Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 4/14/2016 12:32:39 AM EDT
really though, The political spectrum is more like a circle in my mind, not a left or right thing, control at the top liberty at the bottom. While both systems of government have different philosophies, it seems they apply them in the same manner....it's all about government control



so therefore Bernie Sanders=fascist?
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:33:20 AM EDT
Not the same.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:34:20 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Not the same.
View Quote

in what way?
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:41:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:

in what way?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Not the same.

in what way?


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.

Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:42:12 AM EDT
Socialism = The government owns or greatly regulates the means of production and most property.

Fascism = The government works with corporations to monopolize production and the ownership of property.

Fascism = Obamacare

Socialism = Single payer
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:44:13 AM EDT
in terms of ideology they seem very different, but in respect to application..... Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia they seem very similar.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:45:13 AM EDT
Socalism is the Southern California lifestyle?
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:53:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NVCapCop:
Socalism is the Southern California lifestyle?
View Quote


but of course
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 12:56:14 AM EDT
As with islam, neither is compatible with a prosperous liberal society.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:16:29 AM EDT
Theoretically the systems are quite different.

In reality the only significant difference is in nomenclature... The same sort of people do the same heinous shit, everything just has a different name or title.

Taken to their logical extremes the systems are damn near indistinguishable.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:17:49 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
in terms of ideology they seem very different, but in respect to application..... Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia they seem very similar.
View Quote


From a practical standpoint they're indistinguishable to the average person who lives under them. The "ideological differences" are huge only if you have strong opinions on whether the state should control 90% or 100% of society's property. The fact that one is 10% more "right wing" than the other is something liberals use as a rhetorical club when they need to smear anyone who's not as deep into the cult as they are.

Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:22:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2016 1:23:54 AM EDT by John44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Not the same.

in what way?


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.



No
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:22:58 AM EDT



From my understanding so far, fascism is economically left and socially right. Socialists/communists and fascists both believe in government controlled economy, but the reds dont believe in things like nationalism, traditional family structure etc. the fascists do.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:27:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2016 1:41:18 AM EDT by ZMV]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour
The government increases your taxes to 50%, takes your cow, and gives it to your neighbor. Then they "forget" to lower your tax rate, and the next year you owe them half a cow. If you don't pay your tax, you go to jail and the government takes your other cow and gives it to your neighbor. Then your neighbor has two cows. They do the same thing to him.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk keeps the milk for themselves. You are sent to wait in line for soy milk, which was imported from another country after your country invaded them.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk. Then, when you refuse to buy it (or can't afford it), they enslave you and your family in a weapons factory to support the war effort against the communists.

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Not the same.

in what way?


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour
The government increases your taxes to 50%, takes your cow, and gives it to your neighbor. Then they "forget" to lower your tax rate, and the next year you owe them half a cow. If you don't pay your tax, you go to jail and the government takes your other cow and gives it to your neighbor. Then your neighbor has two cows. They do the same thing to him.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk keeps the milk for themselves. You are sent to wait in line for soy milk, which was imported from another country after your country invaded them.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk. Then, when you refuse to buy it (or can't afford it), they enslave you and your family in a weapons factory to support the war effort against the communists.

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.



FIFY.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:28:45 AM EDT
no, they're not the same. as a gloss, fascism concerns the distribution of political power, and socialism concerns the distribution of economic power. the two are related, but distinct (a bit like capitalism and democracy not being the same thing).
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:28:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Pellinore:



From my understanding so far, fascism is economically left and socially right. Socialists/communists and fascists both believe in government controlled economy, but the reds dont believe in things like nationalism, traditional family structure etc. the fascists do.
View Quote

Fascism is what you get when you mix socialism and nationalist ideology. It doesn't happen without one of the two.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:33:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2016 1:33:55 AM EDT by sirensong]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Pellinore:
Socialists/communists and fascists both believe in government controlled economy, but the reds dont believe in things like nationalism, traditional family structure etc. the fascists do.
View Quote


no. actual communists are as suspicious of big government as libertarians are--they believe that the government will inevitably attempt to exploit the working class. power-seeking individuals who use communist rhetoric to institute an oligarchy believe in a government-controlled economy, but calling them communists is like calling bloomberg a conservative. socialists are certainly statist, though.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:46:06 AM EDT
“Between us and the communists there are no political affinities but there are intellectual ones. Like you [communists], we consider necessary a centralized unitary state which imposes iron discipline and all persons, with this difference, that you reached this conclusion by way of the concept of class, and we by the way of the concept of nation.” Mussolini ~1921
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 1:53:08 AM EDT
All three desire governmental control over its people, social affairs, the economy and property. They are surreptitious "nanny statists" on steroids. So, no, there is no difference.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:04:30 AM EDT
so really a political spectrum is total control at one side and total anarchy at the other?
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:12:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By John44:
“Between us and the communists there are no political affinities but there are intellectual ones. Like you [communists], we consider necessary a centralized unitary state which imposes iron discipline and all persons, with this difference, that you reached this conclusion by way of the concept of class, and we by the way of the concept of nation.” Mussolini ~1921
View Quote



mussolini is a good reference for fascism, but not for communism.

"As soon as the new [revolutionary] governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin." Marx 1850

for communists, the state is a necessary evil with which to consolidate post-revolutionary society. on marx's view, as soon as any institution begins to coalesce, it will immediately start trying to exploit labor. this includes everything from governments to political parties to union leadership. on marx's view, these have to be policed by the people with the threat of force--he absolutely does not trust government in the long term, and insists that workers be armed in order to keep the government in line. google the 'withering away of the state,' which is the ultimate goal (pipedream) of communism.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:15:55 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
so really a political spectrum is total control at one side and total anarchy at the other?
View Quote

No. That's a theory floated by idiots but anarchy and authoritarianism exist on both the left and right.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:16:43 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
so really a political spectrum is total control at one side and total anarchy at the other?
View Quote


that's one possible spectrum, but there's a lot it doesn't account for. it would not distinguish between direct democracy and absolute monarchy, for example. either situation could result in total control--the only difference would be the size of the controlled group.

people want politics to be reducible to simple slogans. it isn't.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:17:59 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:


no. actual communists are as suspicious of big government as libertarians are--they believe that the government will inevitably attempt to exploit the working class. power-seeking individuals who use communist rhetoric to institute an oligarchy believe in a government-controlled economy, but calling them communists is like calling bloomberg a conservative. socialists are certainly statist, though.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:
Originally Posted By Pellinore:
Socialists/communists and fascists both believe in government controlled economy, but the reds dont believe in things like nationalism, traditional family structure etc. the fascists do.


no. actual communists are as suspicious of big government as libertarians are--they believe that the government will inevitably attempt to exploit the working class. power-seeking individuals who use communist rhetoric to institute an oligarchy believe in a government-controlled economy, but calling them communists is like calling bloomberg a conservative. socialists are certainly statist, though.


I see what you are saying, could you show me where its written that they are suspicious of government exploiting the working class? This topic i am researching.


However, It is outlined in the communist manifesto and also the principles of communism by Frederick Engels that the revolutionary goals of communism is the expropriation of the expropriator to state owned/centralization of money,communication,education, transportation,housing, agriculture and the means of production of factories and instruments until private property no longer exists.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:23:27 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:



mussolini is a good reference for fascism, but not for communism.

"As soon as the new [revolutionary] governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin." Marx 1850

for communists, the state is a necessary evil with which to consolidate post-revolutionary society. on marx's view, as soon as any institution begins to coalesce, it will immediately start trying to exploit labor. this includes everything from governments to political parties to union leadership. on marx's view, these have to be policed by the people with the threat of force--he absolutely does not trust government in the long term, and insists that workers be armed in order to keep the government in line. google the 'withering away of the state,' which is the ultimate goal (pipedream) of communism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:
Originally Posted By John44:
“Between us and the communists there are no political affinities but there are intellectual ones. Like you [communists], we consider necessary a centralized unitary state which imposes iron discipline and all persons, with this difference, that you reached this conclusion by way of the concept of class, and we by the way of the concept of nation.” Mussolini ~1921



mussolini is a good reference for fascism, but not for communism.

"As soon as the new [revolutionary] governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin." Marx 1850

for communists, the state is a necessary evil with which to consolidate post-revolutionary society. on marx's view, as soon as any institution begins to coalesce, it will immediately start trying to exploit labor. this includes everything from governments to political parties to union leadership. on marx's view, these have to be policed by the people with the threat of force--he absolutely does not trust government in the long term, and insists that workers be armed in order to keep the government in line. google the 'withering away of the state,' which is the ultimate goal (pipedream) of communism.

Marx said some things that were...complicated. My dad was arrested in East Berlin in 1973 for possessing Das Kapital. You were supposed to get your dose of Marx filtered through Lenins eyes only.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:28:12 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Fascism = The government works with corporations to monopolize production and the ownership of property.
View Quote

Not just ownership and production, but all facets of the individual's life. The government can't do this by itself, it requires the cooperation of the employers. Yes, Obamacare is fascism. But so is corporate America buying the laws they want and stifling dissenting speech.

Communism (which is what Socialism becomes) controls the individual by ruining the economy, it ruins the economy by siphoning off all (or most all) the worker's income.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:29:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Theoretically the systems are quite different.

In reality the only significant difference is in nomenclature... The same sort of people do the same heinous shit, everything just has a different name or title.

Taken to their logical extremes the systems are damn near indistinguishable.
View Quote

The ends may be indistinguishable, but the means are not. That is the difference.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:36:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Pellinore:


I see what you are saying, could you show me where its written that they are suspicious of government exploiting the working class? This topic i am researching.


However, It is outlined in the communist manifesto and also the principles of communism by Frederick Engels that the revolutionary goals of communism is the expropriation of the expropriator to state owned/centralization of money,communication,education, transportation,housing, agriculture and the means of production of factories and instruments until private property no longer exists.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Pellinore:
Originally Posted By sirensong:
Originally Posted By Pellinore:
Socialists/communists and fascists both believe in government controlled economy, but the reds dont believe in things like nationalism, traditional family structure etc. the fascists do.


no. actual communists are as suspicious of big government as libertarians are--they believe that the government will inevitably attempt to exploit the working class. power-seeking individuals who use communist rhetoric to institute an oligarchy believe in a government-controlled economy, but calling them communists is like calling bloomberg a conservative. socialists are certainly statist, though.


I see what you are saying, could you show me where its written that they are suspicious of government exploiting the working class? This topic i am researching.


However, It is outlined in the communist manifesto and also the principles of communism by Frederick Engels that the revolutionary goals of communism is the expropriation of the expropriator to state owned/centralization of money,communication,education, transportation,housing, agriculture and the means of production of factories and instruments until private property no longer exists.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself.


2. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.


3. As soon as the new governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin.


it can be ambiguous, because marx talks about the state a lot--he insists that the state has to confiscate things, that the state has to be centralized, etc. think of this as marx's equivalent of martial law in an emergency--unpalatable, but necessary in order to prevent the evil capitalists from regaining power. but he wants the mob to be standing at the state's shoulder, so to speak.

i'm more familiar with marx's economics than his politics, but when he talks about the state, he's usually talking about the bourgeois state--a power-hungry, invasive force that seeks to dominate the masses. so he doesn't trust it, even if it is supposedly inverted (because it would inevitably turn into the same thing). read animal farm--that's how actual marxists feel about the state. orwell was a socialist, but he hated stalinism for this exact reason.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:38:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Marx said some things that were...complicated. My dad was arrested in East Berlin in 1973 for possessing Das Kapital. You were supposed to get your dose of Marx filtered through Lenins eyes only.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By sirensong:
...

Marx said some things that were...complicated. My dad was arrested in East Berlin in 1973 for possessing Das Kapital. You were supposed to get your dose of Marx filtered through Lenins eyes only.


wow--that's crazy! i knew that post-leninist communism was incompatible with marx's stated principles, but i didn't know his stuff was actively suppressed. makes sense i suppose.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 2:55:00 AM EDT
It mostly comes down to whether or not the government feels like engaging in the pretense that businesses are still privately owned and controlled.

We've been making our way towards fascism for quite a while now, not socialism. Fascists calling themselves socialists is not anything new.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 3:01:17 AM EDT
AINT NO BODY GOT TIME FOR A COW.

Link Posted: 4/14/2016 3:55:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2016 4:25:19 AM EDT by ZMV]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
so really a political spectrum is total control at one side and total anarchy at the other?
View Quote


Not two sides. The traditional political compass has 4 sides. One axis is the power of the government, usually up and down. The other is the desire of the people toward the common good, either collectivist left (communism) or capitalist right (individualist).

Someone who believes in a strong government in the name of collectivism is a communist. In short, the government will keep us protected, all hail the might government. That is generally found in the far upper left of a political compass, or left wing authoritarian.

Someone who believes in a limited or non-existent central government but also believes in the power of capitalism to rule itself is an anarchist, or more commonly called an anarcho-capitalist to discern between them and anarcho-communists. In other words, they want very few laws, and a completely free and deregulated market. They are completely opposite to the communist, and usually found in the lower right of the spectrum.

Fascists are okay with a powerful economy with few regulations, but they also want a strict government strong in military power and with lots of defense spending. They are also generally a religion-focused society, and on the compass they are in the upper right.

Finally, the anarcho-communists in the bottom left are a hard to describe bunch because it's mostly wet-dream utopia with butterflies and rain drops and unicorns and shit. They want a non-existent government, but they also want an economy that exists for the greater good. In other words, no greed, no desires, just simply living for each other, orgies, moon beams, etc. The best example of this is the Star Trek universe where everyone on the "good" side only makes "moral" decisions and everything is happiness at the end of the episode. In short, an impossible society.

Link Posted: 4/14/2016 4:23:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:



mussolini is a good reference for fascism, but not for communism.

"As soon as the new [revolutionary] governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin." Marx 1850

for communists, the state is a necessary evil with which to consolidate post-revolutionary society. on marx's view, as soon as any institution begins to coalesce, it will immediately start trying to exploit labor. this includes everything from governments to political parties to union leadership. on marx's view, these have to be policed by the people with the threat of force--he absolutely does not trust government in the long term, and insists that workers be armed in order to keep the government in line. google the 'withering away of the state,' which is the ultimate goal (pipedream) of communism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:
Originally Posted By John44:
“Between us and the communists there are no political affinities but there are intellectual ones. Like you [communists], we consider necessary a centralized unitary state which imposes iron discipline and all persons, with this difference, that you reached this conclusion by way of the concept of class, and we by the way of the concept of nation.” Mussolini ~1921



mussolini is a good reference for fascism, but not for communism.

"As soon as the new [revolutionary] governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin." Marx 1850

for communists, the state is a necessary evil with which to consolidate post-revolutionary society. on marx's view, as soon as any institution begins to coalesce, it will immediately start trying to exploit labor. this includes everything from governments to political parties to union leadership. on marx's view, these have to be policed by the people with the threat of force--he absolutely does not trust government in the long term, and insists that workers be armed in order to keep the government in line. google the 'withering away of the state,' which is the ultimate goal (pipedream) of communism.

I don't need to google it as I have Marxs writings sitting me next to me. I'm quite aware he believed that after full communism was achieved that government would be unnecessary and would wither away and a utopian workers paradise complete with unicorns shooting rainbows out their asses would be the net result. Nothing Marx predicted as "science" came true.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 4:30:49 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Not the same.

in what way?


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.





Nicely done dude...
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 4:34:38 AM EDT
I disagree with ZMVs chart. It's decent but doesn't account for right wing collectivism. And make no mistake, the right wing can be extremely collectivist.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 4:44:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I disagree with ZMVs chart. It's decent but doesn't account for right wing collectivism. And make no mistake, the right wing can be extremely collectivist.
View Quote


I think that would be covered under Mutualism.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 5:17:17 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm



it can be ambiguous, because marx talks about the state a lot--he insists that the state has to confiscate things, that the state has to be centralized, etc. think of this as marx's equivalent of martial law in an emergency--unpalatable, but necessary in order to prevent the evil capitalists from regaining power. but he wants the mob to be standing at the state's shoulder, so to speak.

i'm more familiar with marx's economics than his politics, but when he talks about the state, he's usually talking about the bourgeois state--a power-hungry, invasive force that seeks to dominate the masses. so he doesn't trust it, even if it is supposedly inverted (because it would inevitably turn into the same thing). read animal farm--that's how actual marxists feel about the state. orwell was a socialist, but he hated stalinism for this exact reason.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself.


2. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.


3. As soon as the new governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin.


it can be ambiguous, because marx talks about the state a lot--he insists that the state has to confiscate things, that the state has to be centralized, etc. think of this as marx's equivalent of martial law in an emergency--unpalatable, but necessary in order to prevent the evil capitalists from regaining power. but he wants the mob to be standing at the state's shoulder, so to speak.

i'm more familiar with marx's economics than his politics, but when he talks about the state, he's usually talking about the bourgeois state--a power-hungry, invasive force that seeks to dominate the masses. so he doesn't trust it, even if it is supposedly inverted (because it would inevitably turn into the same thing). read animal farm--that's how actual marxists feel about the state. orwell was a socialist, but he hated stalinism for this exact reason.


Thanks for the link man, i have been trying to research the whole spectrum of marx, core doctrine, Russian/soviet history etc.. I try to find original works written by these people or old books written by people who were there and researched it in order to cut through the bs and put me in a better position in discussions..


Its almost how we have it in the U.S, an armed people being a check to government power. I saw some similarities in the excerpt you posted to federalist No.29. Its interesting that he says that ’"suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the state", when the state such as in Russia liquidated revolutionaries etc. after the revolution. So was he right about what he wrote? interesting.

Link Posted: 4/14/2016 5:19:30 AM EDT
If they were the same, they would have one name...like socist or facialism.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 6:05:29 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:


I think that would be covered under Mutualism.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ZMV:
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I disagree with ZMVs chart. It's decent but doesn't account for right wing collectivism. And make no mistake, the right wing can be extremely collectivist.


I think that would be covered under Mutualism.


No,it's more authoritarian and while collectivist its patriarchal or feudal rather than equitable.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 6:35:53 AM EDT
Socialism is inherently globalist, as the end goal is communism, wherein a worker from one country feels as though he has more in common with a worker from another than his own countryman in the bourgeois.

Fascism is nationalistic;because it is so, it gathers the right wing title. Although many fascist policies are socialist, because the end goal is a strong nation, not a global commune, it is right wing.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 6:42:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2016 6:42:45 AM EDT by primuspilum]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
in terms of ideology they seem very different, but in respect to application..... Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia they seem very similar.
View Quote


Similar techniques.

However...

Stalin killed all the capitalists.

Hitler co opted the capitalists.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 7:02:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Socialism = The government owns or greatly regulates the means of production and most property.

Fascism = The government works with corporations to monopolize production and the ownership of property.

Fascism = Obamacare

Socialism = Single payer
View Quote



This is correct.

We currently live in a confused jumble of the two.

Fascism controls the means of production and ownership. It looks like this; "Do you have a license for (or to do) that?" Or everyone's favorite tomorrow......Income taxes. BigFed.gov owns all the money and gives you some to live on. Property taxes are another one.....

I would argue we live in a Fascist country and not a single person alive in America knows or understands what it means to be free.

Socialism looks like this; The Armed Forces.


Reset. It's coming and we are not voting our way out of this.

Link Posted: 4/14/2016 7:33:52 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
in terms of ideology they seem very different, but in respect to application..... Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia they seem very similar.
View Quote


To Stalin, anyone not a Communist, or against Communism, was a Fascist. Which is pretty funny since Joseph Stalin was a Fascist.


Link Posted: 4/14/2016 9:09:16 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
Originally Posted By panzersergeant:
Not the same.

in what way?


SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.



Awesome.

Now if we could just get the message to those idiots attending Bernie Sanders' rallies.

I guess the good news is, perhaps just like republicans, some of them will be so pissed off at the process that they just won't vote.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 9:16:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2016 9:27:25 AM EDT by 4v50]
Both have totalitarian or authoritarian aspects.

Socialism fosters itself upon the illusion of public ownership. However, only four categories benefit from socialistic (actually communists) states: high party officials, high military officials, high public (academians, designers, plant managers) officials and the secret police. As for the lowly proletariat, peasant-farmer, factory worker - well, they all get to hear the lovely propaganda of how wonderful their miserable lives are.

Facism is the merger of corporate and state power. It's what we have today and sometimes mask itself as "socialism." Who benefts from hanlding the EBT cards? Who benefitted from TARP, ZIRP, the proposed NIRP and cashless society? Who benefits from the TPP and its Atlantic equivalent (read Paul Craig Roberts' column on it). Who writes the laws that Congress passes? Who owns the FDA? Who owns Dept. of Agriculture? Who owns Congress, the occupier-in-chief of the Whine Haus and now the Supreme Court? The tragedy is that the American people still believe in the two party system and that the political reality show is real. They show this by their voting in of incumbents.

ETA: Like Herren Hitlery said, "Embrace the suck." We're rocketing to fascism so get used to it. Read what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (former Asst. of the Treasury under Reagan) had to say about it here: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/09/trans-atlantic-trans-pacific-partnerships-complete-corporate-world-takeover-paul-craig-roberts/
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 9:18:33 AM EDT
You can have fascism without socialism. It's very hard to have socialism without fascism. If people don't bear the consequences of their actions, government has to impose it's own consequences to keep a socialist system stable.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 9:52:49 AM EDT
You need to have at least a two-axis chart. One axis could be authoritarianism vs. democracy, while the other could be economic collectivism vs. economic individualism.

Looked at another way, one axis refers to process, while the other refers to economic result.

You could have democratic collectivism, or you could have authoritarian individualism. These are independent variables.

The traditional left-right one-dimensional scale is totally inadequate to describe the possibilities.

Fascism, for example, is certainly authoritarian, but it is neither collectivist nor individualist. The economy can be described as crony capitalist, with government and business working together at the expense of the individual. This stifles both social justice and free enterprise. In other words, it's the practically the worst of all possible outcomes.

Sad to say, both of the leading candidates in this year's election -- Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton -- exhibit strong fascist tendencies. And I'm not sure the alternatives are much better. God help us.

Link Posted: 4/14/2016 10:22:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
in terms of ideology they seem very different, but in respect to application..... Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia they seem very similar.
View Quote
We are talking about fascism, there wasn't fascism in Nazi Germany. Fascism =/= Nazism .
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 3:42:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DedoBOT:
We are talking about fascism, there wasn't fascism in Nazi Germany. Fascism =/= Nazism .
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DedoBOT:
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
in terms of ideology they seem very different, but in respect to application..... Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia they seem very similar.
We are talking about fascism, there wasn't fascism in Nazi Germany. Fascism =/= Nazism .

Thank you!

The Communists referred to Nazis as Fascists, but Fascism is different. It's far more rooted in Italian culture and history.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 3:48:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
so really a political spectrum is total control at one side and total anarchy at the other?
View Quote



Yes. With the U.S. as founded, a constitutionally limited federation of sovereign nations, much closer to anarchy than total control.
Link Posted: 4/14/2016 3:54:00 PM EDT
they both lead to hell on earth so they have that in common
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top