dustind
Member
It is because of opinions like these that I keep comming back to The High Road.
Communism or Facism?
- Thread starter ShaiVong
- Start date
- Status
ShaiVong
Member
I liked this one especially:
"Like Jim, I choose neither. Every man has a line in the sand."
Uhm, I've heard it refered to as a range-marker .....
I love you guys!
"Like Jim, I choose neither. Every man has a line in the sand."
Uhm, I've heard it refered to as a range-marker .....
I love you guys!
Joe Demko
Member
Nazi Germany had snappier uniforms and a better standard of living for the average person (not including Jews and other targets of the Reich) WRT such things as consumer goods.
I wouldn't care to live in either one, for as I said in another thread, when you're being oppressed and/or killed it doesn't matter where the oppressors fall on the economic axis.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
The difference between Communism and Nazism is basically the difference between armed robbery and blackmail. In the former, the government claims ownership of everything, and shoots you if you disagree. In the latter, the government says you own everything, but tells you to give it whatever it wants, and shoots you if you disagree. It all winds up the same difference either way.
w4rma
member
Neither one. In fact I disagree that communism and fascism are polar opposites. Both fascism and communism are on the exact same spot on the totalitarian<->libertarian axis (totalitarian, of course). They are only opposite on the economic axis.
fascism = totalitarianism + capitalism according to Mussolini and FDR
capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.
A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):
“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.†-- Benito Mussolini
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.†-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism).
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.
Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fire department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools
fascism = totalitarianism + capitalism according to Mussolini and FDR
capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.
A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):
“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.†-- Benito Mussolini
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.†-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism).
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.
Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fire department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools
*laugh* The more things change, the more they stay the same.
As for the original question, the answer is simple. We must do what is best for the proletariat. We cannot allow the bourgeoisie to persist in applying their filthy, capitalistic choke-hold of greed on the cow-eyed Workers. We must FIGHT! We must institute the Great Collective over all men, in which every man woman and child is equal. We will fight to free everyone, even if it means killing them. Their blood will be our sacrifice to their freedom. I will lead this great revolution and be first among equals. From my Palace of Equality, I will reign above and among my brothers and lead them to victory over their oppressors. Long live Communism! May it allow little men to control every man in our quest for a bigger slice of equality from the economic pie.
edit: I'm terribly sorry, I seem to be in a rather sarcastic mood today. Of course I don't really advocate communism. Facism all the way, baby.
Last edited:
ShaiVong
Member
"edit: I'm terribly sorry, I seem to be in a rather sarcastic mood today. Of course I don't really advocate communism. Facism all the way, baby."
haha !
haha !
Gordon Fink
Member
Once again, we are confusing communism with socialism. To answer the question as framed, however …
I would choose communism over fascism.
Why? Because communism is merely anarchy without private property. By contrast, fascism is tyranny with private property. I would prefer to avoid tyranny, even though I do like private property.
That said, true communism is not possible—at least no more so than anarcho-capitalism. Such a system is unstable. For communism to work, human motivations would have to be reprogrammed in some fashion.
A much tougher and more interesting choice would be between socialism (tyranny without private property) and fascism (tyranny with private property). Perhaps that is what ShaiVong really meant to ask.
~G. Fink
I would choose communism over fascism.
Why? Because communism is merely anarchy without private property. By contrast, fascism is tyranny with private property. I would prefer to avoid tyranny, even though I do like private property.
That said, true communism is not possible—at least no more so than anarcho-capitalism. Such a system is unstable. For communism to work, human motivations would have to be reprogrammed in some fashion.
A much tougher and more interesting choice would be between socialism (tyranny without private property) and fascism (tyranny with private property). Perhaps that is what ShaiVong really meant to ask.
~G. Fink
killermarmot
Member
I'm of the thinking that neither is acceptable and I'll die before I tolerate either. And when it gets down to the implementation of and reality of both I don't think they're all that diferent, one becomes the other, and they both have the same result. One man tells everyone else what they can and can't do.
The day someone announces themselves emperor of the US I hope all they'll here is magazines loading and slides racking. And one chick in the back screaming F$%^ You!
The day someone announces themselves emperor of the US I hope all they'll here is magazines loading and slides racking. And one chick in the back screaming F$%^ You!
labgrade
Member In Memoriam
ShaiVong,
Wish I could have marked it as my own, but alas, it's from the owner of this site.
I cannot take any credit other than to repeat it - worthy as it is.
Wish I could have marked it as my own, but alas, it's from the owner of this site.
I cannot take any credit other than to repeat it - worthy as it is.
One aspect that hasn't been considerd:
Facist regiems seem more prone to attacking countries they can't beat, and ending up being overthrown as a result (either by the victor, or by their own citizens).
That in turn may mean that the chance each day you'll get killed is higher (either by being conscripted into the attacking army, or getting hit by the retaliation), but the regiem won't last as long, and if you don't die you might out live it.
Whereas Communist regiems seem to last a lot longer (e.g 1917-1990s for USSR, vs 33-45 for the Nazis), so even if they don't kill you (and they''ll have longer to do it in), you might well never live to see freedom.
Overall, though, I think it depends more on the particular regiem or its dictator, than its political ideology. Some are just more vicious than others. I think it would be better under Mussolini than Stalin, but better under Castro than Hitler. And Pol Pot was probably the worst of all for the average individual.
Facist regiems seem more prone to attacking countries they can't beat, and ending up being overthrown as a result (either by the victor, or by their own citizens).
That in turn may mean that the chance each day you'll get killed is higher (either by being conscripted into the attacking army, or getting hit by the retaliation), but the regiem won't last as long, and if you don't die you might out live it.
Whereas Communist regiems seem to last a lot longer (e.g 1917-1990s for USSR, vs 33-45 for the Nazis), so even if they don't kill you (and they''ll have longer to do it in), you might well never live to see freedom.
Overall, though, I think it depends more on the particular regiem or its dictator, than its political ideology. Some are just more vicious than others. I think it would be better under Mussolini than Stalin, but better under Castro than Hitler. And Pol Pot was probably the worst of all for the average individual.
ShaiVong
Member
Has anyone here ever seen "The Killing Fields"? I think thats one of the things that tipped me from Communism to Facism.
Like somebody said above.. If you can stay alive, you might outlive facism; and the living conditions are generally better.
In either case, when I'm King, ill be sure to take good care of you guys.
Like somebody said above.. If you can stay alive, you might outlive facism; and the living conditions are generally better.
In either case, when I'm King, ill be sure to take good care of you guys.
- Status