support people wanting to make their own unions - they start to alienate, isolate and even, as a result of previous, to cooperate with employer against other employees. It's against their own interest because they loose wages and vacation time. Through mass-media and adverts we are bombarded with stereotypes and neo-liberalist ideology. Look at VERY capitalist Japan - the number of wackos and suicides is extremely high - that's what capitalism leads to - alienation. That leads to hightened crime. This rises another problem. Anarchists have concepts of self-defense - home defense, neighbours watch or militias - you can say that those can size power but there are decision-making mechanisms to prevent that. I would compare central government to a weapon - when you destroy it then no one can use it. Hitler taken over democratic gov. Many forget that befor October revolution also leninists get their power through democratic mechanisms.
Besides primitivsts do have some good points against problems of crime associated to rise of civilization and cities but that's for another discussion...
Other perspectives, other mental constructs I guess...
Unfortunately, feudalism is greatly misunderstood by most people today.
Ok, but the problem is that Lords' and clerics' faith wasn't strong enough to overcome lust for power.

Only because I know that there are Armorious anceters in my clan :D

"It's good to be the Lord" ok it's not a quote but a parafrase :D

You better get used to a feudal system when I take over the world, because that's how it's going to be. :)

Sincerely yours,
Future Supreme Overlord Crabcake

I've seen some people talk about communism and not fully understand it. Communist theory is one in which the individual factories take control of their individual resources, which could be interpreted as advocating society on the small-scale. Which might actually work if the world experimented, free from external threat. Supposedly, centralizing the economy on the factory-level would force the government to wither away. But it can't happen because people naturally lust for power, and as we have seen, communist nations always fall to an elite oligarchy determined to overpower society.

Facism!

Y'see, in Facism even poor farm boys can become tyrannical dictators! Communism=t3h sux0rz, Anarchism is devoid of any laws, and Feudalism is like Facism, just sans the power to the state and poor farm boys can't get anywhere.

Feudalism: nearly everyone is a serf(slave) that works for their lord; in payback the serf for his/her labour the lord protects, feeds, and shelters the serf.

Feudalism is the exchange of land for military service. What you described is Serfdom.

Feudalism is the exchange of land for military service. What you described is Serfdom.
Well, ok than. The fact is that feudalism is obsolete. It will never be re-established. Its reign is over for ever. Why? Because capitalism, absolutism and conscript where far more effective then feudal social structure. This is one of those issues that A. Smith and K. Marx agreed upon. Ofcourse you can think that it's great but philosophy already trashed it. I don't see any point in debating about that. Just read Dante's "Monarchy"...

Well, ok than. The fact is that feudalism is obsolete. It will never be re-established. Its reign is over for ever. Why? Because capitalism, absolutism and conscript where far more effective then feudal social structure. This is one of those issues that A. Smith and K. Marx agreed upon. Ofcourse you can think that it's great but philosophy already trashed it. I don't see any point in debating about that. Just read Dante's "Monarchy"...

Nothing in what I said even remotely suggested that I believe feudalism is an effective form of government.

Whichever one was the easiest to replace, I'd pick that.

Nothing in what I said even remotely suggested that I believe feudalism is an effective form of government.
Well, my friend, because I wrote on a public formu I wrote for all people who read this. I also never suggested that Nimzonia belives in that. Peace, bro ;)

The original-poster's definition of fascism is piss-poor. What he described was ethno-centric nationalism (which is to say, Nazism)...

WWII era Italy was fascist (hell, it's from Italy that the name came) and it doesn't really match the description given by the original poster.

I rather like Fan Grenwickism, where I am the leader and everyone does my bidding, and to hell with them.

I'll take Hedonism, thanks all the same...

:headbang: I rule the world.

Well, my friend, because I wrote on a public formu I wrote for all people who read this. I also never suggested that Nimzonia belives in that. Peace, bro ;)

Except that by quoting me, you made it appear that it was me you were addressing in particular.

The erudite cannot help but be aware that, disregarding the overt racism, Hitler's policies were immensely popular, and furthermore, you misuse the term "tyrant", since it's etymology is greek and describes a ruler who assumed power by his own volition, but remianed there only as long as his populace allowed him to.

Except that by quoting me, you made it appear that it was me you were addressing in particular.
Than sorry.

I see you utterly failed to grasp the metaphor. Medical research has yet to and may never cure HIV, yet research is not like HIV. Militarism has not yet to and may never cure terrorism. That does not mean it is terrorism. Obviously preventative measures should be applied to both of these afflictions, so they do not occur in the fist place and require a possible "cure".
Not utterly failed. I, very tangentially, kinda picked up on it (the whole cure thing). But, yeah, that makes it clearer. However, militarism is a lot closer to terrorism than medical research is to HIV. The aims of militarism, terrorism and HIV are all broadly similar - to kill. (It's a generalisation, I know, but you see where I'm coming from?)

and everyone is equal, no racial prejudice, no exploitation of the worker, no slave labour. no free-for-all or anything goes

And no money to be made, no matter how hard one works.

If that traitor of the Jews named Marx, didn't theorize about communism, perhaps there wouldn't be the Holocaust.

i don't know. i would gladly live in communist or fascist, and maybe regular fuedalism(so long as it wasn't the same as the midieval ages in europe and had religion and things). or, if there was a fuedalistic society, where the government controlled everything, and the people were the serfs.

If that traitor of the Jews named Marx, didn't theorize about communism, perhaps there wouldn't be the Holocaust.
What do you mean?

I would gladly live in a pre-war Nazi Germany, granted racist tendencies didn't result in genocide. Besides, as a pure-blood Pomeranian German, with blonde hair and blue eyes, I would be one of the elite ;)

Sino means that communism was attributed, rightly, to the Jews as having started it. But the common anti-Semetic theories was that is was purposefully concocted to "control the Christian populace". Much anti-Semetism stems from the fact communism exists.

Which -ism would you rather live in?Poliganism. :D

What do you mean?

Jews were renouned for banking and business. However, Marx not only stepped out off line with his faith, he advocated a theory that was anti-business and against the very way of Man. I'm sure that many Jewish entrepreneurs at the time wanted his death as well.

-snip-
I would think racial or religious factors played a rather small contribution to his ideas.
Didn't he advocate equality between the ethnic groups too? Did he not disagree with the concept of a nation state? Or even with Religion?

Sino means that communism was attributed, rightly, to the Jews as having started it. But the common anti-Semetic theories was that is was purposefully concocted to "control the Christian populace". Much anti-Semetism stems from the fact communism exists.

My view is that a Jew betrayed his own race and gave an already hated people more flak by the rest of their countries. Out off Christian beliefs at the time, anti-Semitism was already rife (firstly, based on the idea that Jews betrayed Jesus, and secondly, targetting them as greedy usurers and dishonest traders), this bearded idiot comes along, opens his big mouth and tells the rest of the world that it's not OK to have businesses and make money. If I'm a Jew, I believe Marx should rank along other Jewish traitors like Reinhardt Heydrich and Tomás de Torquemada (both of them had Jewish blood and carried out organized anti-Jewish pogroms).

My view is that a Jew betrayed his own race...
Oh how I hate the word "race"...
Anyways, I think that any individual can believe or theorise anything he/she wants, regardless of race. I just don't feel a connection to others of my "race" (whatever that may be...) that could make me a traitor.

Oh how I hate the word "race"...

Why? Surely you recognize that there are differences between groups of people. You only need to look at professional sports in the US to realize that.

I would think racial or religious factors played a rather small contribution to his ideas.
Didn't he advocate equality between the ethnic groups too? Did he not disagree with the concept of a nation state? Or even with Religion?

Marx was an anarchist, he wanted the destruction of all nations. He believed that religion was evil (please note that no true religion has the aim of seeking nothing but power) and seeked to destroy culture (communist purges of religion also include many aspects of culture, as observed in Russia and China).

Basically, in Marx's utopia, there will be no jobs, starvation, no culture, no State to look up to or fight for. People live as beasts with anarchy disguised as infinite freedom.

I fail to understand that master madman. If one's nation is destroyed or crushed (take Poland in WWII for example), how would he feel? The most frightening concept of all is that Marx initiate peoples across the world to destroy their countries, to crush their own economies and open the way for foreign invasion (The Bolsheviks certainly gave the Germans an upperhand in WWI).

Why?
I don't really know. Maybe it's all the stuff that has happened with that concept in mind, but somehow I just flinch as soon as that word goes into an argument.
But in Germany we really are trained to think like that...

Oh how I hate the word "race"...
Anyways, I think that any individual can believe or theorise anything he/she wants, regardless of race. I just don't feel a connection to others of my "race" (whatever that may be...) that could make me a traitor.

In the case of the Jews being a race persecuted across Europe, would the actions of one Jew increasing the sufferring inflicted on the rest of his people deem him a traitor? Marx walk along the lines of Heydrich (who had a Jewish grandparant but still managed to work his way up in the SS), who oversaw the Wanssee conference where the Nazis agreed on the "Final Solution", and Torquemada (who was part Jewish but became a Catholic priest and initiated the Inquisition), who expelled endless numbers of Jews from Medieval Spain, as well as burning many for "heresy". Why are Jews so cursed by their own traitors?!

For that guy who failed to understand what is betrayal of one's race and nation. Should those living under Nazi occupation be classed as traitors by their own people if they took part in collaborating with the Nazi occupiers?

Let's look at the examples:

http://www.feldgrau.com/main1.php?ID=7

That's a fairly comprehensive list of units, but it still has gaps.

-snip-
You really do like that site, don't you? :D
In Germany, people would be very suspicious of you...

Anyways, I know what betrayal is. Obviously. I agree that Heydrich was a bad guy, but I doubt he saw himself as Jew, so at least in his mind it wasn't treachery.
I just refuse to think that Marx at all acknowledged that his theory would at any time hurt Jews any more than other capitalists.
And I even moreso refuse to accept that he should have shut his mouth because of something like a "Jewish Race"...

I don't really know. Maybe it's all the stuff that has happened with that concept in mind, but somehow I just flinch as soon as that word goes into an argument.
But in Germany we really are trained to think like that...

Ah, in America we’re trained to joke about it. :D

You really do like that site, don't you? :D
In Germany, people would be very suspicious of you...

I certainly love that site! I am only a WWII buff who's more interested in the Germans than any other belligerent. I am aware that ordinary Germans today consider the Nazis a great taboo, but history cannot remain hidden or forgotten.

Anyways, I know what betrayal is. Obviously. I agree that Heydrich was a bad guy, but I doubt he saw himself as Jew, so at least in his mind it wasn't treachery.

In his mind it was not treachery, by having Jewish blood and organizing the rest of the human race that also carry that blood, is he any better than the Chinese collaborators that were captured by the KMT? About these collaborators, because of their fluency in Japanese, they declared themselves Japanese (despite not having a single of Japanese blood) and joined with the enemy. We can even compare Heydrich to that white American who fought for the Taliban and now enjoys his stay at Hotel Guantanamo. I may speak fluent English, but I don't renounce my race and declare that I am White!

I just refuse to think that Marx at all acknowledged that his theory would at any time hurt Jews any more than other capitalists.
And I even moreso refuse to accept that he should have shut his mouth because of something like a "Jewish Race"...

Jews valued business and hardwork, while he himself was a Jew, not only did he abandoned his culture, he was completely against it. Jews were renouned for their hardwork and business successes, perhaps this traitor Jew could not live up to it and therefore, decided to usurp the very fabric of society for his personal gain.

It was appalling enough that Jews in the West have to live with the belief that there forefathers crucified the central figure of Western culture, Christ (who himself was of Jewish birth). Marx fanned the flames further by advocating the death of every nation- making him an enemy of all mankind.

Jews valued business and hardwork, while he himself was a Jew, not only did he abandoned his culture, he was completely against it.
Any Jews around who agree?
I don't think you can generalise Jews any more than anyone else.
Did you read anything by Marx? I wouldn't say he was "against hard work". How can you be against hard work?
Business is another matter.

Marx fanned the flames further by advocating the death of every nation- making him an enemy of all mankind.
I realise that Nationalism and National pride are really important in China these days (probably they always have been), but really, can you say that trying to get rid of nationstates (not the game... :p ) makes you an "enemy of mankind"?
There's certainly plenty of people who would disagree, one being me.

I may speak fluent English, but I don't renounce my race and declare that I am White!

Obviously, you don‘t want to, you’d become instantly worse at math and science. :eek: :p :D

I'd rather live in Buddhism, Non-violence and all that... even though that wasn't a choice. The title did say which '-ism' :D

Any Jews around who agree?
I don't think you can generalise Jews any more than anyone else.
Did you read anything by Marx? I wouldn't say he was "against hard work". How can you be against hard work?
Business is another matter.

I am not a Jew, but may I suggest that you go find a Jew who owns a successful business and ask him about what he thinks of communism? If Marx was a hero amongst the Jews, then I'm sure there would be at least a statue of him in Israel.

I don't have to read Marxist propaganda to understand what that swine stood for. All communist propaganda should be shelved along the propaganda works of the Nazis. You don't need to be exposed to extremism to know what it is about. If you love communism so much, why not move to North Korea?

I realise that Nationalism and National pride are really important in China these days (probably they always have been), but really, can you say that trying to get rid of nationstates (not the game... :p ) makes you an "enemy of mankind"?
There's certainly plenty of people who would disagree, one being me

If you have a sense of belonging, you have a sense of pride for it. Not only does the Chinese have national pride, all nations, whether they're African, American, Asian or European have citizens that take pride in their country. If you don't love your country, then you're a stateless man. Is it because of the White man's xenophobia that Western media demonizes the 'rise' of China as emergence of a new enemy that threatens the human race?

Are you attempting to have me confused? I fail to understand what you said about NS.

I'd rather live in Buddhism, Non-violence and all that... even though that wasn't a choice. The title did say which '-ism' :D

Buddhists do keep their vigilance, as we've seen with the Shaolin Monks.

Buddhists are some nice people, very nice. My friend was thinking of converting, but was too busy to study all of it and such.

If Marx was a hero amongst the Jews, then I'm sure there would be at least a statue of him in Israel.
Is not being a hero enough to be a traitor?

I don't have to read Marxist propaganda to understand what that swine stood for. All communist propaganda should be shelved along the propaganda works of the Nazis. You don't need to be exposed to extremism to know what it is about. If you love communism so much, why not move to North Korea?
Most of Marx's work is actually philosophical in nature. He then made political conclusions. Nonetheless, he wasn't really an active revolutinary himself (and he didn't like being called Marxist), and thus his works are much less extreme and much less vile than Nazi Propaganda.
Oh, and who said I love Communism? Look at my scores, my sig, at my argument. I'm not a communist, I just disagree with judging people in racial stereotypes.

Anarchism for life man :)

Second!

Is not being a hero enough to be a traitor?

A hero? To whom, the dogs? Millions have either died of purges or starvation because of the pursuit of HIS aims. Marx was the common denominator for communist leaders to create hell on Earth, while calling it paradise.

Most of Marx's work is actually philosophical in nature. He then made political conclusions. Nonetheless, he wasn't really an active revolutinary himself (and he didn't like being called Marxist), and thus his works are much less extreme and much less vile than Nazi Propaganda.

I suppose Bin Laden can also be called a philosopher as well. In order for a revolution to succeed, the current system must be destroyed. Revolutionaries are fanatics that are willing create an upheaval of country and society for they perverted aims.

Is it because of the White man's xenophobia that Western media demonizes the 'rise' of China as emergence of a new enemy that threatens the human race?

For me personally, it isn’t Xenophobia. It's fear of communism and authoritarianism. If China became a democratic state with a free market economy, I would have no problem with their emergence.

I second that, Undelia, though I'm a nationalist so I'd probably be sore at someone other than the U.S. rising to prominence ;)

For me personally, it isn’t Xenophobia. It's fear of communism and authoritarianism. If China became a democratic state with a free market economy, I would have no problem with their emergence.

Typical White man brainwashing. China's economy isn't communist. India is a democracy, it has a similar length of history and population size, but their democracy has led to corruption, social backwardness and a poor effort of modernization. If Hitler and Stalin could sacrifice petty rights to make their country strong, then I fail to understand how the individual can outweigh the State.

In China, democracy nor human rights are issues to the average citizen as their concern is either their education or career, not bickering endless with politicians.

You on the other hand must be one of those Christian groups originating in places like America that are attempting to steal China's hearts and minds. Let me assure you that Chinese culture will never be crushed by your Christian tricks.

Typical White man brainwashing.

This may be your problem with the “white chicks” you claim to like so much. Sure, there are a lot of self hating white women who would agree with that, but those women are also generally disgusted by fascism, as are most Westerners.

China's economy isn't communist.

The government still has way to much control over the economy, and they call themselves communist.

India is a democracy, it has a similar length of history and population size, but their democracy has led to corruption, social backwardness and a poor effort of modernization.

India is doing just fine, and they are improving rapidly. The US also seems to be favoring them quite heavily at the moment, because they are a democracy.

If Hitler and Stalin could sacrifice petty rights to make their country strong, then I fail to understand how the individual can outweigh the State.

They also killed millions to accomplish it. Does that mean nothing to you?

In China, democracy nor human rights are issues to the average citizen as their concern is either their education or career, not bickering endless with politicians.

I will always fear collectivist societies. They are the natural enemy of individual liberty and free markets.

You on the other hand must be one of those Christian groups originating in places like America that are attempting to steal China's hearts and minds. Let me assure you that Chinese culture will never be crushed by your Christian tricks.

Ok. Yeah, my church does fund missions to China, and the people are very receptive. Apparently being told you can’t have something makes you want it more.

Feudalism, but only as the Feudal lord. if not then I take anarchism

The government still has way to much control over the economy, and they call themselves communist.

What do you mean? Only telecommunications and railroads are under government control. Even the arms manufacturing sector is being privatized.

Names in politics are ambiguous. A ruling 'communist party' in China have no regards for worker's rights, while the fascists led by Hitler called themselves National Socialists.

India is doing just fine, and they are improving rapidly. The US also seems to be favoring them quite heavily at the moment, because they are a democracy.

If India is truly democracy, then why is there religious violence and class segregation? The US favors Pakistan more, due to it's importance in the War Against Terror. The recent sales of F-16s produced a repeated row with India.

They also killed millions to accomplish it. Does that mean nothing to you?

I'm not anti-Semitic, but most of the other groups being sent to the concentration camps deserved to be there.

I will always fear collectivist societies. They are the natural enemy of individual liberty and free markets.

It was alright for America to support dictatorships in South America no matter what low level of human rights they had. From cases like Guantanamo and Abu Graibh, human rights is an American hypocrisy.

Ok. Yeah, my church does fund missions to China, and the people are very receptive. Apparently being told you can’t have something makes you want it more.

The legalization of religion has brought a reconnection of the Chinese with their traditional faiths. The Christians can falsify whatever figures they want, Buddhism, Taoism or traditional beliefs goes hand in hand with the Chinese culture. The Chinese begin with curiosity about Christianity but they will soon learn that this intolerant faith laughs at Asians for "worshipping statues".

I'm a nationalist so I'd probably be sore at someone other than the U.S. rising to prominence ;)

The Americans will not rest until every rock and pebble in solar system is marked with the Stars and Stripes.

Fascism: some people are better than others because of their race, religion, parents etc. society does whatever it can to help these people reach their potential as it will help the rest of society in the long run.

That's a load of crap. A true Fascist society does want NATIONALISM as far as the entire country goes, but we do not glorify members a race, religion, ect above other members of our society. You're thinking of Nazism [Which I will admit is a MISGIDED form of Fascism].

In fact, the current American Fascist Movement [Which I am a proud member of] seeks to create a good society where we care for all citizens. The only people we don't care about are those who are not citizens...unless it effects our country…and that’s only because we are isolationists.
~~~
My rant aside...I would be fine with living in a Fascist society as long as it was more based upon some of the more modern thought rather than those of the great but foolish Benito Mussolini. And as long as the country had all the natural resources it needed to actually be self-reliant [One of the problems of Fascist Italy]

BTW, I am versy dorry to have come off sounding so angry...I just get worked up every time I hear the non-Nazi fascist getting looped in with the Nazis. We aren't the same, but people just don't care to understand that.

What do you mean? Only telecommunications and railroads are under government control. Even the arms manufacturing sector is being privatized.

In my book, that translates to way to much control. Not to mention how they manipulate their currency.

I'm not anti-Semitic, but most of the other groups being sent to the concentration camps deserved to be there.

:eek: You are a monster! There is no other way to put it. That statement almost made me weep. No group of people deserves to be killed because of a peaceful religion (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics), their lifestyle (gays) or their ideology (Communists).

It was alright for America to support dictatorships in South America no matter what low level of human rights they had. From cases like Guantanamo and Abu Graibh, human rights is an American hypocrisy.

What we did in South America was not right, and we sure as heck don’t need to be waisting tax payer money on Guantanamo. Let their own countries deal with them. I’d like to see them raise the funds to get here twice.

The legalization of religion has brought a reconnection of the Chinese with their traditional faiths. The Christians can falsify whatever figures they want, Buddhism, Taoism or traditional beliefs goes hand in hand with the Chinese culture. The Chinese begin with curiosity about Christianity but they will soon learn that this intolerant faith laughs at Asians for "worshipping statues".

Christianity isn’t legal, and until a society allows people to practice all peaceful religions, it is not civilized.

The Americans will not rest until every rock and pebble in solar system is marked with the Stars and Stripes.

Personally I could care less about us owning anything but what we already have. I’d prefer to have the Panama Canal back, though.

Facism: No thank you mein furor.
Communism: People are inherently greedy.
Anarchism: No thanks, I like society.
Feudalism: Yeah I really want to be a serf.
Nihilism: I also like existance.
Pacifism: Lmfao.


Ism's suck majorly

Facism: No thank you mein furor.
Communism: People are inherently greedy.
Anarchism: No thanks, I like society.
Feudalism: Yeah I really want to be a serf.
Nihilism: I also like existance.
Pacifism: Lmfao.


Ism's suck majorly

What about libertarianism? :D

I'm not anti-Semitic, but most of the other groups being sent to the concentration camps deserved to be there.
Much as it pains me to agree with Undelia(:p), he's right. To say that is despicable. Undelia may be a libertarian and a devout hater of communism, but he'll let those with ideas different to his own believe as they wish. I'm a leftie liberal, and sometimes I want to scream abuse at every single conservative I see, but I'm not gonna make you into my slave or gas you just because I don't agree with you.

I'm not anti-Semitic, but most of the other groups being sent to the concentration camps deserved to be there.
???!!!!
That certainly gets the alarm bells ringing.

How exactly does your reasoning go for that one?

I voted Fascism because my parents and grandparents, except for my maternal grandfather, had nothing but good things to say about life under Mussolini.