NationStates Jolt Archive

Looking at the two ideaologies, not the ways they've been implimented its startiling that two ideologies that are so similar hate each other so much.
If we accept that facsism is not inherently racist (I know Hitler was but to my knowledge non of the other facsists were) or inherently undemocratic (The democratic union of Fascists) and neither is socialism the differenece between them are very slight. I know socialists will pipe up and say that facsism is oppressive ( and socialism isn't). But really by who? I am not a fascist or socialist but am amused by their hatred for each other. Below is a little quiz for socialists and fascists, tell which are you,

* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/N

* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N

* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N

* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community

* I beleive the economy should be planned by the state

Fascism is an extreme position on the (primarily) right-wing end of the spectrum, while socialism covers a wide field of (primarily) the left-wing end of the spectrum. What sort of socialism are you comparing to fascism?

Fascism is not right-wing in anyway except that it often proffesses hatred of communism so it gets lumped with right wing parties. Shock horror fascism is actually more left wing.

* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/N

* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N

* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N

* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community

* I beleive the economy should be planned by the state

How about we blow all these questions out of the water by replacing them with a single one which shows the difference between the two ideologies -

* I believe that society should be structured in order to help those who are least able to help themselves. Yes or no?

A fascist would reply Yes to your question

Looking at the two ideaologies, not the ways they've been implimented its startiling that two ideologies that are so similar hate each other so much.
If we accept that facsism is not inherently racist (I know Hitler was but to my knowledge non of the other facsists were) or inherently undemocratic (The democratic union of Fascists) and neither is socialism the differenece between them are very slight. I know socialists will pipe up and say that facsism is oppressive ( and socialism isn't). But really by who? I am not a fascist or socialist but am amused by their hatred for each other. Below is a little quiz for socialists and fascists, tell which are you,

* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/N

* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N

* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N

* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community

* I beleive the economy should be planned by the state

It is easy to construct a quiz composed only of questions that lead to identical responses with any two ideologies. You could have chosen capitalism and socialism, islam and christianity, christianity and satanism, capitalism and communism, or any combination of ideology. This does not make both ideologies the same.

To see the difference we need only begin with the founding principle of both ideologies. Socialism believes that the government exists to serve the people, fascism believes that the government is the master and the people the servants. End of story, no need to look any further than this since the very core beliefs are already the exact opposite.

A fascist would reply Yes to your question

An example from history of a fascist society structured so as to help those least able to help themselves, please?

A fascist would reply Yes to your question
Not if those who are least able to help themselves are immigrants.

A fascist would reply Yes to your question
Indeed they are both "altruistic" ideologies, but oftentimes they take advantage of the people's altruistic spirit.

Fascism is not right-wing in anyway except that it often proffesses hatred of communism so it gets lumped with right wing parties. Shock horror fascism is actually more left wing.

Are you trying to be funny?

I'll answer the way I would interpret Fascism (and Keynes* knows that I'm not a fascist) Then I'll do the same for how I would interpret Communism

* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/N
Yes...but the state is not the same as the Government. The state includes such things as our culture, our history, our sense of what's right and wrong.

Industry should be controlled by those that work in it. Anything else would be exploitation. In the short term after the glorious revolution, we'll need some sort of democratic worker's representation to plan the economy, until things get on track for good.

* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N
Society is all we are! Without society, we'd be nothing. Not only is therefore the whole more important than a single person, the "single person" doesn't even exist! Who ever heard of a single person in isolation of all others?

There is no free and independent individual. We are only responding to economic pressures. History is those pressures over time. Fact of the matter is that the pressure on the worker and on the capitalist will eventually lead to a destruction of capitalism, and once this is done, a new individual will appear, and so it will be forever.

* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/NYes, that is true.
International Finance is not a person though, and for our concerns, it is easier to simply make domestic financing more attractive than foreign (as if our people wouldn't know it already).

The capitalists have exploited the worker for centuries. It is unlikely that they will give up their strange-hold on power easily, and we may have to use physical force to destroy them. But we shouldn't be seeking vengeance. The capitalists too are only doing what they must. But counter-revolutionaries and capitalist running dogs must be prevented from doing us harm - either by physical punishment, or (preferrably) by reeducation.

* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community
Should? We already do. See above.

Exploitation will ultimately end any system. The only system that could be eternal, and to which we will invariably converge, is communism, in which no individual owns anything, and the whole is stable for eternity. We must strive to reach this state at some point in the future, and our goal for today is to end the capitalists' exploitation.

* I beleive the economy should be planned by the state
No. We'll do whatever benefits society. That means that people can and should make choices, but they should be regulated and streamlined to conform with society's goals. We're being pragmatic about the economy, and as such we'll allow both workers' and capitalists' representatives to sort things out, and only if they can't we'll make a decision for them.

See above again.
The economy is essentially a capitalist invention, it's rules merely constructs to keep order as it is. Once Capitalism falls, the workers will take control of the factors of production. Planning will still occur for some time, but this will not be much different from the planning done by the capitalists.

*I'll take to using the word "Keynes" instead of the word "God" now...let's see how that works out. :D

On foreign relations, nationalist fascism and internationalist socialism are almost polar opposites.

I just realised the question was about Socialism...hmmm, I kind of answered a completely different question.

Anyways, before I can progress, the original poster has to define what he means by "Socialism".

To see the difference we need only begin with the founding principle of both ideologies. Socialism believes that the government exists to serve the people, fascism believes that the government is the master and the people the servants. End of story, no need to look any further than this since the very core beliefs are already the exact opposite.

I dissagree, in fascism the government is supposed to be the will of the people like society is one organism. Crazy I know but its not hard to draw comparisons...

the difference between fascism and socialism economicwise is the same as the difference between communism and socialism, socialism wants everyone to recieve the same things regardless of how much work they do while fascism and communism want people to recieve things based on how much work they do, however, in communism the government controlles all buisiness/production, where in fascism the corporations have control over buisiness and production.
in socialism, well, you haven't provided a specific example so i don't know anything about the social system of the type you're talking about, however, in fascism, it is arranged in a hierarchy, with the strongest(i'm not quite shure how they mean it) higher up in rank. the fascist don't want to help anyone uncapable of helping themselves or the society in general.

and. HITLER WASN'T FASCIST, HE WAS NATIONAL SOCIALIST!

Anyways, before I can progress, the original poster has to define what he means by "Socialism".

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.

Wikipedia

My point is that a facist view of government is that the nation is one big single collective QED facsism is a variation on socialism

* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N
the degree to which one believes this is a major difference between the two ideologies. socialism tends to still believe in an individual's rights.

* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N
socialism says this where? :confused:

* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community
again, not necessarily socialist - an aspect of some socialist theories maybe, but by no means blanketly socialist.



totalitarianism is a - or even the - major difference here. facism requires a totalitarianist attitude, while socialism does not. socialism can be socially libertarian without any problems.

but also facism and socialsim have some other important differentiators, not just important differences in their similarities. Naziism is called national-socialism, no? most socialist ideologies, including communism, are international in belief. it is the overtly nationalistic aspect of national socialism that (sufficed to say, as i'm running out the door and running late today) creates evil.
as it does in any ideology, mind. fucking nationalism ;)

...while fascism and communism want people to recieve things based on how much work they do...

Ah, that's why the communists state 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'? Marx was a bare-faced liar all along...

An example from history of a fascist society structured so as to help those least able to help themselves, please?

cough

. socialism tends to still believe in an individual's rights.

totalitarianism is a - or even the - major difference here. facism requires a totalitarianist attitude, while socialism does not. socialism can be socially libertarian without any problems.

Again I disagree, if own a factory it is up to me how I run it not the people I employ, you are removing my liberty. Plus if I want to socialise in a solid gold hot tub then I can't because I won't be able to earn the money to do that, you have remove effectivly my power to do that.

Ah, that's why the communists state 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'? Marx was a bare-faced liar all along...
no, that statement means that they only can get back things for what they can produce.

Again I disagree, if own a factory it is up to me how I run it not the people I employ, you are removing my liberty. Plus if I want to socialise in a solid gold hot tub then I can't because I won't be able to earn the money to do that, you have remove effectivly my power to do that.

Bullshit.

In true Communism, no single person can own a factory. It'd be impossible. You can only own a factory in this day and age because Capitalism makes it possible --- possible to oppress people as a labor master.

You may not see it as oppression right off the bat, but it is, plain and simple. You're paying people very small dividends for the important work they do, while you're getting most of the money for doing next to nothing.

Get your head out of your ass.

cough

Hitlers Germany- Reichs Arbeit Front, Strength through joy (workers holidays), The beauty of Work (better Labour conditions). Help for German mothers, interest free loans, the One pot programme, the winterfund. Not a shining time in history but if you ignore the whole racist murder part, Hitler tried to help those less fortunate.

no, that statement means that they only can get back things for what they can produce.

When viewed across the society there is obviously a limit to what can be redistributed. There is no cornucopia, and so the total distributed is limited to what is produced, but the distribution is not based on how much an individual produces, but rather what they require.

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.
In that case you're using Socialism as a very Marxist type term, and pretty much all my points still hold.

My point is that a facist view of government is that the nation is one big single collective QED facsism is a variation on socialism
No, not at all. They have very different fundamental principles - Communism/Marxist Socialism is a view of historical materialism and that is where it comes from. Fascism is an appeal to the irrational side of the person, to the patriotism and the feeling of "belonging to something".
And as far as Economics is concerned, the two have completely different methods, as I outlined before.

Bullshit.

In true Communism, no single person can own a factory. It'd be impossible. You can only own a factory in this day and age because Capitalism makes it possible --- possible to oppress people as a labor master.

You may not see it as oppression right off the bat, but it is, plain and simple. You're paying people very small dividends for the important work they do, while you're getting most of the money for doing next to nothing.

Get your head out of your ass.

Its my liberty to ask them to work for small dividents and theirs to turn it down. They don't have to work for me, if I do next to nothing then maybe they should start their own factories if its so easy.

Hitlers Germany- Reichs Arbeit Front, Strength through joy (workers holidays), The beauty of Work (better Labour conditions). Help for German mothers, interest free loans, the One pot programme, the winterfund. Not a shining time in history but if you ignore the whole racist murder part, Hitler tried to help those less fortunate.
Ignore Hitler, look at Mussolini.
That's where Fascism is at - Nazism is such a fundamental variation of it, I would struggle to even classify them in the same area.

Plus Mussolini was actually a smart cookie, and he wrote good academic books on Fascism, while Hitler wrote Hatespeech.

Its my liberty to ask them to work for small dividents and theirs to turn it down. They don't have to work for me, if I do next to nothing then maybe they should start their own factories if its so easy.

It's not their liberty to take the job because it's all that's available.

Start their own factories? Haha, while they're at it, why don't they just fund their own palacial estates with this magical pixie money?

Hitlers Germany- ...

That is an example of a National Socialist society which was structured so as to help certain groups who were less able to help themselves, and those groups were sharply defined on religious, nationalist and racialist grounds.

So, an example of a fascist society, perhaps?

No, not at all. They have very different fundamental principles - Communism/Marxist Socialism is a view of historical materialism and that is where it comes from. Fascism is an appeal to the irrational side of the person, to the patriotism and the feeling of "belonging to something".
And as far as Economics is concerned, the two have completely different methods, as I outlined before.

yes but the process of government in socialism makes you part of somthing part of your society, part of your collective, you collect an equal share of what Your society produces. Facism is the same merely that the fascist governments that have existed had more flag waving and a hierachy, but then so have all the socialist states that have existed.

That is an example of a National Socialist society which was structured so as to help certain groups who were less able to help themselves, and those groups were sharply defined on religious, nationalist and racialist grounds.

So, an example of a fascist society, perhaps?

I have only studied Hitler's German in depth however the basic tenets of fascism of one great "people's community" is based on the idea of working together for mutual benefit, the people's community would include all including the least well off in society by definition as well as the most.

When viewed across the society there is obviously a limit to what can be redistributed. There is no cornucopia, and so the total distributed is limited to what is produced, but the distribution is not based on how much an individual produces, but rather what they require.
well, i agree with you on that being what marx says, although i'm rather certian that isn't what it ment...
well, that system allowes then for people that don't produce anything to still get part of what is produced just because they need something? not much sense...

yes but the process of government in socialism makes you part of somthing part of your society, part of your collective, you collect an equal share of what Your society produces.
Yes

Facism is the same...
Let's see:
Part of your society: Tick.
Part of your collective: Hmmm, kind of the same, don't you think? Anyways, this gets a tick.
Equality: No!!! Fascism doesn't give a shit about income equality. Fascism is about making economics less important, about non-monetary, non-physical values. In fact, Fascism in Italy manifested itself ultimately in the rule of massive capitalist corporations - and no business has ever been taken away from its capitalist owner.

...merely that the fascist governments that have existed had more flag waving and a hierachy, but then so have all the socialist states that have existed.
But if you look at the literature, you'll see that the reasons for the flag-waving were usually very specific...or as Mao said: Combining Patriotism with Internationalism.
Ultimately all Socialist states saw their justification in the masses of the world - even Stalin to an extent adhered to this.

I'll think you'll find out that the basis of corporationism is that it is run by society. By industial democracy an "electorate of experts".

Yes
and no business has ever been taken away from its capitalist owner.
.

Reichswerk Herman Goering "advised" private factories to be part of the company.

I'll think you'll find out that the basis of corporationism is that it is run by society. By industial democracy an "electorate of experts".
In theory, as I said in my first post, both sides (Capitalists and Workers) are meant to get together and decide things together, because ultimately fascism is also about getting things done rather than talking about them. There is inherent merit in action, they say.

Anyways, this does not mean even remotely the same as in Socialism, where to an extent the Capitalist is seen outside society, workers own the means of production, and the capitalist is extinguished and made part of the proletariat.

So the only actual connection is that both believe that society exists, and that society is more important to the individual than freedom is. How that manifests itself is, as I said, very different.

That being said, Mussolini was a Syndicalist I believe until WWI taught him that the workers of different nations apparently don't feel a connection afterall and he instead became the father of practical Fascism (inspirations might be found with Mr Pareto). And later, with the war lost and Mussolini a German puppet in Northern Italy, he flip-flopped again and started going all socialist in their arse ... but as we know, not for long.

Reichswerk Herman Goering "advised" private factories to be part of the company.
Yes, but "It would be best if we'd all work together on this - and if you do you're guaranteed lucrative contracts etc" is a very different animal from "I'll shoot you and take your factory!"

Fascism is not right-wing in anyway except that it often proffesses hatred of communism so it gets lumped with right wing parties. Shock horror fascism is actually more left wing.
Not actually true. Fascism is primarily based around elitism on racial or religious grounds (rather than any kind of econmic theory), and that's about as far from left wing as you can get.

well, i agree with you on that being what marx says, although i'm rather certian that isn't what it ment...
well, that system allowes then for people that don't produce anything to still get part of what is produced just because they need something? not much sense...

That is exactly what it means: goods are shared collectively according to need.

Haha, while they're at it, why don't they just fund their own palacial estates with this magical pixie money?

http://www.agedwards.com/images/bma/a_pixie.gif

No human society has ever removed hierachy I think fascists relised this. They still held the principals of society as one being transgressing class devisions. In this sense the two ideologies were similar and many facsist hoped that this sense of community would overide these divisions. They didn't have the same violent culture (well they did but not in the same way) of revolution hoping these things would sort themselves out. You are right though fascists did see nationalism as their ultimate aim and that was more important to them then ideology. But I still hold you are very close cousins.

,

http://www.agedwards.com/images/bma/a_pixie.gif

Wow, where the fuck did you find that?

Not actually true. Fascism is primarily based around elitism on racial or religious grounds (rather than any kind of econmic theory), and that's about as far from left wing as you can get.

Nazism was based racial but apart from that elitism was not part of facisam and I'll think you'll find fascist principles lead on to economic principals, which are left wing principals.

No human society has ever removed hierachy I think fascists relised this. They still held the principals of society as one being transgressing class devisions. In this sense the two ideologies were similar and many facsist hoped that this sense of community would overide these divisions. They didn't have the same violent culture (well they did but not in the same way) of revolution hoping these things would sort themselves out. You are right though fascists did see nationalism as their ultimate aim and that was more important to them then ideology. But I still hold you are very close cousins.
And I hold that this is a far more significant difference than any amount of fleeting similarities.
Care to cite an example of a fascist society that did away with class divisions, if that's exhibit a for your case? I can't think of any. I'm also hard put to think of any instances of the Nazis or the Italian fascistii forcibly collectivising business unless the owners were held to be racially undesirable, or attempting to hold resources in common for the good of the people as a whole, come to that.

I can't think of a communist society that actually did awy with class divisions successfully even they wanted to.

Is there anything Wiki can't do???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_manifesto
Contents of the Fascist Manifesto
The Manifesto is divided into four sections, describing Fascist objectives in political, social, military and financial fields.

Politically, the Manifesto calls for:
universal suffrage at age 18, including non-landowners
proportional representation on a regional basis
voting for women (which was opposed by every other European nation)
representation at government level of newly created National Councils by economic sector, and
the abolition of the Italian Senate, which were political appointments made by the King to his friends.

The National Councils would combine workers, professionals and employers. The concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic church social doctrine,

At the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the King. (It has been described as a sort of extended council of the Crown.)

In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:
an 8-hour day and a minimum wage
involvement of workers' representatives in industry
reorganisation of the transport sector
revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, and
reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:
creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities
armaments factories are to be nationalised, and
a peaceful but competitive foreign policy.

In finance, the Manifesto advocates:
a heavy progressive tax on capital (envisaging a "partial expropriation" of concentrated wealth)
expropriation of the property of religious congregations
revision of all contracts for military provisions and
sequestration of 85% of all war profits by the state.

The Manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, elite Senate abolition, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on the subsuming of class antagonisms in national effort. However, it is to be noted that none of these statements are specifically influenced by Marxism in any way.

Wow, where the fuck did you find that?

Google, like myself, loves cross-dressing pixies and their easy money.

Is there anything Wiki can't do???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_manifesto

To me this sounds like the statesments (bar a few obvious exceptions) of a 1950s LAbour government.

To me this sounds like the statesments (bar a few obvious exceptions) of a 1950s LAbour government.

Oh, I see. If the facts don't please you, you'll just go with whatever your imagination can conjure.

Figures.

To me this sounds like the statesments (bar a few obvious exceptions) of a 1950s LAbour government.
That's what I've been trying to make clear:

Fascism was (perhaps "is" re: China, US?) a primarily pragmatist ideology! Action is more important than blabbering on about theory. Do whatever works, in Economics, and in Social Issues too (to an extent).

It is thus very much different from Socialism, which is all about ideology, and likes to disregard practicality more often than not.

I can't think of a communist society that actually did awy with class divisions successfully even they wanted to.
That's a matter of expediency, though. You're talking about ideology.

I'm trying to make the point that the facsist view on the importance on over coming class distinctions for the benefit of a predefined society, commune are simmilar to those of a socialist persuation. While the difference is in extent to which this is done my vary It is still my opinion that facism is another populist version of socialism such as communism. It is wrong to call them right wing and socialists need to be wary that somthing lurks near their ideology that is considered taboo.

Plus as a conservative being called a fascist consistantly by communists annoys me.

Fascism does have an ideolgy that when considered is very close to socialism, however fascism was used during the 20th century it was used as a populist vehicile for nationalist asperations, it is unfair to judge the policies of the 20th with the ideology.

Plus as a conservative being called a fascist consistantly by communists annoys me.
Well, now you can launch this wiki-link at them, and they'll know better.

But in Social Issues, the Fascist appeal to patriotism, tradition and religion is fairly close to traditional Conservatism...so we can all go to bed knowing that Fascism is neither particularly left-wing nor right-wing, but will borrow and use from wherever it feels like.

That's a matter of expediency, though. You're talking about ideology.

I'm arguing facsists did want to get rid of class distinctions and those who did not were not true fascists merely totalitarians or nationalists. Fascism is not evil, neither is socialism, they're just misguided.

Fascism does have an ideolgy that when considered is very close to socialism, however fascism was used during the 20th century it was used as a populist vehicile for nationalist asperations, it is unfair to judge the policies of the 20th with the ideology.
Oh come on, aren't you listening?

Other than that they both disagree with Capitalists etc on the nature of the individual, their similarities (ideologically even moreso than practically) are negligible.
Read the various books Mussolini has written on the system (for it is he who pretty much developed it), and see.

If you want to hear a purely ideologically inspired rant though that will make you feel better about how Nazism is Socialism,
a) Read "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek
b) Send a telegram regarding the issue to a poster with the name "Disraeliland". He'll bury you under facts "proving" one thing or the other, and then you'll feel better about yourself.

That being said, I'll go to bed now.
Nighty Nite!

PS: If Disraeliland reads this: :p

How similar is fascism to conservatism?

I hate foreigners living in my country Y/N

I believe in private property with only state regulations making the economy slef-reliant Y/N

I think women should be at home, looking after the traditional family unit Y/N

I can't stand lefties Y/N

I think a hierarchical society is essential Y/N

I want harsher punishments for petty criminals and a death penalty Y/N

I think drugs should be completely illegal (except for alcohol and tobacco of course) Y/N

I believe in private property with only state regulations making the economy slef-reliant Y/N
Wait, fascism despises private property because that private property isn't under control by the state....

In theory they are very different but in practice they are excatly the same.

*I'll take to using the word "Keynes" instead of the word "God" now...let's see how that works out. :D
Really, I've already taken to using Hayek instead of god. ;)

HITLER WASN'T FASCIST, HE WAS NATIONAL SOCIALIST!
So to could be said of Mussolini, Laval, Quisling, Franco, and Pol Pot. You can include the Khmer Rouge and the whole of the communistic countries if you broaden the term to 'planning'.

After looking through this thread, I find it interesting that Hitler does not constitute a Fascist, but Mussolini does. And, while Mussolini is absolutely fascist, he was a socialist. In 1910 he became the secretery of the local socialist party. Even after moving into Fascism, he continued to count himself a Socialist.

"You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me." -Benito Mussolini

And while many count that he may have "changed his stance", his ideology did, on the whole, not change throughout his movement from socialism to fascism.

I am not a fascist or socialist but am amused by their hatred for each other.There is an argument that is, essentially, that the "hatred" the two groups share for one another is, or was, inspired by utility. Essentially, that it grew during a time of desired growth between both groups, and the people they wanted to recruit were those who thought economic planning was good. Essentially, they fought over recruitment of like-minded individuals in opposition to liberal economics. I'm not sure how true it is, but my great uncle said talking to a member of either group was like talking to the same idealouge.


I hate foreigners living in my country Y/N

I believe in private property with only state regulations making the economy slef-reliant Y/N

I think women should be at home, looking after the traditional family unit Y/N

I can't stand lefties Y/N

I think a hierarchical society is essential Y/N

I want harsher punishments for petty criminals and a death penalty Y/N

I think drugs should be completely illegal (except for alcohol and tobacco of course) Y/N
1. The people seem to, as a whole. The leadership doesn't. The factory owners (unless these are socialist) also love immigrants. Makes for cheaper work.

2. Wait, fascism despises private property because that private property isn't under control by the state....

3. This depends on who you talk to. Conservative people disagree. So to did certain fascist groups. The pre-Hitler National Socialist party seemed to agree with it, though.

4. This depends on what you mean by lefties. U.S. conservatives support liberal economics.

5. Socialism relies on government planning. So does communism. One can claim they want no heirarchy but there tended to be one. Technically, the society is above the people, which is a heirarchy... all though I do admit that this is a hideous cop-out. The only way to avoid herarchy in these systems is with the total removal of specific people from the centralized planning (so as to avoid these people being able to amass power). Which either means total democratic centralized planning, or... who knows what. Though another argument is that heirarchy forms naturally, and that all interpersonal relationships involve power. Whether or not they're necessary is a philosopher's guess.

6. I'll concur with this one. Though maybe not petty criminals.

7. Socialism is not, also, necessarily pro-drugs. And, in theory, the more conservative (read: anti-governmental libertarian) groups would be opposed to this government control. I've seen several socialist/communist arguments against legalizing drugs. And many conservative arguments for. Inherently, equating liberalism with socialism is generally backwards... though equating conservatism with liberalism doesn't seem to pan out properly either. I just got a terrible sinking feeling.

I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society

As a socialist I would say no as only the workers themselves, and not any state, should have a say over how the economy is run. Some fascists believe in total state control although in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy most of the economy remained under the control of private corporations.

I believe that society is more important then the individuel

I believe both are important and that noone should be deprived of their individuality provided they're not infringing on the freedoms of others. I therefore believe in greater political and economic democracy where everyone is free to express their views and influence the society around them, somthing that under capitalism is restricted to a very small minority. Facsists believe that the only thing which matters is the state and its ability to protect those who hold power.

I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished

I believe in creating a better society where noone is the position to be working against other people in the first place. This is something that can hopefully be achieved in a peaceful way although sometimes the working class has no choice but to take part in a violent revolution against oppression and exploitation. Fascists want to punish those who work against the state which is not the same as society.

I believe that people should live and work in a People's community

Yes, I believe that people can achieve far more when cooperating with each other and having an equal say over the democratic management of their community than they can when all power and influence is the hands of a wealthy élite. Fascists believe everyone should work in the interests of the state and not nessessarily of the community in which they live.

I beleive the economy should be planned by the state

No, see above.

I hate to tell you Europaland but Facsists believe in community (with government as the community leader). Hitler's Volksgemeinschaft means People's community

I hate to tell you Europaland but Facsists believe in community (with government as the community leader). Hitler's Volksgemeinschaft means People's community

A community which is lead by the state and where its citizens have no democratic control over how it is run can, in my view, hardly be decribed as a community. Hitler's Volksgemeinschaft was based on his insane belief in racial purity and it excluded anyone who wasn't a German or didn't agree with the Nazis.

Well I don't think its very fair to take away people's money and redistribute to people who haven't earned it, we all had different beliefs. Hitler "believed" in community, his view of community was very narrow however.

Ohh dear.

All right, answering as a socialist, here I go:

*I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society: No

*I believe that society is more important then the individuel: No

*I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished: No

*I believe that people should live and work in a People's community: Yes

*I beleive the economy should be planned by the state: No.

(and a big ol' sic in reference to the five postulations and their typos.)

Still, erm, good work.

All right, I expect that by now the thread carries an expectation of elaboration on given answers, so let's see:

Point 1: By the state for the people? No, that sounds to me like state capitalism in a pretty frock. The people don't need everything doing for them, that isn't a socialist idea, in fact it's inherently anti-socialist.
I am fairly sure that it is, however, a fascist concept.

Point 2: Again, a fascist idea, certainly, but not remotely socialist. Socialism isn't some nationalist construct, which is why it was necessary for statists to invent fascism in the first place. You're thinking about fascism and fascism, not fascism and socialism.

Point 3: There are some loosely left-leaning theorists interested in levelling-down, which is the closest to punishment I can think of in any remotely socialistic thinking, but even that is not really a socialist aim, let alone throwing in some sort of punishment. The satisfaction of need and the popular control of work require no punishment to be inflicted upon anyone!

Point 4: Well, this point is a little vague, so read my, "Yes" as given in hesitation. You'll have to clarify: what is a People's community?
And have you considered that fascism -why, yes, judging from earlier points it would appear that you have- puts the state over the people? If that's what you mean by a People's community, then no, that has nothing to do with socialism, it's not even a topic touched on by socialism unless it be added to and made communism or some wider theory beyond the purely economic.

Point 5: In fascism, yes, in socialism, no, this is the very core of socialism and feels redundant in light of earlier points. In socialism the economy is controlled by the workers. There's no mention of state, there's no need for state: it can be done without the state. Pretty major difference, here, wouldn't you say?

To see the difference we need only begin with the founding principle of both ideologies. Socialism believes that the government exists to serve the people, fascism believes that the government is the master and the people the servants. End of story, no need to look any further than this since the very core beliefs are already the exact opposite.

Completely untrue, socialists use government as a tool to maintain a society where the people work for society. Fascists use government as a tool to maintain a society where people work for society.

Socialists believe a strong society will equate into a happy citizenry, fascism believes a strong society will equate into a happy citizenry.

The only difference is that I don't think fascism is too concerned with equality, which is only a dream anyway.

Two of you have said that that the state couldn't control the economy the workers would, but how? Do you mean industrial democracy? If so what happens when workers decide to increase the price of their goods? Do you have competition between factories run by workers? What happens then if someone forms a capitalist organisation do they get shot? Saying the workers would run the economy is a fallacy, an economist needs to run the economy, not shift workers.

an economist needs to run the economy, not shift workers.

Not quite true, should'nt the market regulate the economy?

To see the difference we need only begin with the founding principle of both ideologies. Socialism believes that the government exists to serve the people, fascism believes that the government is the master and the people the servants. End of story, no need to look any further than this since the very core beliefs are already the exact opposite.

Exactly. Socialists are not to blame for the actions of Stalin any more than Germans are to blame for World War II. It would be ridiculous to criticize the entire nation of Germany for World War II when the many Germans weren't even alive when it happened.

Point 1: By the state for the people? No, that sounds to me like state capitalism in a pretty frock. The people don't need everything doing for them, that isn't a socialist idea, in fact it's inherently anti-socialist.
I am fairly sure that it is, however, a fascist concept.

Socialism requires the government to intervene in the individual's place in the economy. It is the effective relief of all economic duties of the individual by the state.

So when you say that "The people don't need everything doing for them", do you mean that the people don't need government to handle their financial situation to insure that they have the same status as everyone else? If that is what you mean, you are decidedly not a socialist.

Point 2: Again, a fascist idea, certainly, but not remotely socialist. Socialism isn't some nationalist construct, which is why it was necessary for statists to invent fascism in the first place. You're thinking about fascism and fascism, not fascism and socialism.

Wrong again, socialism does declare society greater than the individual and does cast society as a shepherd over the people. The people work for society, and society in turn provides their for their living. In fact, the lack of hierarchy that is required by idealistic socialists means that individualism must not be allowed. Once people start living as individuals, socialism breaks down.

Point 3: There are some loosely left-leaning theorists interested in levelling-down, which is the closest to punishment I can think of in any remotely socialistic thinking, but even that is not really a socialist aim, let alone throwing in some sort of punishment. The satisfaction of need and the popular control of work require no punishment to be inflicted upon anyone!

Not really going to directly confront the point of this post, but why is socialism justified in not supporting those who don't work, yet capitalism isn't?

Point 5: In fascism, yes, in socialism, no, this is the very core of socialism and feels redundant in light of earlier points. In socialism the economy is controlled by the workers. There's no mention of state, there's no need for state: it can be done without the state. Pretty major difference, here, wouldn't you say?

There is nothing stopping the workers from running the businesses exactly like the previous owners. The only difference is that subsets of workers are getting screwed democratically.

The reason that socialists don't like fascists is that they view fascism as apostate. Socialism is an international movement and fascists tend to be nationalist or racist. Socialists like to pretend that fascism is something completely different but Fascism is merely an offshoot of Socialism, like communism.
Hitler was a socialist. He hated communists because of the large number of Jews in its leadership. Socialists say that he isn't a socialist but when you look at the way the German economy worked, the state controlled the major industries but did not collectivize them. This pisses off the socialists because they would prefer state control by bureacrats instead of bourgoisie technocrats. Socialists also insist, absurdly, that Hitler only used the word 'Socialist' to attract socialists into his fold.
In other words, the Fascists didn't go far enough to remove the bourgeoisie from society. Socialists concentrate on the minor details to draw the conclusion that Fascism is reactionary and right wing and something that they are completely different from. But as soon as the similarities are considered that falls apart.

Not quite true, should'nt the market regulate the economy?

I agree but I was speaking as a devils advocate for facsism there.

Exactly. Socialists are not to blame for the actions of Stalin any more than Germans are to blame for World War II. It would be ridiculous to criticize the entire nation of Germany for World War II when the many Germans weren't even alive when it happened.

eh?

I think a better example would be that blaming socialists in Russia for Stalin is like blaming Prussian militarism for WWII or even German facsists today.

How about we blow all these questions out of the water by replacing them with a single one which shows the difference between the two ideologies -

* I believe that society should be structured in order to help those who are least able to help themselves. Yes or no?

A fascist would reply Yes to your question

Many people would reply with a yes to that question, however the devil is in the details.

...an economist needs to run the economy, not shift workers.
W00T!!!

I get to run you guys! You there, yes you: Build me a Ferrari!

A certain amount of anti-Semitism and nationalism was built into Socialism/Communism from the very start.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

Fascism is a subset of real socialism (communism being the other, N.B. Social Democrats like the Labor Party, or the Democrats are not socialists, they will sometimes talk about socialism, but they balk at the violence necessary to introduce socialism)

Both are essentially collectivist, the different ways they express this idea are irrelevant, whether they appeal to collectivity on a class level, a racial level, or a national level, the messages are essentially the same; "You, the [insert favoured community here] is being oppressed by the [insert hated community here], we will save you! We will punish the oppressors!"

The reason that socialists don't like fascists is that they view fascism as apostate.

The reason non-Fascist socialists don't like fascists is that fascists (and national socialists for that matter) bring bad publicity, and they keep the non-fascist socialists out of power (in situations where the fascists are in power, of course)

It is more a bitter rivalry, rather than a real opposition taking a contrary position.

Wrong again, socialism does declare society greater than the individual and does cast society as a shepherd over the people.

You miss the fundamental flaw in the socialists' thinking (if it could be called that).

"Society" isn't an incorporated association with an office, and a secretary forever filing her nails. It doesn't have a phone number, nor does it have an e-mail address.

It isn't a single entity. So, what is it? A group of individuals, essentially. So if we are to say that "society" is greater than the individual, what do we really mean? The answer is this: The favouring of the interests of some indivuals by taking liberties away from other individuals.

There is nothing stopping the workers from running the businesses exactly like the previous owners. The only difference is that subsets of workers are getting screwed democratically.

I'll put it this way, if a highly successful firm was sold to the workers, they'd probably keep the existing board and management. About the only change they'd make is perhaps they'd factor the dividends into their wages.

In fact, Fascism in Italy manifested itself ultimately in the rule of massive capitalist corporations - and no business has ever been taken away from its capitalist owner.

A highly simplistic assessment that makes no attempt to analyse what ownership really is. I'd have expected better from you.

Ownership isn't just a name on the deed. It carries with it certain powers. The powers are as follows:
1) The right to control its use
2) The right to exchange it
3) The right to draw benefit from its use

Fascist governments exercise all these powers while leaving the names on the deed.

If you also take into account the fact that fascists tend to enter power legally (while no communist regime ever has), and that fascists have had relatively high levels of approval (it took major wars to engender disapproval), it all falls into place. Fascism is the same as communism essentially, they merely use different methods of gaining economic control, and social control. They recognised that appeals to folk community might be stronger than class community.

First of all, AlanBstard, socialism is like atheism. It's a highly individual thing and the variations are immense. For example, there's almost no comparison between socialist democrats, communists & anarchists, yet all are socialists.
Basically every single one of your questions could get a yes or no answer depending on which socialist you ask.
* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/N
I don't. I completely fail to see what states are good for.
* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N
On the contrary. Societies or communities are simply individuals working together for one reason or another. The only good argument for forming a society is to empower individuals to achive things they cannot accomplish on their own. As such, all social constructs should serve the individuals or burn in hell.
* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N
I believe that people should help formulate the policies that affect them. Corporations are run by people who have no stake in them, and who does not depend on them. As such, they are simply a nice word for slavery, and needs to be abolished. Industry can do whatever the people employed by it want.
* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community
I believe people should live like they want to. Who the fuck am I to tell others how to live & what rules to conform to? I sure as hell don't appreciate society imposing it's shit on me & mine.
* I beleive the economy should be planned by the state
I'll never recognise any state, government or any other insane construct that takes away my right to govern myself.

About Hitler being a national socialist... If I call myself a capitalist, take over the world, and instate planned economy, will I still be a capitalist?

Or a more realistic example: I happen to know that the traditional rightwing party of a snotty little country in northern europe, is called "Left". Does that mean they're actually leftwingers?
Or are you perhaps just slightly barking mad?

Facism: One dude in power, secret police to keep the people in check, a certain amount of government control over economy, but not too much.

Communism: One dude in power, secret police to keep the people in check, total control over economy.

If you could get Hitler and Stalin to not talk about economics, they'd get along fine.

Facism: One dude in power, secret police to keep the people in check, a certain amount of government control over economy, but not too much.

Communism: One dude in power, secret police to keep the people in check, total control over economy.

If you could get Hitler and Stalin to not talk about economics, they'd get along fine.
Probably, and though a ton of people will probably scream No True Scrotum in a moment, I'll risk saying that Stalin was a fascist, not a commie. The point of communism isn't to not have a totalitarian state, but rather a collective. As such, Stalin was about as much of a communist as Dobya.

So you got the fascism right, but the communist commune would be more like this: Worker collectives in power, normal policeforce as you know it in most democratic countries, worker collectives collectively run the economy according to what they want & need, as opposed to what market economics would dectate.

A highly simplistic assessment that makes no attempt to analyse what ownership really is. I'd have expected better from you.

Ownership isn't just a name on the deed. It carries with it certain powers. The powers are as follows:
1) The right to control its use
2) The right to exchange it
3) The right to draw benefit from its use

Fascist governments exercise all these powers while leaving the names on the deed.
That is true, but the very fact that they would leave the name on that deed is very different from Socialism.
They may influence (sometimes through force, often simply by offering incentives etc) what business does, but they don't have an issue with people being employed by someone.

Ultimately they don't really advocate state control, they merely "guide" business a certain way by putting up barriers to either side.

But while Socialists do pretty much everything they do in order to end the class struggle (which is their final and ultimate goal, everything else falling into place alongside it), Fascists see ending class struggle more as a means to yet another end because they feel that it harms progress in the community.
Philosophically I think that is a huge and fundamental difference!

One of the main points in the books that Marx wrote was that society existed to serve the individual. I do not remember the exact words, but here is how I interpreted the passage: Society exists to support people in doing what they want to do, such as a plumber working late at night (workaholic) or two lovers somewhere in the dark (yes, there was a lot of mention of night).

The point is, the individual is Above society in socialism. The whole point of the society is to help the individual achieve what it that individual wants to achieve.

Compared to Fascism, Fascism is far more elitist and is hardly concerned with most individuals (some perhaps, but then see elitist).

Socialism is individualism (all the workers working together), where Fascism is based on the old family values (the clans and tribes working together).

And I don't know of many ideologies that don't somehow include people working together.

They may influence (sometimes through force, often simply by offering incentives etc) what business does, but they don't have an issue with people being employed by someone.

They do this over the whole economy, and through the normal fascist policy ofprice and wage controls, they gain control over the economy.

You cannot say that there is employment in the sense of a voluntary contract between employer and employee. Firstly, the price the employer will pay for the services of the employee is fixed by the state, secondly, through the economic planning that price and wage controls necessitate, the state controls what he will do, and lastly, in many fascist states, the employees are allocated by a central labour authority to employers.

In a communist state, this is all the same, except that the state is the employer.

More simply, in communism, the state employs, in fascism, the state makes all the decisions for the employer. The results are in practice the same, economic failure, and the prioritising of military production and acquisition over all else.


Ultimately they don't really advocate state control, they merely "guide" business a certain way by putting up barriers to either side.

Communists advocate state ownership, fascists advocate state control.

But while Socialists do pretty much everything they do in order to end the class struggle (which is their final and ultimate goal, everything else falling into place alongside it), Fascists see ending class struggle more as a means to yet another end because they feel that it harms progress in the community.

Firstly, fascism is a part of socialism (the other part being communism), secondly, both communists and fascists see ending the class struggle as a means to an end, and the end is the same: power.

There is nothing special about class.

They both have essentially the same message, which as I said before is this: "You, the [insert favoured collective here] is being oppressed by the [insert hated collective here], we will save you! We will punish the oppressors! We will lead you to the promised land"

It is irrelevant that communists differentiate these collectives by class, fascists by nationality, and national socialists by race, and nationality. Same deal, a bunch of conspirators find, or concoct a grievance for a particular group, then prey on them in order to gain influence, and eventually power.

The real difference is not philosophical, it is a matter of tactics. Communists favour bringing down business, fascists advocate something superficially different, and talk up the communist threat. This means that fascist groups gain support as they become increasingly seen as the only people who can stop the communists. People who own things like to keep them, so they support the group who will ensure that. They will see all the powers and rights that come with ownership being taken away, but they are assured that the surrender of liberty is necessary to ensure security.

Their appeal to nationalism is a variation of this theme, only the threat comes from other countries. Appeals to patriotic themes can be reassuring, and gain more support than appeals to internationalism.

These two factors explain the legality of fascists entering power.

One of the main points in the books that Marx wrote was that society existed to serve the individual. I do not remember the exact words, but here is how I interpreted the passage: Society exists to support people in doing what they want to do, such as a plumber working late at night (workaholic) or two lovers somewhere in the dark (yes, there was a lot of mention of night).

The point is, the individual is Above society in socialism. The whole point of the society is to help the individual achieve what it that individual wants to achieve.

That is not the point, that is the propaganda. The reality of what Marx advocates is the surrender by the individual of all his liberty, in return for a "perfect" society in which all his needs and aspirations can be met. It is of course a false promise. No promise of security in exchange for liberty is real, at least not to the total extent that Marx advocates.

Compared to [socialism], Fascism is far more elitist and is hardly concerned with most individuals (some perhaps, but then see elitist).

Fascism is a variant of socialism, the other being communism. Second, what you said is only the case if we consider practical fascism against theoretical communism, which is not a valid comparison. In reality, both forms of socialism, communism and fascism are elitist, with an annointed group (party members) enjoying vast powers and privileges over the rest of the people. In reality, neither has any regard for the individual, only the "the interests of society", but this is based on the false premise that there is a single definable entity called "society", rather than a mass of individuals, so talk of "the interests of society" merely means favouring the interests of some individuals over the rights of others. It is nothing more than a barely disguised excuse to get people to surrender their liberty willingly.

First of all, AlanBstard, socialism is like atheism. It's a highly individual thing and the variations are immense.

i'm not calling you a fascist I'm asking you to accept that facism is a form of socialism. Just one that not in vogue.

They do this over the whole economy, and through the normal fascist policy ofprice and wage controls, they gain control over the economy.
Yes, but not complete control.
Fascists don't have a problem with people making money! They just don't want it to be done in a way that doesn't further the nation. They love Capitalists because it is them who provide the guns and tanks and all the other stuff that a nation needs to be powerful.
A communist could never even remotely agree to this.

And besides, you know what Hitler's reason for the wage and price controls was - keep down inflation, because understandably, a 1933 Hitler would be somewhat paranoid about it.

More simply, in communism, the state employs, in fascism, the state makes all the decisions for the employer. The results are in practice the same, economic failure, and the prioritising of military production and acquisition over all else.
But philosophically it is a huge and fundamental difference, as I said before.
They are similar (in some ways) intellectual movements, and what else would you expect from Mussolini?
But they have a number of key difference that make being a Socialist and being a Fascist absolutely and totally irreconcilable.

Firstly, fascism is a part of socialism (the other part being communism), secondly, both communists and fascists see ending the class struggle as a means to an end, and the end is the same: power.
So it may be in practice, but you do know (and I know you do) that Communism is essentially a scientific theory about how history must evolve.
If some of the most fundamental assumptions aren't shared, the two can't be of the same kind.

Yes, but not complete control.

No one can have complete control, but in both fascist and communist economies, the driving force of economic activity is state decree.

Fascists don't have a problem with people making money! They just don't want it to be done in a way that doesn't further the nation. They love Capitalists because it is them who provide the guns and tanks and all the other stuff that a nation needs to be powerful.
A communist could never even remotely agree to this.

Fascists reduce capitalists to the status of state pensioners, because the state determines their profit. There were no real capitalists under fascism, merely managers.

And besides, you know what Hitler's reason for the wage and price controls was - keep down inflation, because understandably, a 1933 Hitler would be somewhat paranoid about it.

That's a laugh for a start, the reason for the inflation you claim Hitler was trying to stop was ... Hitler. The German Government controlled the currency through the Reichsbank, and they inflated like crazy to fund their public works, bureaucracy, and rearmament.

Price and wage controls were implemented in order to increase government control over the economy. It would pave the way for a command economy.

But philosophically it is a huge and fundamental difference, as I said before.

No, it isn't, it is merely two different roads to the same place. One road is more rocky, the other is smoother.

So it may be in practice, but you do know (and I know you do) that Communism is essentially a scientific theory about how history must evolve.
If some of the most fundamental assumptions aren't shared, the two can't be of the same kind.

Don't throw red herrings at me. You know exactly what I mean when I talk about communism. It is a set of ideas laid out by Marx which are the steps to what he thinks is a perfect society.

No, it isn't, it is merely two different roads to the same place. One road is more rocky, the other is smoother.
I guess we once more have to agree to disagree.
I don't think Communists want to go to the same place as Fascists, and different types of Socialists want to go to a different place still.
It's probably enough to simply say that there are pretty big differences, and that thus voting for a Socialist party has a very different effect from voting for a Fascist party - both philosophically and practically.

Disraeliland,

So basically the only thing you have is that both of the historical examples of Fascism have been Socialist. Considering the turbulent 1920s and 1930s it's really no surprise that any revolutionary government would have an anti-free market stance.

Do you perhaps have any quotes from Marx emphasizing national and racial unity? No because he was solely concerned with class struggle.

Do you have quotes from Hitler suggesting that he was interested in class struggle? That he desired economic equality for all? I doubt it.

Basically all you have is that both of these "roads" lead to the same "place" of high State involvement in the lives of citizens. But that is so broad you can apply it to many kinds of political and economic ideologies. Furthermore, if we are talking on a theoretically level then communism would ideally deconstruct into a sort of worker's anarachic utopia (I don't care if that would happen, just that it's the plan). That doesn't sound very fascist to me...

Do you have anything to offer other than your dislike of communism?

So basically the only thing you have is that both of the historical examples of Fascism have been Socialist. Considering the turbulent 1920s and 1930s it's really no surprise that any revolutionary government would have an anti-free market stance.

Fascists have advocated, and carried out socialist economic policies. That is an undisputable fact.

Do you perhaps have any quotes from Marx emphasizing national and racial unity? No because he was solely concerned with class struggle.

You've walked right into it.

Marx, SECOND ADDRESS On The War To the Members of the International Working-Men’s Association, 1870: "If the fortune of her arms, the arrogance of success, and dynastic intrigue lead Germany to a spoliation of French territory, there will then only remain two courses open to her. She must at all risks become the avowed tool of Russian aggrandisement, or, after some short respite, make again ready for another “defensive” war, not one of those new-fangled “localised” wars, but a war of races — a war with the combined Slavonian and Roman races".

Marx to Engels, July 20, 1870: "The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of the state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class. German predominance would also transfer the centre of gravity of the workers' movement in Western Europe from France to Germany, and one has only to compare the movement in the two countries from 1866 till now to see that the German working class is superior to the French both theoretically and organisationally. Their predominance over the French on the world stage would also mean the predominance of our theory over Proudhon's, etc."

Letter from Marx to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, 1846: "As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America.

Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country. Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation. But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map. Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world. All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the New World"

Marx, New-York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853: "England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindoostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution".

I now see clearly that he is descended, as the shape of his head and his hair clearly indicate, from the Negroes who were joined to the Jews at the time of the exodus from Egypt ( unless it was his mother or paternal grandmother who mated with a Negro). But this mixture of Judaism and Germanism with a negro substance as a base was bound to yield a most curious product. The importunity of the man also is negroid...One of the great discoveries of this Negro, which he confided to me, is that the Pelasgians are descended from the Semites. His main proof is that, according to the Book of Maccabees, the Jews sent messenger to Greece to ask for help and appealed to their tribal relationship..."

For certain questions, such as nationality, etc., only here has a basis in nature been found. E.g., he [Tremaux] corrects the Pole Duchinski, whose version of the geological differences between Russia and the Western Slav lands he does incidentally confirm, by saying not that the Russians are Tartars rather than Slavs, etc., as the latter believes, but that on the surface-formation predominant in Russia the Slav has been tartarised and mongolised; likewise (he spent a long time in Africa) he shows that the common negro type is only a degeneration of a far higher one".

"It has ditto been shown geologically and hydrographically that a great ‘Asiatic’ difference occurs east of the Dnieper, compared with what lies to the west of it, and that (as Murchison has already maintained) the Urals by no means constitute a dividing line. Result as obtained by Duchinski: Russia is a name usurped by the Muscovites. They are not Slavs; they do not belong to the Indo-Germanic race at all, they are des intrus [intruders], who must be chased back across the Dnieper, etc."

"Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society. The question, therefore, is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton.....

The British were the first conquerors superior, and therefore, inaccessible to Hindoo civilization. They destroyed it by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything beyond that destruction. The work of regeneration hardly transpires through a heap of ruins. Nevertheless it has begun.

The political unity of India, more consolidated, and extending farther than it ever did under the Great Moguls, was the first condition of its regeneration. That unity, imposed by the British sword, will now be strengthened and perpetuated by the electric telegraph. The native army, organized and trained by the British drill-sergeant, was the sine qua non of Indian self-emancipation, and of India ceasing to be the prey of the first foreign intruder. The free press, introduced for the first time into Asiatic society, and managed principally by the common offspring of Hindoos and Europeans, is a new and powerful agent of reconstruction".

"It is almost needless to observe that, in the same measure in which opium has obtained the sovereignty over the Chinese, the Emperor and his staff of pedantic mandarins have become dispossessed of their own sovereignty. It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could rouse them out of their hereditary stupidity".

"Neither Bohemia nor Croatia was strong enough to exist as a nation by herself. Their respective nationalities, gradually undermined by the action of historical causes that inevitably absorbs into a more energetic stock, could only hope to be restored to anything like independence by an alliance with other Slavonic nations.....

Scattered remnants of numerous nations, whose nationality and political vitality had long been extinguished .... the same as the Welsh in England, the Basques in Spain, the Bas-Bretons in France, and at a more recent period the Spanish and French Creoles in those portions of North America occupied of late by the Anglo-American race —these dying nationalities, the Bohemians, Carinthians, Dalmatians, etc., had tried.... to restore their political status quo of A. D. 800. The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible.... this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent.... and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself".

"He has not the slightest idea that the ability of children to develop depends on the development of their parents and that all this crippling under existing social relations has arisen historically, and in the same way can be abolished again in the course of historical development. Even naturally evolved differences within the species, such as racial differences, etc., which Sancho does not mention at all, can and must be abolished in the course of historical development. Sancho — who in this connection casts a stealthy glance at zoology and so makes the discovery that “innate limited intellects” form the most numerous class not only among sheep and oxen, but also among polyps and infusoria, which have no heads at all — has perhaps heard that it is possible to improve races of animals and by cross-breeding to create entirely new, more perfect varieties both for human enjoyment and for their own self-enjoyment.. “Why should not” Sancho be able to draw a conclusion from this in relation to people as well?"

You should know that the Germans, young and old, are merely self-important, solid men of a practical bent, who consider people like you and me immature fools who still have not been cured of their revolutionary delusions. And the domestic riff-raff is as bad as the foreign kind. (…) Add to that their spent souls - a good thrashing is the only way to resurrect the German Joe (…)"

“When this morning we inquired at the Hotel de l’Europe, fortunately it so happened that 60 Frenchmen were preparing to leave, while on the other hand the steam ships loaded with fresh human debris had not arrived yet.”

"For when the little chap (Wedde) was in London for the first time I used the expression "modern mythology" to describe the goddesses of "Justice, Freedom, Equality, etc." who were now all the rage again; this made a deep impression on him, as he has himself done much in the service of these higher beings."

"In London a sly-looking little Jew got into our carriage in a big hurry, with a small suitcase under his arm

"The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money."

“General Council to the Federal Council of Romance Switzerland”, 1870: “The Lumpenproletariat [rag-proletariat], this residue of the degenerated members of all classes that has its headquarters in the big cities, is the worst of all possible allies. This riff-raff is totally for sale and totally obnoxious.”

"The most interesting acquaintanceship I have struck up here is that of Colonel Lapinski. He is without doubt the cleverest Pole - besides being an homme d'action [man of action] - that I have ever met. His sympathies are all on the German side, though in manners and speech he is also a Frenchman. He cares nothing for the struggle of nationalities and only knows the racial struggle. He hates all Orientals, among whom he numbers Russians Turks, Greeks, Armenians, etc., with equal impartiality.... His aim now is to raise a German legion in London, even if only 200 strong, so that he can confront the Russians in Poland with the black, red and gold flag, partly to 'exasperate' the Parisians, partly to see whether there is any possibility whatsoever of bringing the Germans in Germany back to their senses. What's lacking is money. Efforts are being made down here to exploit all the German societies, etc., to this end. You must be the best judge of whether anything can be done in this line in Manchester. The cause itself would seem to be above reproach.”

“This young lady, who instantly overwhelmed me with her kindness, is the ugliest creature I have seen in my entire life, with repulsive Jewish facial features.”

"Darwin's work is most significant and suits me as a natural science underpinning for historic class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, 'teleology' in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."

More here: http://marxwords.blogspot.com/

I can't believe you walked into that!

Basically all you have is that both of these "roads" lead to the same "place" of high State involvement in the lives of citizens. But that is so broad you can apply it to many kinds of political and economic ideologies. Furthermore, if we are talking on a theoretically level then communism would ideally deconstruct into a sort of worker's anarachic utopia (I don't care if that would happen, just that it's the plan). That doesn't sound very fascist to me...

We aren't talking on a theoretical level. I have posted elsewhere on the forums why posting about theoretical communism is an exercise in irrelevancy.

I don't think Communists want to go to the same place as Fascists, and different types of Socialists want to go to a different place still.

Perhaps you refer to "social-democrats", like the Greens, or Labor. These people may well talk about socialism, but they are not socialists because they balk at the force required to impose socialism. They merely hamper the market economy to a greater extent than parties further to the Right (the Liberal Party for example).

Communists and Fascists claim want the same thing, the "perfect society", to get it, they insist on being given what they actually want, total power.

It's probably enough to simply say that there are pretty big differences, and that thus voting for a Socialist party has a very different effect from voting for a Fascist party - both philosophically and practically.

They seem to have a different effect, however the effect is practially the same, also, the prediliction of certain fascists to get into wars too big for them to handle distort the effects we can see because of the constraints imposed by war. In terms of philosophy, they have superficially different messages, but the same basic idea, i.e. that the party will achieve power by appealing to one group, saying that it is being oppressed by the other group, and that if the party is given power, the oppressors will be punished, clearing the way for the favoured group to rise to its ideal state.

Does it really matter than Communists say one class is repressed by another, while Fascists say that other nations are responsible for the problems? No. Both statements are a means to an end: power, and that is the real nature of socialism, power.

One may have a different feeling in voting for a fascist party as opposed to a socialist party, but again, this is a matter of tactics, as fascist appeals tend to be different, and appeal to more widely held views. Fascists build an easier road to power.

Perhaps you refer to "social-democrats", like the Greens, or Labor. These people may well talk about socialism, but they are not socialists because they balk at the force required to impose socialism.
Can you substantiate that socialism must be 'imposed'? Is it possible your conclusions about socialism necessarily follow from a very particular definition of socialism, that you apply simply because the conclusions do necessarily follow from it?

Can you substantiate that socialism must be 'imposed'? Is it possible your conclusions about socialism necessarily follow from a very particular definition of socialism, that you apply simply because the conclusions do necessarily follow from it?

Real socialism, that is an economic system in which the driving force for all economic and production activity is state decree, requires a massive act of theft. Literally all the productive property of a society must be nicked. The methods of doing this differ, but the result is the same.

In terms of so-called "other forms of socialism", firstly, the voluntary communities that embrace socialist ways are not socialist (because they are not states, and there is no forcible deprivation of property), secondly, mainstream Western leftists (like the SDP in Germany, or Labor in Australia) are not socialists because they advocate hampered market economies. The driving force of such economies is still the personal initiative of private owners motivated by private profit, the difference between these parties and more rightist parties (like the Liberal Party of Australia, or the Republicans in the US) is that the leftists hamper to a greater extent, and redistribute to a greater extent. They are not socialist because they are afraid of the resistance that an attempt to impose socialism brings.

Communists deal with this resistance with the absolute application of force, fascists tend to find ways to circumvent it, relying principally on the age-old political device of advocating the surrender of liberty in exchange for security.

Real socialism, that is an economic system in which the driving force for all economic and production activity is state decree, requires a massive act of theft.
It may well be that an economic system in which the driving force for all economic and production activity is state decree, requires a massive act of theft, but why ought I believe that only members of the set 'economic systems in which the driving force for economic and production activity is state decree' are members of the set 'real socialism'?

In terms of so-called "other forms of socialism", firstly, the voluntary communities that embrace socialist ways are not socialist (because they are not states,
Why must all members of the set 'socialist' also be members of the set 'are a state'?

and there is no forcible deprivation of property),
You have yet to provide any reason why all members of the set 'socialist/socialism' must also be members of the set 'characterised by forcible deprivation of property'.

secondly, mainstream Western leftists (like the SDP in Germany, or Labor in Australia) are not socialists because they advocate hampered market economies.
Why ought I believe that the sets 'socialist' and 'advocation of hampered market economies' are mutually exclusive?

The driving force of such economies is still the personal initiative of private owners motivated by private profit,
Right, but what is the relevence? I dont see why I ought to believe that socialism and personal initiative of private owners being 'the driving force' of the economy, are mutually exclusive.

They are not socialist because they are afraid of the resistance that an attempt to impose socialism brings.
Stating as much doesnt make it so.

It seems to me that it is likely the critieria on which you base your definition of 'real socialism' is "necessarily implying certain consequences that I wish to be able argue are the necessary consequences of socialism".

This is like 'proving' all balls are red, by insisting that every member of the set 'balls' are also members of the set 'red'.

Fascists have advocated, and carried out socialist economic policies. That is an undisputable fact.

Indeed. And that fact does not suggest that Facism must be Socialist, only that at that time it was. Facist regimes are rare, you can't even really establish a correlation, let alone a deeper connection, between Facism and Socialism. What exactly about Facism requires that it would be Socialist? The only thing you have is that both tend to a statist approach. But that's too broad a brush. If your comfortable lumping in oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, totalitarianism, and some primitivist economies into one huge category go ahead. But we aren't going to learn much if we treat them all the same.

Now, let's see what I "walked into."

Quote #1: This merely makes an international relations prediction that doesn't affect his theory whatsoever. That he mentioned races doesn't in anyway take him into the realm of facism. It reads more like a fancy way of generalizing the German and Russian nations.

Quote #2: Here Marx is only stating that should a particular international event occur, the worker's movement would be assisted. Nationalism is more than recongnition that there are indeed nation-states...

Quote #3: So Marx argues that an economic system that he has spent his academic life opposing is based on slave labor and suddenly he is joining in on the racist fun? The slavery was "good" as in it was good for the system, not good in the moral sense.

Quote #4: I'm at a loss. Explain what is wrong here other than Marx dared to say Asia.

Quote #5-7: So far the best quotes to suggest Marx was racist. I'm not surprised, this kind of examination was common at the time. This is a start, you still need to tie this to the theory though as these seem more like musing on the race theory of the time rather than economics. Remember, I am asking you to show how Marx was interested in racial unity as a part of his theory. It isn't enough to show that he was a racist. That would be nothing but ad hominem.

Quote #8: Mistake of fact. Was this sort of examination uncommon for the day? Are we to hold Marx to standards of modern historians where he has not had the benefit of modern knowledge?

Quote #9: Clearly an attack on the dynastic system of succession and rule in China. Just because he said these Chinese are high, doesn't mean all Chinese are high. But anyway, this once again doesn't tie anything into his central theory.

Quote #10: Marx's dialectic is historical. He has to consider the historical reality of nation-states. That he has talked about them doesn't emphasize national unity.

Quote #11: This is an excellent quote for the point you are trying to make. I think it can be read both ways. One way interprets "historical development" as a sort of progression along the dialectic, i.e. enviromental changes. That is to say no race is inherently ignorant, etc but only so because of their current place in the greater dialect. I think that interpretation would be false though, because I think it is clear, especially in the last two lines, that Marx and Engels were advocating some sort of eugenics program. It's not quite the holocaust and we don't know how far they go. I really need to be able to read more to really understand where they were going with this.

Quote #12-16: Comments that show, once again, that Marx did think along racial lines. A far cry from racial unity and racial war. We still don't have anything that takes away from the centrality of class struggle. The closest thing is #11, but like I said we need to see more.

Quote #17: He doesn't think highly of certain workers... nothing to do with nationalism or racial unity. Doesn't do anything to negate the theme of class struggle. So... this doesn't do much now does it.

Quote #18: The most damning part of this quote is that Marx appears to think well of Col. Lapinski's efforts to create a "German legion" for some political machination of which we know little about. It's clear that Marx considers the cause, the political machination, to be above criticism not the racial views of the Colonel. Now maybe Marx does agree with the Colonel on his racial views, but such isn't clear from the quote.

Quote #19: I'm a white guy and I have found some Asian women to be unattractive, I must be a racist!

Quote #20: Along with #11 the most daming quote of the lot. However, it's very ambigious. We don't care about the natural sciences here, so really we need to know how Darwin's study underpinned class struggle. We don't know that here and we can't make a guess as to what Marx thought was useful. Find something more specific on this subject and you may have something here.


Anyway, in summary lots of bluster, precious little substance. But I will tell you what, I will ignore all of the bravado because you have done a lot of work here and I respect that. Also, I spoke way too broadly initially and that is my fault. You have shown that Marx was concerned about nationality and race, this is only reasonable given the time he was living in. You have failed to show that these concerns entered into his theory. We do not throw out Locke and Jefferson because they owned slaves.

Furthermore, Marx isn't enough. I said Marx because it's easy to point to him. But he wasn't the only Socialist on the block. You want to tie racial unity, eugenics and nationalism to other socialists of the day? Not only are you going to have your hands full, you have to go above and beyond with what you did with Marx. You got somewhat close on two quotes, but you didn't show how they entered into his economic theory.

Finally, please don't paint me to be an apologist for Marx. I don't have any stake in defending a long-dead racist. I find Marx's theory somewhat useful, but I'm not a communist. This is all about half-assesed attempts to paint something that it is not (Socialism into Facism) all for the purpose of a libertarian circle jerk. I'm not impressed.

In terms of so-called "other forms of socialism", firstly, the voluntary communities that embrace socialist ways are not socialist (because they are not states, and there is no forcible deprivation of property), secondly, mainstream Western leftists (like the SDP in Germany, or Labor in Australia) are not socialists because they advocate hampered market economies.

This is just so blantantly ridiculous. Have you ever heard of begging the question? How about the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy? You are setting up an awfully convenient and erroneous set of assumptions. When we attempt to break those assumptions you "cleverly" change names around.

Haven't you ever read Oscar Lange on market Socialism?

Please tell me, who put it into your head that socialists are the bogeymen?

Indeed. And that fact does not suggest that Facism must be Socialist, only that at that time it was. Facist regimes are rare, you can't even really establish a correlation, let alone a deeper connection, between Facism and Socialism. What exactly about Facism requires that it would be Socialist? The only thing you have is that both tend to a statist approach. But that's too broad a brush. If your comfortable lumping in oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, totalitarianism, and some primitivist economies into one huge category go ahead. But we aren't going to learn much if we treat them all the same.

Socialism requires totalitarian measures to enforce it. All socialists really advocate is the destruction of the price system, usually through price and wage controls.

A system of price and wage controls is not good economics, it will create shortages, and perpetuate them. It also prevents producers and sellers from profitting from producing and selling. This creates a black market, in which very high prices are charged. People are willing, in some cases, eager, to pay these higher prices as this will certainly secure for them the goods they want.

Of course this activity undermines the price controls, and if left unchecked, assumes major proportions. This means the state must impose severe punishments for black market activity, and make it likely that people who engage in black market transactions will be caught.

Fines are not a severe enough punishment, to make a dent in the black market, it must be punished as a major felony. Of course, this alone isn't enough, as I said, the state must make it likely that those who participate in black market transactions will be caught and punished.

To make being caught likely, the state must raise and maintain a vast system of internal spies (like the Gestapo, or KGB) supported by perhaps millions of informers, it must make people fear that anyone they come across may by an agent or informer, even family (the USSR had a statue of a boy, his "heroic" action was dobbing his parents in to the KGB). It must make each party in the transaction fear that the other may be an agent trying to entrap him.

Having caught him, it is necessary for the state to make it likely that punishment will be administered. Jury trials are not adequate, it is not likely that a jury will convict someone of buying some black market meat to feed his children, or someone who sells shoes above the state mandated price to buy medicine for his children. These decisions must be left to administrative, or political tribunals (like the Peoples' Court of National Socialist Germany), or even to the agents themselves on the spot (both Gestapo and KGB agents had summary powers to interrogate, imprison, or execute people).

Therefore, even a single element of socialism, namely price and wage controls, will require a totalitarian state like the USSR, or National Socialist Germany.

There is a definite connection between socialism and totalitarianism.

As for such institutions as aristocracy, and monarchy, this illustrates a solely tactical difference between fascists and communists. Fascists like to appeal to traditional institutions, and to some extent, work within them. Communists tend to want to smash them. The aim of each party is the same: power. This willingness of fascists to work within, and appeal to traditional ideas and institutions explains two differences between people's responses to fascism and responses to communism. Fascists tend to enter power legally, they tend to have, and maintain considerable popular support (though it is quickly eroded, by unsuccessful war for instance)

What exactly about Facism requires that it would be Socialist?

The main thing is that fascists, like other socialists, preach common good over individual good.

Now, let's see what I "walked into."

What you walked into was claiming that an anti-semite who liked slavery (in a time when abolitionism was gaining prominence) cared only about "class-struggle".

You also missed the vital point about Marx, and all other advocates of collectivist ideas. The message of Marx, in terms of class struggle can be summed up as "The working class are being oppressed by the ruling class. The working class should get behind the Communists, and we'll punish the ruling class and institute the perfect society"

The message of the National Socialists can be summed up as "The Germans are being oppressed by the Jews. The Germans should get behind the National Socialists, and we'll punish the Jews and institute the perfect society"

Is there any difference between these messages? NO! They are essentially the same, preying on one group as a way to power.

This is all about half-assesed attempts to paint something that it is not (Socialism into Facism) all for the purpose of a libertarian circle jerk. I'm not impressed.

Those who have said Fascism is socialism have backed their arguments well. I've seen nothing from those who say it is not except superficial nonsense. Having a monarchy is not something that all socialists will balk at. Indeed, a monarchy can be useful, as he was in Italy, appointing Mussolini Prime Minister because he believed that Mussolini could bring order. Why bring down an institution you can use?

To me this illustrates a difference in the mindset of fascists when compared to other socialists. They all have the same basic urge, power, but fascists are highly flexible in how they will achieve it. Communists will simple use massive force to achieve their aims, if the hammer won't drive in a screw, use a bigger hammer. A fascist will get a screwdriver.

Facist regimes are rare

Nevertheless, they have existed, and can be studied.

Zagat, if you've nothing to say, say nothing. Frankly trying to pull the old line of "this isn't socialism" everytime someone points out the mass graves that socialists inevitably create is so transparantly idiotic as to make one wonder why anyone would bother posting it.

Ah, I see part of the problem here. A lot of the people are claiming that fascism and socialism are the same thing due to the fact that they advocated a certain amount of government control over the economy.

However, that is only half of the definition. An economically left-wing ideology is one that advocates a certain amount of government control over the economy with the goal of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. There have been plenty of right-wing ideologies that have had a fair amount of government control over the economy, so this isn't sufficient.

Zagat, if you've nothing to say, say nothing. Frankly trying to pull the old line of "this isn't socialism" everytime someone points out the mass graves that socialists inevitably create is so transparantly idiotic as to make one wonder why anyone would bother posting it.
Disraeliland, I have not suggested, or implied that any particular thing is not socialism.

...secondly, mainstream Western leftists (like the SDP in Germany, or Labor in Australia) are not socialists because they advocate hampered market economies...
How about we call them "improved market economies", or perhaps even "Social Market Economies"?

How about we call them "improved market economies", or perhaps even "Social Market Economies"?

Did you just become Kim Beazley's publicist?

The term "hampered market economy" is accurate.

Disraeliland, I have not suggested, or implied that any particular thing is not socialism.

Then I repeat my first sentence: If you've nothing to say, say nothing.

However, that is only half of the definition. An economically left-wing ideology is one that advocates a certain amount of government control over the economy with the goal of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. There have been plenty of right-wing ideologies that have had a fair amount of government control over the economy, so this isn't sufficient.

Fascists redictribute wealth from those they think ought not have to those they think ought to have it. They do this in more subtle ways (the main one being inflation) rather than outright nicking.

The other key point is the word goal. They have this goal of creating a perfect society, but they make an incredible botch of the job. All socialist regimes create a living hell. You may talk of redistribution, but all I see is shortages and bread-lines.

I struggle to find any meaning in your last sentence. That a right-wing ideologue has a fair amount of control over the economy is nothing to do with fascism (which is a left-wing ideology), and may not even be related to the policies the ideologue advocates, for example, one is elected to replace a far-left wing government. The new right-wing government will have considerable control over the economy because he inherited the set of laws and regulations from the previous government.

In either case, left or right, redistribution of wealth in a manner that reflects the interests of the state, and the preferences of its leaders takes place. There is no essential difference between taking from rich to give to the poor, and printing money to fund rearmament, except that the idea of giving to the poor gives more people a warm fuzzy feeling.

Like pissing in a wetsuit.

Did you just become Kim Beazley's publicist?
Oh you cannot imagine how much I loathe the guy. Not only is the entirety of labour a bad excuse for the ruins of a worker's party, but Beazley is the most disgusting of the lot.
He's on my list of "politicians for whom I would not brake, should I be so lucky to meet them on my way to Uni", along with pretty much everyone but the Greens Leader and maybe Peter Costello (because he's so reasonable, or at least tries to hide his ideological crusade).

The term "hampered market economy" is accurate.
Another thread for another day...

Fascists redictribute wealth from those they think ought not have to those they think ought to have it. They do this in more subtle ways (the main one being inflation) rather than outright nicking.All ideologies except for right-wing anarchism distribute wealth from those they think they ought not have to those they think ought to have it, usually through taxatiion.

The other key point is the word goal. They have this goal of creating a perfect society, but they make an incredible botch of the job. All socialist regimes create a living hell. You may talk of redistribution, but all I see is shortages and bread-lines.I should think the goal of every ideology is to make a perfect, or at least a better society.

I struggle to find any meaning in your last sentence. That a right-wing ideologue has a fair amount of control over the economy is nothing to do with fascism (which is a left-wing ideology), and may not even be related to the policies the ideologue advocates, for example, one is elected to replace a far-left wing government. The new right-wing government will have considerable control over the economy because he inherited the set of laws and regulations from the previous government.I was not saying that the ideologue had control of the economy, I said that many right-wing ideologies advocate government control over the economy. The point is that government control over the economy doesn't automatically make an ideology left-wing.

In either case, left or right, redistribution of wealth in a manner that reflects the interests of the state, and the preferences of its leaders takes place. Naturally.

The problem is that Costello hides it behind a smile you just have to belt off with a cricket bat, well, a lead pipe really.

As for that arse with ears Brown, a man with his contempt for the free speech of others isn't worth a rail.

Labor isn't worth bothering with at the Federal level. Neither are the Democrats (who've gone from "Keep the bastards honest" to "workers of the world, flatuate", nor the Greens (watermelons in fact), the Nationals are little more than a bunch of agrarian socialists who's main interest is fleecing the city folk. Family First aren't significant enough to comment on.

Its an appalling but true thing to say that the Liberals are the closest thing there is to sanity, though they're not very close.

My advice to those who live in rural/regional Australia is vote National, and hold your stomach.

By the way, if you ever thought Labor was a workers' party, think again. It was a union activists' party. There's a difference. It is now a professional politicans' and union activists' party. The resume's of some Labor politicians are simply obscene. Kate Ellis, for example. Student Politician in Uni, went to work for a real politician, pre-selection to an easy seat.

Not one second spent on planet Earth, though she makes up for it by being cute.

At least the Liberals (who are solicitors to a man) have spent 30 or so minutes in the private sector.

Socialism requires totalitarian measures to enforce it. All socialists really advocate is the destruction of the price system, usually through price and wage controls.

Once again, begging the question. Is Sweden totalitarian? How about France and Britain? No, of course not. They are statist when it comes to the economy, by definition they must be in one way or another. However, they are not authoritariam or totalitarian.

Furthermore, there is more to socialism than price controls, there are various strands of socialism around. The most common thread between them is that they take some statist or communal, approach to the economy. Like I said, market Socialism does not require price controls.

A system of price and wage controls is not good economics, it will create shortages, and perpetuate them...

I do not need a lesson on economics and I am not arguing for the viability of a Socialist state. I'm only saying that Socialism is not strictly Fascism. If you want to say that Socialism is a poor system of organisation because of economic inefficiency or because it violates economic liberty then I will agree with you for the most part. But, once again, this is not the topic at hand.

Furthermore, that you have a flawed system of organisation doesn't mean you need to have a totalitarian government to enforce it. Our market system fails every 2 to 3 years (recession), we don't have the U.S. government throwing dissenters into labor camps.

The main thing is that fascists, like other socialists, preach common good over individual good.

A number of moral, political, and economic systems have done so. Are they all Fascist? If we lump them all together, do we learn anything? It seems to me that people are proposing this "Socialism is Fascism" thing as an insult of some kind. These are names! Categories! They don't have any meaning outside definition of common structural features. If you don't have that then you aren't doing anything above saying "d00d socializts sucks! lololol." We can do without that.

What you walked into was claiming that an anti-semite who liked slavery (in a time when abolitionism was gaining prominence) cared only about "class-struggle".

On that you are totally correct and I admitted so much in my previous post. My original statement was overbroad. I wanted to say find quotes by Marx which tie traditional Fascist views into his theory of class struggle.

You also missed the vital point about Marx, and all other advocates of collectivist ideas. The message of Marx, in terms of class struggle can be summed up as "The working class are being oppressed by the ruling class. The working class should get behind the Communists, and we'll punish the ruling class and institute the perfect society"

"The individual is being oppressed by the government. The individual should get behind libertarianism/objectivism/classic liberalism, and we'll punish the government and institute the perfect society."

No difference eh? The qualifying statement that you just advanced will fit ANY ideology that identifies a problem that is hampering a goal.

"Humanity is being oppressed by suffering. Humanity should get behind the Buddha, and we'll transcend suffering and become enlightened."

That's a bit of a strech, but you see how far it can go?

Those who have said Fascism is socialism have backed their arguments well. I've seen nothing from those who say it is not except superficial nonsense. Having a monarchy is not something that all socialists will balk at.

So a minority of Socialists may have advocated authoritarian governments. Pinochet anyone? Or was he also a Socialist. Is Melkor a Socialist? He advocates benevolent monarchy. He is an avowed objectivist, does that mean that all objectivists are monarchists?

To me this illustrates a difference in the mindset of fascists when compared to other socialists. They all have the same basic urge, power, but fascists are highly flexible in how they will achieve it.

So... libertarians do not have a political party? No project to move thousands of families to the U.S. east coast to take over a state's legislature? Only the bad guys want power to change things right? If libertarians achieve their goals, reduced the size of government, etc, will they then be happy to hand power to Socialists? They won't try to keep power? A majority of ideologies want power to create their own utopia, this says nothing about the similarities and differences of Fascism and Socialism.



It's clear to me that you have turned Socialists into bogeymen. Anyone who doesn't fit your mold of good is a Socialist. This whole "Socialism is Fascism" thing is clearly an attempt to declare their moral equivalency. To me that's needlessly extreme and counter to the cause of true learning.

Once again, begging the question. Is Sweden totalitarian? How about France and Britain? No, of course not. They are statist when it comes to the economy, by definition they must be in one way or another. However, they are not authoritariam or totalitarian.

Literacy rates must be low where you're from. I already explained that countries like Sweden are not socialist. They talk about socialism, and espose it as their philosophy, but their economies are not socialist, they are hampered market economies, like those in most capitalist countries. The difference is that the Swedes hamper the market economy more than the United States, for example.

The driving force in Sweden for economic and productive activity is still personal initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit. In socialist economies, the motivating force is state decree.

Furthermore, there is more to socialism than price controls, there are various strands of socialism around. The most common thread between them is that they take some statist or communal, approach to the economy. Like I said, market Socialism does not require price controls

The only thing necessary to start a country down the road to state central planning is destroying the price system by introducing price and wage controls. This is because such controls introduce a randomness in the allocation of materials and other factors of production. The way to defeat such randomness is central planning.

I do not need a lesson on economics and I am not arguing for the viability of a Socialist state. I'm only saying that Socialism is not strictly Fascism. If you want to say that Socialism is a poor system of organisation because of economic inefficiency or because it violates economic liberty then I will agree with you for the most part. But, once again, this is not the topic at hand.

Furthermore, that you have a flawed system of organisation doesn't mean you need to have a totalitarian government to enforce it. Our market system fails every 2 to 3 years (recession), we don't have the U.S. government throwing dissenters into labor camps.

Can you seriously dispute that socialist measures require a totalitarian state?

I'll give you another point. In a socialist state, the government takes full responsibility for the well-being of the individual, but it makes an incredible mess of the job. Instead of a paradise, socialist regimes deliver hell. This will obviously create resentment, which is increased by the socialists' own propaganda that their's is a perfect system who's bad results are the result of the actions of evil men. Who can these men be? Why, the socialists themselves. Because they screw things up so badly, they must operate the apparatus of a totalitarian state, and they must control all speech, while filling newspapers with stories of conspiracies against the nation by foreigners, and by those groups the regime doesn't like.

A number of moral, political, and economic systems have done so. Are they all Fascist? If we lump them all together, do we learn anything? It seems to me that people are proposing this "Socialism is Fascism" thing as an insult of some kind. These are names! Categories! They don't have any meaning outside definition of common structural features. If you don't have that then you aren't doing anything above saying "d00d socializts sucks! lololol." We can do without that.

Nope, all down the line. Frankly this is the weakest ploy you've pulled.

"The individual is being oppressed by the government. The individual should get behind libertarianism/objectivism/classic liberalism, and we'll punish the government and institute the perfect society."

No difference eh? The qualifying statement that you just advanced will fit ANY ideology that identifies a problem that is hampering a goal.

"Humanity is being oppressed by suffering. Humanity should get behind the Buddha, and we'll transcend suffering and become enlightened."

That's a bit of a strech, but you see how far it can go?

No reputable libertarian has advocated sending all public servants to concentration camps.

In any case, what you've stated is about as libertarian as it is a pink areoplane made of sherbert.

Fascism and communism do give out the messages I paraphrased. They are both fundamentally the same on the level of being collectivist movements which prey on the anxieties of one group as a path to power.

So a minority of Socialists may have advocated authoritarian governments. Pinochet anyone? Or was he also a Socialist. Is Melkor a Socialist? He advocates benevolent monarchy. He is an avowed objectivist, does that mean that all objectivists are monarchists?

What exactly are you saying? If anything?

Firstly, Pinochet is irrelevant to a discussion of fascism, it is only the idiocy of leftists, and their willingness to say anything to avoid being tarred with the brush of socialist crimes.

The reason that Pinochet is irrelevant to a discussion of fascism is quite simple. He was not a fascist.

His political violence is not typical of fascism, nor indicative of it. Political violence in modern political science is primarily associated with communism.

His economic policies certainly had nothing in common with fascists. From Wiki:

Once in power, Pinochet immediately set about making market-oriented economic reforms. He declared that he wanted "to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs". To formulate his economic policy, Pinochet relied on the so-called Chicago Boys, who were economists trained at the University of Chicago and heavily influenced by the monetarist policies of Milton Friedman.

Pinochet launched an era of economic deregulation and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on wealth and profits. Supporters of these policies (most notably Milton Friedman himself) have dubbed them "The Miracle of Chile", due to the 35% increase in real per capita GDP from 1960 to 1980 (later, from 1980 to 2000, it increased by 94%, but Pinochet was no longer in power after 1990). Opponents such as Noam Chomsky dispute this label, [4] pointing out that the unemployment rate increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 22% in 1983, while real wages declined by 40%. There is much disagreement amongst economists regarding the accuracy of such statistics, with both sides normally selectively choosing those that better reflect their argument. However, Pinochet did manage to address part of these problems during his final years as President, since unemployment was down to 7.8% in 1990. The shortage problems during the final years of Allende's administration were also remedied.

The privatizations, cuts in public spending, and deregulated labor policies generally had a negative impact on Chile's working class and a positive one on the country's more wealthy strata and middle class.

President Allende's economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been a significant reason behind the external Western opposition to Allende's Marxist government, in addition to his friendliness with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently-released U.S. government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry drivers' strike, [5] that had exacerbated the already chaotic economic situation prior to the coup.

Clearly, Pinochet was not a fascist.

So... libertarians do not have a political party? No project to move thousands of families to the U.S. east coast to take over a state's legislature? Only the bad guys want power to change things right? If libertarians achieve their goals, reduced the size of government, etc, will they then be happy to hand power to Socialists? They won't try to keep power? A majority of ideologies want power to create their own utopia, this says nothing about the similarities and differences of Fascism and Socialism.

Red-herring. You could try answering the questions I ask instead of bellowing irrelevancies.

It's clear to me that you have turned Socialists into bogeymen. Anyone who doesn't fit your mold of good is a Socialist. This whole "Socialism is Fascism" thing is clearly an attempt to declare their moral equivalency. To me that's needlessly extreme and counter to the cause of true learning.

Ad-hominem. If you've nothing to say worth reading, say nothing. If you wish to post, then answer the questions, and pose real points.

I already explained that countries like Sweden are not socialist. They talk about socialism, and espose it as their philosophy, but their economies are not socialist, they are hampered market economies, like those in most capitalist countries. The difference is that the Swedes hamper the market economy more than the United States, for example.

The driving force in Sweden for economic and productive activity is still personal initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit. In socialist economies, the motivating force is state decree.

And how many times do I have to explain that not all forms of Socialism require State initiatives. The State will no doubt play a role no matter what, but that doesn't necessary exclude the participation of private individuals.

You do not want to include Sweden because it is not convenient for your worldview. Sweden has publicly owned industries, heavy wealth redistribution, national healthcare, etc. Of course it isn't purely Socialist. But what is the value of lumping it together with pretty much every economy in the world and calling them all "hampered markets." What don't learn anything from that, such a category describes such a hugely diverse set of economies that it is totally worthless.

The only thing necessary to start a country down the road to state central planning is destroying the price system by introducing price and wage controls. This is because such controls introduce a randomness in the allocation of materials and other factors of production. The way to defeat such randomness is central planning.


Market socialism doesn't require central planning of price and there is no randomness invovled in it above and beyond the current randomness in market economies.

I'll give you another point. In a socialist state, the government takes full responsibility for the well-being of the individual, but it makes an incredible mess of the job. Instead of a paradise, socialist regimes deliver hell. This will obviously create resentment, which is increased by the socialists' own propaganda that their's is a perfect system who's bad results are the result of the actions of evil men.

Same argument different dressing. Look, I'm not advocating Socialism, I don't care if it will work or not. But if you can imagine a State where all citizens were as committed to public ownership as most Americans are to the market then you can understand that such a system, despite its failings, will get by without the need for an authoritarian government. There may be resentment of the government for it's failure to provide. However, the populous can then be satisfied by reform. Changing whatever planning structure is in place, replacing officials, and so on. You don't have to throw people into prison once they start dissenting. That is not an issue of economic organization but political organization.

No reputable libertarian has advocated sending all public servants to concentration camps.

I said the government not civil servants. How do you punish an institution? You change it.

Fascism and communism do give out the messages I paraphrased. They are both fundamentally the same on the level of being collectivist movements which prey on the anxieties of one group as a path to power.

Ah so now you have changed your test. My objection still stands. There are many iterations of "collectivism." In fact, classical and neoclassical economics are heavily influenced by utilitarianism, is the free-market Fascist too because it incorporates a collective outlook?

Firstly, Pinochet is irrelevant to a discussion of fascism, it is only the idiocy of leftists, and their willingness to say anything to avoid being tarred with the brush of socialist crimes.

I mentioned Pinochet as an authoritarian ruler who supported the free-market and capitalism in responce to your charge that some Socialists are authoritarian thus they all must be. If Pinochet was authoritarian then all free-market capitalists must be (according to your strange logic anyway). I neither explicitly nor implicitly stated that Pinochet was a Fascist.

Red-herring. You could try answering the questions I ask instead of bellowing irrelevancies.

I was just reminding you that an urge for power isn't enough to tie Fascism to Socialism because if it was then you must tie Libertarianism to the above as well.

Ad-hominem. If you've nothing to say worth reading, say nothing. If you wish to post, then answer the questions, and pose real points.

Literacy rates must be low where you're from.

Heh. I'll be the kettle you can be the pot.

But seriously there is a point to that statement. It appears to me that there is no value whatsoever it treating these two ideologies the same. One, namely Fascism, is mostly interested in broad social organization while the other, Socialism, is specifically interested in economic organization. Fascism used Socialism but nothing more.

Can I also point out yet another underlying logical fallacy that is being ignored here? (Of course I can you silly goose)

You cannot take "If Fascism then Socialism", which I haven't questioned though I probably could, then you cannot simply go "If Socialism then Fascism." That would be affirming the consequent. Which is wrong.

The term "hampered market economy" is accurate.So if a government/collective/state/what-have-you intervenes somewhere in the 'cause-effect' chain of economic activities, (for instance through policies/legislation/what-have-you), with the intention of 'improving society' (as they subjectively understand 'improve society'), or under the guise of 'improving society' (as some target group either sees it or is convinced to see it), they/their actions/understandings/etc are not 'socialist', and cannot be described as 'socialism'?:confused:

Then I repeat my first sentence: If you've nothing to say, say nothing.
'Nothing to say' and/or 'not saying anything' are not synomonous with 'not saying or implying X is not socialism'.
It seems to me your main point is 'facialism is socialism', and that the object or goal of your posts is to convince others that this is true.
The main point I have been making in my comments to you, is that you have not produced a sound argument/set of arguments. Further, so far as my own opinion is concerned you have not produced a compelling/strong inductive argument/set of arguments.

Literacy rates must be low where you're from. I already explained that countries like Sweden are not socialist.
If by explained you mean 'said some stuff about it', then true as that may be, it's beside the point. What matters is whether or not anything you said proves that it is true (you have not), or indicates that it is likely to true (and I dont think you have).

Can you seriously dispute that socialist measures require a totalitarian state?
I believe so. However I believe what I understand to be your definition of 'socialist measure' is erroneous.

Disraeliland you do realize that only a fraction of socialists are actually authoritarian commies, right? Socialism isn't about state control. The basic premise is "to help those that cannot help themselves". Fascism is something entirely different, and much closer to the good ole libertarian capitalist "Screw those that can't take care of themselves".

I would be considered a socialist by most, and ideally I'm something of an anarchist - which is precisely why people label me a socialist. Reality does nothing for your argument, because the definition you argue isn't the commonly held one. It's your own little private misunderstanding.

Disraeliland you do realize that only a fraction of socialists are actually authoritarian commies, right? Socialism isn't about state control. The basic premise is "to help those that cannot help themselves".

And it is done through government control of the economy. Socialism requires authoritarian policy.

And it is done through government control of the economy. Socialism requires authoritarian policy.
Wrong again. There's no inherent connection with Capitalism or states/nations/governments & socialism. Like I said, you've invented your own definition of what socialism is.

Wrong again. There's no inherent connection with Capitalism or states/nations/governments & socialism. Like I said, you've invented your own definition of what socialism is.

I know what socialism is, and it requires that, at some point, the government must enact authoritarian policies on the economy. You cannot say that socialism is a free economic system.

And how many times do I have to explain that not all forms of Socialism require State initiatives. The State will no doubt play a role no matter what, but that doesn't necessary exclude the participation of private individuals.

You do not want to include Sweden because it is not convenient for your worldview. Sweden has publicly owned industries, heavy wealth redistribution, national healthcare, etc. Of course it isn't purely Socialist. But what is the value of lumping it together with pretty much every economy in the world and calling them all "hampered markets." What don't learn anything from that, such a category describes such a hugely diverse set of economies that it is totally worthless.

It isn't socialism. The closest it gets is "wannabe socialism". Secondly, that there are some state enterprises doesn't make Sweden socialist for two reasons, a) state provision of "public goods" is not primarily socialist, it is consistant with all non-anarchist political ideas, and secondly, the state owned industries are limited to a part of the economy. There is still a considerable market economy.

The term "hampered market economy" is consistant with reality because the extensive taxation and regulation by the government obviously hampers the market economy, and the hampering is done so the state's agenda can be carried out, but in its essential nature, the economy of places like Sweden is the same as the United States in that the prime motivator of economic activity is private owners who want private profit. The difference is one of degree only. The United States hampers the market less than Sweden.

These countries are not socialist, talking about socialism does not make them socialism. They are like pick-pockets who talk about pulling the big job one day. They may talk about robbing banks etc, but they never do because the only form of theft they are prepared to do is pick-pocketing. Communists are more akin to armed robbers prepared to commit murder in order to take the loot. Fascists are more like the mafia, they will have their scams, and will only use violence if there's no other way.

Market socialism doesn't require central planning of price and there is no randomness invovled in it above and beyond the current randomness in market economies.

There isn't much randomness in market economies, materials and factors of production will go where it is most profitable.

As for market socialism, I find little in it that isn't capitalist, except the coercive transfer of ownership to workers (of course voluntary transfers of ownership of firms to workers happens in capitalist economies, and often takes the form of organisations intended to manage the retirement funds buying shares in the company)

But if you can imagine a State where all citizens were as committed to public ownership as most Americans are to the market then you can understand that such a system, despite its failings, will get by without the need for an authoritarian government. There may be resentment of the government for it's failure to provide. However, the populous can then be satisfied by reform. Changing whatever planning structure is in place, replacing officials, and so on. You don't have to throw people into prison once they start dissenting. That is not an issue of economic organization but political organization.

You call that reasoning. Assuming a priori agreement with socialism is hardly a valid position. Also, saying that people will be resentful of the inevitable failures of socialism, but won't want to remove it is nothing more than assuming that all people are idiots.

I said the government not civil servants. How do you punish an institution? You change it.

Rubbish. An institution is people, and to punish it, you must punish the people in charge. Enron wasn't punished by ordering it to change, it was punished by sending the senior people to prison. An institution isn't an organism capable of action by itself, people may talk about it acting but this is merely a trick of language, it is the people in the institution who act. Vagaries of the english language do not make an argument.

I mentioned Pinochet as an authoritarian ruler who supported the free-market and capitalism in responce to your charge that some Socialists are authoritarian thus they all must be. If Pinochet was authoritarian then all free-market capitalists must be (according to your strange logic anyway). I neither explicitly nor implicitly stated that Pinochet was a Fascist.

Then why bring him up? I never said authoritarian is exclusive to socialism, and saying that it isn't doesn't impact the argument that authoritarianism, or totalitarianism is necessary for socialism.

I'll put it another way, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All socialists are totalitarians, but not all totalitarians are socialists.

Authoritarianism is not necessary to capitalism, anyone with a functioning brain cell has worked that out, and seen it in action.

Frankly, your nitpicks are a poor substitute for argument.

Heh. I'll be the kettle you can be the pot.

But seriously there is a point to that statement. It appears to me that there is no value whatsoever it treating these two ideologies the same. One, namely Fascism, is mostly interested in broad social organization while the other, Socialism, is specifically interested in economic organization. Fascism used Socialism but nothing more.

Can I also point out yet another underlying logical fallacy that is being ignored here? (Of course I can you silly goose)

You cannot take "If Fascism then Socialism", which I haven't questioned though I probably could, then you cannot simply go "If Socialism then Fascism." That would be affirming the consequent. Which is wrong.

To accept that, one must first accept that Fascism and socialism are separate things. There are two ways of introducing socialism, the communist method, or the fascist method. Communism and Fascism are different methods of socialism. Of course fascism is socialism, it is differentiated from communism by nothing more than method.

Fascism came about as a response to communism. Certain socialists saw that the communist method was extremely difficult, and would be resisted. They sought an easier way. I would say that a fascist will tend to be smarter than the communist because the fascist has a better thought out notion of what ownership is. Communists favour seizing property because they have a simplistic notion of ownership, namely the name on the deed. Fascists have a more rounded view that ownership entails certain powers (like exchanging property, or controlling its use), and that if the state exercises these powers, then the name on the deed is irrelevant.

So if a government/collective/state/what-have-you intervenes somewhere in the 'cause-effect' chain of economic activities, (for instance through policies/legislation/what-have-you), with the intention of 'improving society' (as they subjectively understand 'improve society'), or under the guise of 'improving society' (as some target group either sees it or is convinced to see it), they/their actions/understandings/etc are not 'socialist', and cannot be described as 'socialism'?

Correct. In these cases, the economic policy of the government is still to have a market economy with private ownership. Now, a question, which nation corresponds to the government you mention.

Take you pick, basically every nation in the Western world, and many in the third world will correspond with this. There are differences in degree, but they all do it.

Even the country which many would hold up as the ultimate example of capitalism, the United States does this. It does a bit less of it then Sweden, but it still does it.

The main point I have been making in my comments to you, is that you have not produced a sound argument/set of arguments. Further, so far as my own opinion is concerned you have not produced a compelling/strong inductive argument/set of arguments.

In the absense of any alternative, or argument from you, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you're off base.

Disraeliland you do realize that only a fraction of socialists are actually authoritarian commies, right? Socialism isn't about state control. The basic premise is "to help those that cannot help themselves". Fascism is something entirely different, and much closer to the good ole libertarian capitalist "Screw those that can't take care of themselves".

Play man's guide to ideologies?

Your characterisation of fascism has no basis in reality. Fascists are very keen on welfare at all levels. They justify it in terms of the "national interests", while social democrats (who are not socialists) and communists appeal more to notions of helping people.

Socialism is about state control, the profess an intention to help those who can't help themselves, but the rhetoric they use to gain support is not revealing in terms of the essential nature of the socialists.

You're basically right in saying not all socialists are communists. Other socialists are fascists.

However, I suspect you're referring to social democrats like the SDP in Germany. These groups are not socialist, as I have explained many times. They are unwilling to do what is necessary to introduce socialism, so they settle for hampering the market economy and engaging in a small level of redistribution.

Reality does nothing for your argument, because the definition you argue isn't the commonly held one. It's your own little private misunderstanding.

Given your fact free argument, you aren't in a position to make such a statement.

I know what socialism is, and it requires that, at some point, the government must enact authoritarian policies on the economy. You cannot say that socialism is a free economic system.
Look up some of the anarchist economic models.

Look up some of the anarchist economic models.

Anarchic communism doesn't just spring out of a capitalist system.

Correct. In these cases, the economic policy of the government is still to have a market economy with private ownership.
Ok.
[QUOTE]Now, a question, which nation corresponds to the government you mention.
It doesnt really matter, the point of my asking was to gain a clarification of what you mean (when you use the word/s socialism/socialist).

In the absense of any alternative, or argument from you, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you're off base.
Either there is not an absence of an argument from me, or it is not the only conclusion that can be drawn.

I believe that your 'definition' of socialism is not semantically consistent with that of most speakers of the English language. You are welcome to use such a definition, but in doing so you render yourself less comprehensible. If you expect everyone else to alter their use of the word to match your own, your expectation will very probably be frustrated.

I believe that your 'definition' of socialism is not semantically consistent with that of most speakers of the English language. You are welcome to use such a definition, but in doing so you render yourself less comprehensible. If you expect everyone else to alter their use of the word to match your own, your expectation will very probably be frustrated.

I've explained why the common definition is not essentially correct, in terms of differentiating social democrats from real socialists.

One cannot say that there is a "socialist continuum" where we have moderate social democrats on one end, and fascists and communists on the other end because they is no real commonality in what they do, this is going back to the "hampered market economy" of social democrats versus the central state planning of socialists.

You must divorce the essential nature of a party from its rhetoric. Rhetoric is merely a device to gain popular support.

I've explained why the common definition is not essentially correct, in terms of differentiating social democrats from real socialists.

One cannot say that there is a "socialist continuum" where we have moderate social democrats on one end, and fascists and communists on the other end because they is no real commonality in what they do, this is going back to the "hampered market economy" of social democrats versus the central state planning of socialists.

You must divorce the essential nature of a party from its rhetoric. Rhetoric is merely a device to gain popular support.
Are you then saying that those who believe this rethoric aren't socialists?

I've explained why the common definition is not essentially correct, in terms of differentiating social democrats from real socialists.
What?
Do you mean that the 'common definition' is not correct because it doesnt differentiate social democrats from what you call 'real socialist',
or do you mean
that it doesnt 'correctly' differentiate between social democrats and what you call 'real socialists'?

What?
Do you mean that the 'common definition' is not correct because it doesnt differentiate social democrats from what you call 'real socialist',
or do you mean
that it doesnt 'correctly' differentiate between social democrats and what you call 'real socialists'?
PErhaps he just means that "real socialists" doesn't believe in socialism... At least, that's how I understood it.

Are you then saying that those who believe this rethoric aren't socialists?

No, what I'm saying is that rhetoric is a device and is not very informative in terms of find out the essential nature of a party.

Talking about different types of thieves provides an apt analogy to answer your question.

A socialist who works on the Russian model (communist) is akin to an armed robber. He will take everything, and is prepared, even eager to commit murder, if that is what is necessary to take the loot.

Social democrats are more like pick-pockets, or a petty thief. Such a thief may talk about the big job, but is not willing to commit the acts of violence necessary, so he sticks to the forms of theft least likely to be resisted. Social democrats often use the rhetoric of socialism, but they are not socialists.

Do you mean that the 'common definition' is not correct because it doesnt differentiate social democrats from what you call 'real socialist'

Yes. The common use of the term socialism includes the notion of a continuum at one end of which we find the most moderate social democrats, and at the other end we find fascists and communists. The idea of a continuum requires that the only difference between each thing on the continuum be a difference of degree. This is not accurate in terms of social democrats and real socialists as they are totally different.

Yes.
I dont see why the fact that a definition (of a word) that does not distinguish between two things the word is neither intended to distinguish between, nor used to distinguish between would mean the definition were not 'correct'.

The common use of the term socialism includes the notion of a continuum at one end of which we find the most moderate social democrats, and at the other end we find fascists and communists.
No it doesnt.

I dont see why the fact that a definition (of a word) that does not distinguish between two things the word is neither intended to distinguish between, nor used to distinguish between would mean the definition were not 'correct'.

Because the two things are clearly different.

No it doesnt.

That was a whole lot of nothing.

Again, if you've nothing to say, say nothing.

Because the two things are clearly different.
The argument you have presented is unsound.

Again, if you've nothing to say, say nothing.
It is quite probable that I shall continue to not say things when I have nothing to say.

Why has this thread gone ion for so long? The idea presented in the OP was hopelessly ignorant. Surely the thesis has been thoroughly trounced by now.

Why has this thread gone ion for so long? The idea presented in the OP was hopelessly ignorant. Surely the thesis has been thoroughly trounced by now.

The notion that fascism is socialism is proven.

The argument you have presented is unsound.

Rubbish. The most substantial argument you've presented is that my definition of socialism doesn't agree with the consensus, and that's such a dodgy statement that I'm reluctant to call it an argument.

The notion that fascism is socialism is proven.
They’re just both statist. Lots of political ideologies are statist. Republicanism in its original form was statist.

They both advocate, and implement centrally planned, command economies.

They both advocate, and implement centrally planned, command economies.
But for entirely differant reasons. When it comes to political ideology, that can be the most important part.

Rubbish.
Rubbish in what way?
The truth of the premises you have posited (in your argument regarding the definition of socialism) would not ensure the truth of the conclusion. So your argument is unsound.

The most substantial argument you've presented is that my definition of socialism doesn't agree with the consensus, and that's such a dodgy statement that I'm reluctant to call it an argument.
Why is it a dodgy statement? So far as I can tell it is a statement you dont disagree with.

But for entirely differant reasons. When it comes to political ideology, that can be the most important part.
And besides, why is everyone ignoring my post on page 4: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9855608&postcount=46

Clearly that is not the program of a socialist, no matter how you look at it.

As a Fascist I shall touch on all your points. If anybody doesn't understand something I say, feel free to TG me.
Looking at the two ideaologies, not the ways they've been implimented its startiling that two ideologies that are so similar hate each other so much.
If we accept that facsism is not inherently racist (I know Hitler was but to my knowledge non of the other facsists were)
The Romanian Fascist was anti-Semetic, but he also included religion in his government, so he wasn't "Technically" Fascist...though he did not go as far as advocating the murder of Jews.

or inherently undemocratic (The democratic union of Fascists)
This is true, Fascism allows for some Democracy...in fact Oswald Mosely created a system that was very similar to a Parlimentary Democracy which is the system advocated by American Fascisms.

and neither is socialism the differenece between them are very slight. I know socialists will pipe up and say that facsism is oppressive ( and socialism isn't). But really by who? I am not a fascist or socialist but am amused by their hatred for each other. Below is a little quiz for socialists and fascists, tell which are you,

We hate socialism because we believe it takes everything father than is good for society. They hate us because we hate them and because we are too capitalistic for them.

* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/N
No, but like all Fascists I believe the government has the right to sep in and effect an industry. Remember, Fascism is about creating a system where business works for the good of the country, not for the state to outright control an industry.

* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N
No, Fascists believe they are equally important, but society must come first if we must protect the indevidual.

* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N
Yes.

* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community
Not quite sure what you mean by people's community.
* I beleive the economy should be planned by the state
No, this is NOT a Fascist ideal. We believe in allowing some freedom of industry and thusly we cannot plan the economy.

All in all I can tell you that Fascism is not socialism…but because it is based off of a form of Socialism it has similarities.

~~~
]Fascism is not right-wing in anyway except that it often proffesses hatred of communism so it gets lumped with right wing parties. Shock horror fascism is actually more left wing.
This is true, Fascism is actually in the middle of both left and right, but it's hard to consider us as being center due to our extream left and extream right ideals.

~~~
Not if those who are least able to help themselves are immigrants.
Only illegal immagrants or immagrants to an area that is already stressed [Such as the British Fascist's anti-Immigration.

~~~
totalitarianism is a - or even the - major difference here. facism requires a totalitarianist attitude, while socialism does not. socialism can be socially libertarian without any problems.
It depends on who you talk to. Most Fascists look at Totalitarianism as being "state control of all of a citizens life" while we look at authoritarianism as being "Control of a citizens public life". In such a comparison, Fascism is ment to be authoritarian, not totalitarian.

Not actually true. Fascism is primarily based around elitism on racial or religious grounds (rather than any kind of econmic theory), and that's about as far from left wing as you can get.
Not true, Fascism is about creating a state where everybody is prepared to do what is best for everybody. And if you take EVERYTHING about Fascism into account Fascism isn't fully right wing.

Is there anything Wiki can't do???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_manifesto
Don't look at that too closely. Fascism evolves over time and that is not the current manifesto. Sadly we have been unable to write a new one due to how many ideas of Fascism there are within the AFM.

And, while Mussolini is absolutely fascist, he was a socialist. In 1910 he became the secretery of the local socialist party. Even after moving into Fascism, he continued to count himself a Socialist.
He never was a true socialist, more of a revolutionary and a rabbelrouser. Socialism was just a way for him to get more well known.
I hate foreigners living in my country Y/N
We hate illegal aliens, not foreigners...BIG difference.

I believe in private property with only state regulations making the economy slef-reliant Y/N
A Fascist economy is not self-relient because the government can and would interviene in the economy.

I think women should be at home, looking after the traditional family unit Y/N
Well, it is something Fascists would prefere, but we are also for equal rights [Not just ending with women]

I can't stand lefties Y/N
There's some left ideals I like.

I think a hierarchical society is essential Y/N
It'll appear if we want it or not, so we'd prefere to control it.

I want harsher punishments for petty criminals and a death penalty Y/N
Yes, Fascists do. Look at Italy, crime was very low under Mussolini right up until he went to war.

I think drugs should be completely illegal (except for alcohol and tobacco of course) Y/N
Duh...they are bad for society. And generally we don't want tobacco or alcohol, but we have to accept that it can only be bad for society if we ban those two things [Just look at america under prohibition].

Clearly that is not the program of a socialist, no matter how you look at it.

Nonsense. The program the fascists implemented was socialist.

But for entirely differant reasons. When it comes to political ideology, that can be the most important part.

The reasons aren't different. The reason both use to justify a command economy is it is the best way to secure everyone's interests.

Why is it a dodgy statement? So far as I can tell it is a statement you dont disagree with.

Claiming that something is wrong with my definition because is doesn't agree with the definition used by others is dodgy.

Rubbish in what way?

Because social democrats are not socialists. They talk about socialism, they claim it as their guiding philosophy, but the economic and political order they introduce is not socialism. They retain the market economy with private ownership that exists in capitalism. They interfere with it, but so do governments that claim to abhor socialism, and profess a preference for free-market capitalism.

Nonsense. The program the fascists implemented was socialist.
Read the statement...not soviet-socialist, social democratic at best, as far as Economics is concerned.

But for entirely differant reasons. When it comes to political ideology, that can be the most important part.

Thank you! That's what I've been arguing from the start.

And besides, why is everyone ignoring my post on page 4: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...8&postcount=46

Clearly that is not the program of a socialist, no matter how you look at it.

No I didn't see that Leonstine, I'll go check it out.


Speaking for myself, I'm getting tired of this. Clearly Disraeliland has some personal stake in this matter or else he wouldn't be so forceful in jamming ambigious ideologies and every economy in the modern world into huge categories just to satisfy his lust for intellectual comfort. He has so far not attempted to correct any of the fallacies of his argument (the last one I pointed out being the clearest and most pressing). If he can't even go so far as to make a logical argument I can't be bothered to care.

We've come full circle, back to notions of ownership.

Soviet-socialists have a highly simplistic notion of ownership. Name on deed, and to take control, you have to actually seize the property.

Fascist-socialists have a more rounded idea. They realise that ownership includes certain powers, and if the state takes these powers without changing the name on the deed, it has the same economic effect. They maintain the veneer of private ownership.

Speaking for myself, I'm getting tired of this. Clearly Disraeliland has some personal stake in this matter or else he wouldn't be so forceful in jamming ambigious ideologies and every economy in the modern world into huge categories just to satisfy his lust for intellectual comfort. He has so far not attempted to correct any of the fallacies of his argument (the last one I pointed out being the clearest and most pressing). If he can't even go so far as to make a logical argument I can't be bothered to care.

Save the ad-hominem for the kiddies.

Socialism requires the government to intervene in the individual's place in the economy. It is the effective relief of all economic duties of the individual by the state.

So when you say that "The people don't need everything doing for them", do you mean that the people don't need government to handle their financial situation to insure that they have the same status as everyone else? If that is what you mean, you are decidedly not a socialist.

Consider that the original supposition was that socialism requires that government control industry. Well, maybe some crappy let's just give-up control again and hope the market's nice to us sorts.
Workers managing their own, well, work may be socialists. You can try to tell them otherwise because your dictionary disagrees, but that won't change it.
After a fashion, that is what I mean, and it doesn't make me any less socialist (well, perhaps it does, since it rules me out for categorisation in a lot of socialist branches).



Wrong again, socialism does declare society greater than the individual and does cast society as a shepherd over the people. The people work for society, and society in turn provides their for their living. In fact, the lack of hierarchy that is required by idealistic socialists means that individualism must not be allowed. Once people start living as individuals, socialism breaks down.


No, just so far no. That's easy to say from the outside, but if you open up for just a moment and realise that socialist thinking is generations if not centuries old, you might get a sense of how deep it is and how such obvious issues as that have been addressed by countless thinkers. There's not enough pixils on the page to get into the strength of the individual in any socialst theory worth its salt, so to speak.

Apart from anything else, you're taking a slight leap by assuming a lack of any sort of hierarchy, since socialism may be about nothing more than the public ownership of certain productive tools or control over essential work.


Not really going to directly confront the point of this post, but why is socialism justified in not supporting those who don't work, yet capitalism isn't?


What?
"I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N"
I said that there was no need to punish these people. We don't have to cut off the heads of the nobility again.

Oh well, erm, I'll try to humour you. In a socialist context, those who don't work can't work. If they choose not to work, they're not part of a socialist mechanism, are they?
I dunno, maybe you're just being all statist or something about which I have too little interest to engage.


There is nothing stopping the workers from running the businesses exactly like the previous owners. The only difference is that subsets of workers are getting screwed democratically.

I'm not going to argue that, here, because this thread is (a hopelessly confused one) about perceived similarities between fascism and socialism, not about your opinion on the vices of worker self management. The point is that, in a fascist environment, the workers would presumably but sent up a certain creek for trying to look to their own interests instead of those of the state.

Workers' control of firms is by itself neither socialist, nor capitalist.

Whether it is one or the other depends on the means.

Here is a capitalist instance: A significant amount of the shares in a firm are bought by the workers, or their retirement fund/health fund. Voluntary exchanges of property for ex ante mutual benefit.

A socialist instance would be the government taking the property away from the previous owners and giving it to the workers.

Consider that the original supposition was that socialism requires that government control industry. Well, maybe some crappy let's just give-up control again and hope the market's nice to us sorts.
Workers managing their own, well, work may be socialists. You can try to tell them otherwise because your dictionary disagrees, but that won't change it.
After a fashion, that is what I mean, and it doesn't make me any less socialist (well, perhaps it does, since it rules me out for categorisation in a lot of socialist branches).

How do the workers gain control of the industry? If industry is found to be more efficient when owned by the individual capitalist, in that it offers better prices and equal or higher wages, would capitalist industry be allowed?

No, just so far no. That's easy to say from the outside, but if you open up for just a moment and realise that socialist thinking is generations if not centuries old, you might get a sense of how deep it is and how such obvious issues as that have been addressed by countless thinkers. There's not enough pixils on the page to get into the strength of the individual in any socialst theory worth its salt, so to speak.

OK, if there is a socialist society with no wealth redistribution and the workers are joint owners of industry and work in their own self interest, then there is not an idea of society over the individual.

Apart from anything else, you're taking a slight leap by assuming a lack of any sort of hierarchy, since socialism may be about nothing more than the public ownership of certain productive tools or control over essential work.

Most of the socialists/communists I have encountered are looking for equality, a lack of hierarchy. Not too many socialists espouse using market socialism like you do, and personally I see market socialism as a rather defeatist ideology.

What?
"I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N"
I said that there was no need to punish these people. We don't have to cut off the heads of the nobility again.

Oh well, erm, I'll try to humour you. In a socialist context, those who don't work can't work. If they choose not to work, they're not part of a socialist mechanism, are they?
I dunno, maybe you're just being all statist or something about which I have too little interest to engage.

I honestly don't know where I was coming from on that, now that I'm looking back. That question must have been on my mind from some other thread, and it came out when responding to you. A lot of socialists are in it for the welfare aspect and a lot are in it to end exploitation, so I get confused at times.

The point is that, in a fascist environment, the workers would presumably but sent up a certain creek for trying to look to their own interests instead of those of the state.

And many socialists (including the ones that have been in charge of all of the socialist governments so far) believe that too.

LEts just stick to subjeect. In socialism people work as a society, hence "social"ism. In communism people work for society, in Facsism people work for society, in capitalism, in Anarchism people work for themselves. I believe this links Socialism with facism in a fundmental way. Its that fascists are less cuddely that people dislike them.

National socialism = a form of fascism.

I see myself as a utopian anti-globalizationist socialist.

* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/N

* I believe that society is more important then the individuel Y/N

* I believe that those who work against the general good of society (e.g International fianance) should be punished Y/N

* I believe that people should live and work in a People's community

* I beleive the economy should be planned by the state

Yes and no. Strategic industries must be controlled, others must merely be regulated.
Yes, there is yet to be a "man is an island" style government that works.
No, that's more of a national-socialist ideal.
Yes.
Yes.

Does that make me a fascist?

* I believe industry should controlled by the state for benefit of society Y/NI believe this is a common misconception. Socialism says that the state should control industry. Fascism says that the industry should control the state.

In a nutshell Socialism is into a lazyassed welfare state. Fascism is into a bar-coded oppressed meaningless population.

Claiming that something is wrong with my definition because is doesn't agree with the definition used by others is dodgy.
Since I didnt claim any such thing, I dont see how that is relevent.

There is absolutely no reason why the definition that it appears most English speakers have of 'socialist' is not 'correct'.

Either way, the definition that it appears is recognised by most English speakers is not the same as the one you appear to be attaching to 'socialist'. This means that there is a very good chance that when you use the word what you communicate to most English speakers is not necessarily what you mean. Although it would mean what you mean if the person interpeting the communication recognised the same definition as you intend, since in fact they recognise the word as meaning something else, the message recieved is not the message you intended to send.

This means it is likely you will not always be immediately comprehensible to other speakers of English; it could even be that often people will give up trying to communicate with you because if you actually meant what it appears to most English speakers you mean, your 'good sense' would be suspect, and communicating with you a wasteful use of time.

None of this means that you are 'wrong' or 'bad' to have some other definition.