Socialism vs Facism

[Europa]

I've taken this interesting discussion from our regional headquarters. It's a lot easier to discuss when your posts don't disappear every few hours. Too bad I don't have the start of the discussion. Oh, and I left out some posts concerning the timber woodchipping ranking, hope nobody minds.

 

....

The Armed Republic of Ekainak

hitler's nazi party called themselves the National Socialist Worker's Party. 

 

The Republic of Tamurin

Fascism and Socialism may differ extremely in ideology, but in reality they're more or less the same. They opress people, people's rights and they don't tolerate opposition. Socialism does have a better reputation because it doesn't have the "master race"-part in it...

 

As a german author once wrote:

"Hitler killed people to opress them. Stalin killed people to free them...when do people realize that it's not important WHY someone kills someone??"

 

The Holy Empire of Tagmatium

I thought that that was Communism, rather than Socialism. Commusnism being more to 'the left' than Socialism, as a it advocates the ownership of everything by the state. It's quite strange how the more you go to the political left or right, the more the actions of these groups begin to ressemble each other.

 

The Allied States of Meteorola

The really odd thing is if you go out far enough on the left or the right, you find youself coming into the other side. There were a lot of similarities between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. That goes even for today with the less exteme governments.

 

The Republic of Tamurin

Communism and Socialism may be different in theory, but there is no difference in reality. The oppression in the Soviet Union, China, Northern Corea or the so-called German Democratic Republic was the same, no matter how the nations called themselves.

 

Communism and Socialism differ in theory, but there is something called "Real existierender Sozialismus" (meaning more or less "real-existing socialism" or "socialism in reality"). It's always the same; the state of "true communism", as Marx wanted it, is impossible to gain. Which is already proven because nearly all socialist governments broke down. What remains are democratic socialists and some left-over nations who are in a state of decline (Northern Corea, Vietnam, Cuba) or in a state of transformation (China).

 

 

 

The Holy Empire of Tagmatium

What non-totalitarian Socialism? Such as that of the Old Labour Party in the UK (ie before Tony Blair came to leadership of the party). As it isn't crazily left wing, it works better. The main industries are owned by the state, and the state provides healthcare and wellcare for the people.

 

The Slightly Paranoid Republic of MicroGlup

There are really only 2 political alternatives - Anarchy and the rest, because anarchists believe that mankind is inherently good so there is no need for police, armies etc to control him whereas every other political system believes that we are all inherently evil and have to be policed and controlled - they only differ in how much control they believe should be exerted!

 

The Holy Empire of Tagmatium

Anarchy goes against human nature. Humans are pack-animals, so that it is natural to have some humans dominant over others. This is the main reason why Communism/Socialism fails, because, in the immortal words of George Orwell "All animals are equal, but some of them are more equal than others". That's in animal farm. I have gone off on a tangent.

 

The Free Land of Veritates

What you're forgetting is that in an animal pack, there are no animals who have made it their duty to make sure other animals stay in line. A pack doesn't have the legislative, executive and judicial powers that human society has. A society without the need for these powers is what anarchists are looking for. It doesn't go against human nature in that sense. It goes against human nature in that it goes against our primal desire for supriority over others, through material wealth or physical power for example. Any human is only willing to go so far for the pack, and anarchy basicly requires that everybody is willing to go all the way for humanity as a whole.

 

George Orwell used the quote to demonstrate how the soviets twisted the words of Karl Marx to better fit their totalitarian regime. According to Marx however, this regime should only have been a transitional period in the People's Revolution.

[Tamurin]

Marx was wrong. His way is impossible.

 

Humans LIKE power. Humans get corrupted by power. The way from Democracy to Communism goes via the step of Socialism, where, according to Marx, the government has all the power concentrated in a single soviet (group, council, whatever you wanna call it). It is necessary because the transition has to be made completely and everyone has to participate; such a huge transition must be controlled from one group of people.

 

Having all power is just so damn nice, that nobody will ever give it up. As we have seen in the past.

 

Such an enormous amount of power attracts people who don't deserve to have it, like Stalin in the Soviet Union and the many Nazis in the Third Reich.

 

How a country without a regime looks like could be seen in Iraq in the first weeks after the Saddam regime broke down. Mass pillaging, crime out of control...this is anarchy!

[Guest Guest]

But, as Iraq has shown (thanks to Bush and Blair for helpfully providing this example), this state of anarchy cannot last long before two or more groups begin the struggle for overall supremacy. Anarchy, in this case at least, is the transision period before either a bloody civil war sets in or a single, powerful group takes the lead and begins to run the country.

[Tagmatium Rules]

Sorry, didn't sign in.

[MicroGlup]

Sorry guys but I really have to disagree with your ideas about Anarchy. What you have to realise is that every political system along with all the great world religions have a vested interest in making sure that Anarchy is given the worst press possible - they all unite behind their hate of it even more than their hate of each other!

 

Anarchists are not fools and they accept that humans have failings, but if you look around the world you can find many examples of humans living in peace with each other without crime or war, etc - unfortunately most of the examples are from rather "primitive" peoples whose lifstyle is being actively destroyed by our "advanced" civilisations.

 

Why on earth should it be a crime to attempt suicide? because if people can kill themselves the state (and the church) lose control - no other reason.

 

Have a look at the Bushmen of the Kalihari - hundreds of years of peaceful co-operation with mutual sharing the norm.

 

Animals too have many examples to offer us, not least Bonobo Monkeys where females rule and ensure peace by using sex as a method of defusing situations.

 

It's easy to become brainwashed by the "system" - try reading up on what's going on - better still travel the world and look for yourself!

 

I will never forget a priest on his knees in front of my tank praying to his god to give me strength to kill my enemies - I got hold of him afterwards and reminded him about the ten commandments and "thou shall not kill" he just smiled and walked away - that was when I decided I would never just accept what anyone who was part of the system told me - it's a good policy guys!

 

[Tagmatium Rules]

Is attempted suicide a crime? I know assisting suicide is, becuase it can be looked on as murder, but I didn't think you could be arrested for attempted suicide. Anyway, how could the police catch you?

[MicroGlup]

Up until quite recently it was here in the uk and it was quite common to imprison people who failed in the attempt! Not only that but the state also force-fed them if they went on hunger strike to make sure they didn't die in prison- that'll teach em, lol.

 

Aint government by the people wonderful - rofl!

 

 

[Tagmatium Rules]

I wouldn't know. I live in my own bubble of ignorance, protected from the outside world by my refusal to read newspapers properlty, other than scanning through them until I get to the cartoons.

 

They do say ignorance is bliss.

[Meteorola]

Marx was wrong. His way is impossible.

Careful with that, the Marx concepts have never fully been employeed. He belived the government should be a democracy, not dictatorship. Elections would more or less be determining a CEO.

 

Marx was also German, living in England. He was never living in Russia (future USSR at the time). He also belived that communism would take hold in the core (Germany, UK, USA) not the perifery (Russia, China) and certainally not the undeveloped world (Syria, Cuba)

[Tagmatium Rules]

It isn't impossible, just difficult.

[Orioni]

Let me tell you something I learned during the years..

 

 

MARX believed that his theory would be the endpoint of an entire evolution of which communism would be the pinacle. The fases you have mentioned above are correct, but I simply don't agree that there exists a straight line along which a nation/society evolves.

 

Look at the Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, pre-Columbian indians, Italy in the 14th century, Spain in the 15th, Netherlands in the 16th, France in the 17th, England in the 18th and 19th, the USSR in the 20th, ..

All of there thought they were the best of the best and that nothing could ever be better of even match them.

 

I agree with FUKUYAMA when he states that with the end of the USSR we are at the end of history, that humanity has reached the end of it's organisational evolution. Just look at what is going on in the world and you will notice that nothing stands still. It might look that way sometimes, but I can assure you that nothing lasts forever.

[Karpathos]

Let me tell you something I learned during the years..

 

 

MARX believed that his theory would be the endpoint of an entire evolution of which communism would be the pinacle. The fases you have mentioned above are correct, but I simply don't agree that there exists a straight line along which a nation/society evolves.

Neither did Marx. I surely hope you guys know something about Communism (Capital C) before you spew utter bullsh*t. No offence O and this was not firected at you. As to your comment, Marxism is a revolutionary philosophy, not a straight line. So the precess is not a "straight line". When a true Marxist county rises, many will raise with it. The USSR or any country for that matter that claims to be Communist (Again, capital C) is NOT marxist. And who the hell can associate Socialism with Fascism...please.

[Karpathos]

Marx was wrong. His way is impossible.

Careful with that, the Marx concepts have never fully been employeed. He belived the government should be a democracy, not dictatorship. Elections would more or less be determining a CEO.

 

Marx was also German, living in England. He was never living in Russia (future USSR at the time). He also belived that communism would take hold in the core (Germany, UK, USA) not the perifery (Russia, China) and certainally not the undeveloped world (Syria, Cuba)

The boy speaks the truth!

[Tamurin]

He doesn't. And it is impossible.

 

Marx based his theory on the "new human", one that is good, rational, etc. But as Macchiavelli found out, a human is bad, irrational, eager etc.

 

To transform a nation from democracy, monarchy or dictatorship to communism, you need to concentrate the power into a single hand. This enormous amount of power corrupts - always.

 

C'mon, we had several dozen communist nations in the 20th century, and each and every one of them was a dictatorship.

 

Communism, like Fascism, "explains" the world from one point of view and does not allow a different opinion, because the theory is the truth - so everything else must be wrong. This kind of thinking was never successful (as we have seen in the recent past).

 

Meteorola, if you believe, that the political system should be a democracy, then just leave it there. Democracy is the best political system we have. It has its flaws, but it's much better than the alternatives. Communism always comes with dictatorship, secret police and no freedom of speech.

 

Karpathos, I know enough about communism. And he, Marx, stated a straight line: Imperialism to Socialism to Communism. And communism would be "the end of history", where the full cycle of all systems would be completed. He said, that in the beginning humans lived in a state of pre-historian communism. Everything was shared and everyone lived in peace.

Then the chiefs came, then the monarchs etc., etc.

Imperialism and Industrialization created the worker class and this worker class would transform the nations to true communism - again!

He stated a full cycle and described the last steps to be taken.

 

And again, for the association of Socialism and Fascism, let's look at the real "encounters" we had, example Germany:

 

One-party-system (NSDAP / SED)

Secret Police (Gestapo / Stasi)

Total abolishment of freedom of speech

Prisons for political enemies (Concentration camps like Dachau / Prison complex Bautzen; some concentration camps were used by the communists in the late 40s after the Nazis were beaten - by the Soviets and the eastern Germans!)

Population is fed with wrong information (Just one radio service / one or two TV channels)

Population doesn't get important information (no radio broadcast about Auschwitz / no radio broadcast about Bautzen or killings at the border to West-Germany; in both systems watching or listening to radio or TV channels from other nations was a crime and a safe "entrance ticket" for concentration camps or Bautzen, because it was "Treason")

Population is denied contact with democratic nations (because they could find out the truth)

People trying to escape the country, but they aren't allowed to and are arrested or killed (Concentration camps / in East Germany these people were called "Republik-Fl?chtlinge" (~ Republic refugees), which was a CRIME; you wouldn't believe what people did to escape this country: Swim more than 40 km, build a self-made rocket-plane, dig a 500 m tunnel...)

Government says only this way is right

Demonstrations and uprisings are crashed by force (Sophie Scholl, killed 1943; Graf Stauffenberg, killed 1944; Communist party members, killed 1933-1945 in concentration camps / demonstration by workers 1953, crashed with soviet tanks, many dead and wounded; killings at the border to West-Germany, 1961-1989, more than 100 dead)

...

...

...

 

Shall I go on?

 

The only difference between these systems is its ideological foundation. The practise is the same.

[Karpathos]

I see i'm going to have to waste my time teachong toddlers about gorwn-up issues.

 

Karpathos, I know enough about communism. And he, Marx, stated a straight line: Imperialism to Socialism to Communism. And communism would be "the end of history", where the full cycle of all systems would be completed. He said, that in the beginning humans lived in a state of pre-historian communism. Everything was shared and everyone lived in peace.

Then the chiefs came, then the monarchs etc., etc.

Imperialism and Industrialization created the worker class and this worker class would transform the nations to true communism - again!

He stated a full cycle and described the last steps to be taken

 

You may know "enough" about communisn, but i'm a marxist.

 

Marx mentioned Feudalism>Capitalism>Socialism>Communism. Lenin extended Imperalism in to Marxism as well as adding the revolutionary element in to the philosophy, ie Leninism. "end of history"? where do you base your arguments from? really, I am interested. In pre-historic times it was believed that tribes existed, much like communes, with the creation of coinage, "bought" land, and governments gave rise to feudalism, then the bourgeoisie emerged with them came capitalism. With capitalism came the proletariat. The proletariat will overthrow the capitalists as the capitalists did to the feudalists. Think man!

 

The USSR is NOT Marxist/communist/socialist. It was Stalinist! Get it? No? Too bad. The USSR includes it satellites states. Any country in existance was either Stalinist( Proletarian Bonapartist) Or Maoist, Not communist/socialist/marxist.

[Tamurin]

where do you base your arguments from?

 

Fact and history. You base your arguments on theory. This might be interesting in a university or a discussion club, but in the real world it fails.

 

The proletariat will overthrow the capitalists as the capitalists did to the feudalists. Think man!

 

And where do you get your confidence that this will happen? Seems to me that capitalism is doing just fine. And a real proletariat doesn't exist anymore, so who should overthrow the system?

 

Any country in existance was either Stalinist( Proletarian Bonapartist) Or Maoist, Not communist/socialist/marxist.

 

This is exactly what I mean - there is no way to do what Marx said, because it always ends with Stalinism/Maoism. And that can't be the way.

[Karpathos]

The only thing I can say before having an anurism is BOLLOCKS.

[Chairman Joaquin]

I think you guys are overlooking Tito's Yugoslavia, he rejected Stalin's advances in making it another satellite state and when Tito gave him a big NO, enemies were made. That is when the US started giving Tito aid. I'm not possitive 'bout this, so correct me if i'm wrong.

 

And, I do think that a proletariat exists. It might not exist in our first world countries full of comfertable living, but if you go to the 2nd and 3rd worlds, you will find a poor majority that can be considered the proletariat.

[Karpathos]

All of Tamurin's rhetoric comes from the history book of Bollocks. and yes, the proletariat does exist.

[Tagmatium Rules]

I think this is what we need a flame room for.

[Phil VII]

Agree with Tagmantium, note to mods (i.e. Europa) MAKE ONE SOON!

 

I dont know an awful lot about the whole Communist/Socialist/Marxist argument, but here is my opinion anyway.

 

I dont know whether communism will work or not, i think that looking at it, it is a good idea, and would make the world a fairer place, if it works. It is clear that almost all communist countries that have come into existance in the past have failed, and mostly ended up as dictators, and that is the problem.

 

If we have a society wher 'everyone is equal', and there is no-one who is an overall leader, then there will eventully be someone or some people who will be stronger than the rest, whether through being good or corrupt it doesnt matter, even if the top man is a good guy, then are the rest of his men good guys, cos even if just one of them isnt, then the whole thing can fall apart.

 

Societies where everyione is equal wont work, because everyone isnt equal, there are some who are just natrually stronger, and although in todays capitalist world it tends to be the people with the money, in communist russia, stalin rose cos he had the ambition and the corruption to beat of and eventully kill off a whole load of his opponants. In the old tribal times, the leaders and their families rose to be leaders because they were the 'Ardest men in the group.

 

My point is, there will always have to be leaders, as nature and society has made it that way. Democracy isnt perfect, but its the best system we've got at the moment. No countries' political system is perfect, the US government is corrupt, and is 60% jewish, which is scary, and the british government give the prime minister masses of power. But they work, for now, and I cant see anything else being much better.

[Karpathos]

Argh, I suppose everyone forgot about the soviets.( I'm not talking about the USSR)

[Stoned Smurfs]

I say Facism is better on the fact that it looks like a dirty word!

 

*steps away from the smart people having intelligent conversations and decides to instead poke Endless Summer with a stick*

 

PotEdit: Muwahahahaha! Now, after reading the above posts, I see another one of my master plans is gaining popularity and soon i will rULE THE WORLD!!! err... i mean, see EE told ya we need one. just dont name it something retarded please. 'Flame Room' is a great idea.

Edited January 18, 2005 by Stoned Smurfs (see edit history)

[Karpathos]

*Hits Pot with the Hammer of Communism (Look at my avatar)*

[Tamurin]

Please explain "Bollocks".

 

Besides that, I won't participate in this kind of discussions anymore. I came here to have more fun with NS, not to fight.