Whats the differnce between fascism and socialism?

[dukedarko2000]

I would say its very small. The only thing that separates us is the fact that you guys dont have a clear agenda ore ideologi, and that you support muslim aggression and ant-semmitism.

[OleMarxco]

Well. You're atleast trying to hit the bottom of this forum atleast (Restricted to Opposing Ideologies) aside from being banned, for drawing parallels between such drastically divergent ideologies. Fascism is a nationalistic-driven system that forces everyone to be equally nationally, and Socialism - perhaps the same, only equally socially. Maybe.

If any, it's that socialism is a no-state system that treats everyone equally and fascism is a one-state system that enforces everyone to be equal persons (groups withouth invidual traits), so it's it's a bit difference anyways, me thinkesth, but don't take my word for it ;)

[Enragé]

Fascism: racist, "my country's best", dictatorial, suppressive, "big brother is watching you" and a tool of the bourgeoisie (in fascism there often still is capitalism).

Socialism is NONE of that. i cant really think of something socialism and fascism agree on.

[Enragé]

and you fucking moron, how can socialism be anti-semite? lots, and i mean lots of jews are/were socialists! important ones too. Radical fundamentalist muslims even give this as further evidence jews are corrupt.

[Xvall]

The difference, dumbass, is that fascism has "fasc" before the ism, and socialism has "social" before the ism. This isn't rocket science.

[bezdomni]

Fascists create a one-party state in order to exploit the majority in the name of nationalism and pride. The fascist state is created only to perpetuate the power of the people in charge of it. There is no liberation, freedom or democracy.

Socialists, on the other hand, are trying to change the capitalist state in order to benefit the majority in the name of the people they are freeing. The state under socialism is controlled by the people, instead of by a few. Labour will thrive under a socialist system, as opposed to fail under a fascist system. The socialist state is created spread socialism to the rest of the world and to make its own duty unnecessary. Socialists don't believe in the state for any longer than its existence is necessary. We believe in liberation of the proletarian, freedom of the people as expressed by their rights and practices of democracy.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:53 PM
I would say its very small. The only thing that separates us is the fact that you guys dont have a clear agenda ore ideologi, and that you support muslim aggression and ant-semmitism.
Well after attempting to translate your post from gibberish to some semi-comprehensible dialect I have decided that this is possibly the single most idiotic statement made on Che-lives/Rev-left, and considering some of the fucking morons on this site both rightwing and leftwing, that's something I never thought to see.

Do you know what fascism is? Clearly not! Fascism is the conglomeration between corporate power and state power; the complete antithesis of socialism.

A fascist does not seek to distribute wealth of society among it's people with even a small degree of fairness. Fascism seeks to do the opposite. it seeks to defend the hierarchy of traditional society, conservative extremism, a group which seeks to revert society to a position it had inhabited in previous times.

[D_Bokk]

During Nazi Germany, the Socialists and Communists were the few people who opposed the government. Several of them attempted to assassinate Hitler. Claus von Stauffenberg, the man who came the closest to killing Hitler, was a Socialist. I doubt if they were so closely related, there wouldn't have been so much resistance between Fascist Germany and the Socialists.

[jagjkdfblfjasl;gj]

The dumbasses around on these boards think that fascism is the same thing as socialism and communism, so they decide to attack everything because they all deal with authority. Rather than just attacking fascism and liberalism in the real world, they attack real communists and leftists instead.

[OleMarxco]

Ugh. A mistake.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fascism is a system which buttrapes the people, whereas socialism is a system which buttrapes the people but says thank you afterward.

Either way, you get a sore ass.

[AnarchyMind]

[QUOTE]We need to spend more time Bashing Bush and comparing him to Hitler! YEAH!

We sure do. Even though he isn´t nationalsocialistik he says that he fights for the "free" world. Can you please define the "free"world??? Right now the free world to them is when the thirdworld countries supports the US with a pro-american politic.


When these countries stops saluting the US, when they come to the understanding that the US has been exploiting them..... This is when the US army puts an end to the recistans. We must put an end to this madness......

The US even if they say that they are democratic and free, they use a system thats similar to to facist system.... in iraq they secured the oilwells.... why did they do it??? To make sure that they can control more of the market and ship the oil to the US so that th US citizens can live the "American dream"..... The US does not act in the name in "Democracy" and "Freedom"... They acts in a facistik spirit that says to the countries that they invade that "We are your saviors"... mussolini used the same tactics during the abinessian war 1935-36.... therefore the us is basicly a "light-facist" country with a democratic exterior.... Since the election system is a two party system the madness wont stop until something is done......

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:08 PM
Socialism is NONE of that. i cant really think of something socialism and fascism agree on.
It's all of that and then some. It's particualrly dictatorial in an economic context, and thus dictatorial in other areas too.

Observe :

http://www.skeletonitus.supanet.com/toceps.jpg

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:11 AM
During Nazi Germany, the Socialists and Communists were the few people who opposed the government. Several of them attempted to assassinate Hitler. Claus von Stauffenberg, the man who came the closest to killing Hitler, was a Socialist. I doubt if they were so closely related, there wouldn't have been so much resistance between Fascist Germany and the Socialists.
In other words, they wanted to get rid of Hitler so that they could be in charge. The difference wasn't one of ideology or principle.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:41 AM
Fascism is a system which buttrapes the people, whereas socialism is a system which buttrapes the people but says thank you afterward.

Either way, you get a sore ass.
Are you just joking, NoXion?

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:36 AM
[QUOTE]We need to spend more time Bashing Bush and comparing him to Hitler! YEAH!

We sure do. Even though he isn´t nationalsocialistik he says that he fights for the "free" world. Can you please define the "free"world??? Right now the free world to them is when the thirdworld countries supports the US with a pro-american politic.



How is he a national socialist?

Comparing Bush to Hitler is ludicrious. Both are bad people but you cannot compare Hitler's genocide of millions to anything Bush has done yet.

As for fascism. I don't beleive the US has gone to that extreme yet.

[AnarchyMind]

[QUOTE]Colombia Posted on May 10 2005, 02:55 PM
QUOTE (AnarchyMind @ May 10 2005, 06:36 AM)
[QUOTE]We need to spend more time Bashing Bush and comparing him to Hitler! YEAH!

We sure do. Even though he isn´t nationalsocialistik he says that he fights for the "free" world. Can you please define the "free"world??? Right now the free world to them is when the thirdworld countries supports the US with a pro-american politic.



It says that he isn´t (That mens he is not for all you hwo don´t know it)
and im not calling the US a facist.... im just saying that they are using the same methods as the facists did during the 1930's....

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:34 PM

and im not calling the US a facist.... im just saying that they are using the same methods as the facists did during the 1930's....
Which at best is idiotic.

What "methods" are we using?

Have we targeted any minorities for extinction? Blamed them for our problems?

No.

Have we moved to ban political participation by opposition groups?

No.

Does the Republican Party or President Bush have their/his own private army ala the SS?

No.

Have we claimed we need more space which is "rightfully" and "historically" ours?

No.

Has Bush been made President for life?

No.


So, what were those methods you mentioning? Rallying around the flag? We've always done that, and so has every other nation on earth in history.

[LSD]

Can we please stop with the "U$ = Fascist!!!1!!1!1" crap.

Yes, there are fascistic elements within the United States, notably the Christian Conserative wing of both parties which would gladly impose state regulations on every aspect of life, but we're not there yet.

Could I imagine a fascist or pseudo-fascist America in the next 25 years? ...maybe, it really depends. I could just as reasonably forsee a "swing" in the opposite direction back towards moderate far-rightism, or what passes in the US for "centrism".

I don't know.

But what I certainly do know is calling the US today a fascist state is wrong, ignorant, and insulting to those who truly suffered under the hands of real fascit states in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

If you really think the US is fascist, try living in Turkmenistan for a week.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by AnarchyMind+May 10 2005, 06:36 AM--> (AnarchyMind @ May 10 2005, 06:36 AM)
"OleMarXo"
We need to spend more time Bashing Bush and comparing him to Hitler! YEAH!

We sure do. Even though he isn´t nationalsocialistik he says that he fights for the "free" world. Can you please define the "free"world??? Right now the free world to them is when the thirdworld countries supports the US with a pro-american politic.

When these countries stops saluting the US, when they come to the understanding that the US has been exploiting them..... This is when the US army puts an end to the recistans. We must put an end to this madness......

The US even if they say that they are democratic and free, they use a system thats similar to to facist system.... in iraq they secured the oilwells.... why did they do it??? To make sure that they can control more of the market and ship the oil to the US so that th US citizens can live the "American dream"..... The US does not act in the name in "Democracy" and "Freedom"... They acts in a facistik spirit that says to the countries that they invade that "We are your saviors"... mussolini used the same tactics during the abinessian war 1935-36.... therefore the us is basicly a "light-facist" country with a democratic exterior.... Since the election system is a two party system the madness wont stop until something is done...... [/b]
And you need to understand sarcasm :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by XPhile2868+May 10 2005, 02:39 PM--> (XPhile2868 @ May 10 2005, 02:39 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 07:41 AM
Fascism is a system which buttrapes the people, whereas socialism is a system which buttrapes the people but says thank you afterward.

Either way, you get a sore ass.
Are you just joking, NoXion? [/b]
No I am not joking. Socialism is still class society and as such you get screwed over.
My position is very clear on this.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 11 2005, 06:29 AM--> (NoXion @ May 11 2005, 06:29 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:39 PM

[email protected] 9 2005, 07:41 AM
Fascism is a system which buttrapes the people, whereas socialism is a system which buttrapes the people but says thank you afterward.

Either way, you get a sore ass.
Are you just joking, NoXion?
No I am not joking. Socialism is still class society and as such you get screwed over.
My position is very clear on this. [/b]
'Zat your hero in your avatar, there?

[cormacobear]

Facsism ais a socialy repressive enterprise. Fascist beleive they have the right to force everyone to adhere to they're religious, moral, sexual, and all other beleifs.

Socialists beleive the states only job is to prevent hoarding and ensure economic and labour equality. It is an economic system not a tool for personal repression.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 11 2005, 01:56 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 11 2005, 01:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:39 PM

[email protected] 9 2005, 07:41 AM
Fascism is a system which buttrapes the people, whereas socialism is a system which buttrapes the people but says thank you afterward.

Either way, you get a sore ass.
Are you just joking, NoXion?
No I am not joking. Socialism is still class society and as such you get screwed over.
My position is very clear on this.
'Zat your hero in your avatar, there? [/b]
It's a protest against the liberal anti-stalinists. This a forum for revolutionary leftists. Stalin kiddies and third positionists notwithstanding, Stalinists IRL have more revolutionary spirit in their little fingers than these pathetic liberals have in their entire bodies.

[jiujitsu]

He got banned for this post? http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_dance.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ha! I'm not banned, it's my title, to indicate I'm so contraversial and against the grain that the liberals on this board might try to get me banned.

[jiujitsu]

Yes, I understand now. Your unbridled desire to be different has caused you to support outrageous politics instead of just becoming an angsty goth who listens to satanic music in a dark room while cutting themselves... I understand... http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_dance.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:09 AM
Yes, I understand now. Your unbridled desire to be different has caused you to support outrageous politics instead of just becoming an angsty goth who listens to satanic music in a dark room while cutting themselves... I understand... http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_dance.gif
Is that an insult or a compliment? :huh:

[jiujitsu]

Neither. It's a realization of the truth.. http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_dance.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You seem to be fond of this: http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_dance.gif Are you http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_drunk.gif?

:redstar2000:

[jiujitsu]

Hehehehe.. http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/images/smiles/icon_dance.gif

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 10 2005, 02:34 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 10 2005, 02:34 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 05:08 PM
Socialism is NONE of that. i cant really think of something socialism and fascism agree on.
It's all of that and then some. It's particualrly dictatorial in an economic context, and thus dictatorial in other areas too.

Observe :

http://www.skeletonitus.supanet.com/toceps.jpg [/b]
moron, that stupid bourgeois schematic describes the state-capitalist apparatus of Stalin, a little bit. It has nothing to do with true communism. True communism=freedom for all, injustice to no one.

[Professor Moneybags]

moron, that stupid bourgeois schematic describes the state-capitalist apparatus of Stalin, a little bit.

It describes the tendencies of every socialist and communist society that has ever existed.


It has nothing to do with true communism.

How is "true" communism any different ?


True communism=freedom for all, injustice to no one.

Only in your deams. You don't have a shred of evidence to prove this argument, empirical or otherwise.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2005, 09:42 PM
It describes the tendencies of every socialist and communist society that has ever existed.
Except for revolutionary Spain, Titoist Yugoslavia, the USSR under the NEP, the Sandinistas, Makhnovist Ukraine, many low-tech classless societies and others.


How is "true" communism any different ?

For starters, there is no government.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2005, 09:42 PM

moron, that stupid bourgeois schematic describes the state-capitalist apparatus of Stalin, a little bit.

It describes the tendencies of every socialist and communist society that has ever existed.

I urge you to name actual socialist and communist societies that have existed, especially the communist ones. This should be good.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:41 AM
Fascism is a system which buttrapes the people, whereas socialism is a system which buttrapes the people but says thank you afterward.

Either way, you get a sore ass.
While I compare the free market to:

A system that buttrapes you, but if your lucky and hardworking; someday instead of getting buttraped, your doing the buttraping yourself. So if you don't like to be buttraped, there is plenty of insentive to rise to the top.

[OleMarxco]

....Except that they don't WANT you to "get there", so you won't be any of the "butt-rapers". Revolution is the only solution. It's just a lie, the "American Dream" crap....."If you're lucky and hard-working...." That's a BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA BY THE BURGEOUISE. They say that, "TO KEEP YOU WORKIN' THOSE MACHINES GODDAMNIT". So that even if you work hard, and you go and claim you deserve a raise in ranks, they'll say something like... "Uh, well, then you have to be a bit LUCKY too"....UTTER CRAP. Any system that promotes us to rely on "luck" and gives a fuck in whether or not the effort you're making is to reward the lucky and ignorant and the unlucky and hard-working. Is "getting a raise" like winning lottery? Does it happen to random people whatever their effort is? Perhaps it's just an excuse to keep the real working people down and those who don't work becomes managers since otherwise are USELESS? The productive people loose, since they can't lose a "necessary backbone worker of the system". Suddently, if I "work hard", I also have to wait for "luck" to get a raise.....and strangely, the "luck" seems to be decided by my boss...so....conclusionly, if I "don't fit in" with their managerial elite because I am pro-workers and anti-boss....."I'm out of luck".

Back to the topic: This is bullshit. The difference between Fascism and Socialism: Fascism serves the state, Socialism has a state to serve the people. Either way, you're screwed. I loathe Socialism, it starts good but will turn out to be State-Capitalism so I say just drop "transistionary state"-bullshit and just jump right over to Communism allready! :angry:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:17 AM
....Except that they don't WANT you to "get there", so you won't be any of the "butt-rapers". Revolution is the only solution. It's just a lie, the "American Dream" crap....."If you're lucky and hard-working...." That's a BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA BY THE BURGEOUISE. They say that, "TO KEEP YOU WORKIN' THOSE MACHINES GODDAMNIT". So that even if you work hard, and you go and claim you deserve a raise in ranks, they'll say something like... "Uh, well, then you have to be a bit LUCKY too"....UTTER CRAP. Any system that promotes us to rely on "luck" and gives a fuck in whether or not the effort you're making is to reward the lucky and ignorant and the unlucky and hard-working. Is "getting a raise" like winning lottery? Does it happen to random people whatever their effort is? Perhaps it's just an excuse to keep the real working people down and those who don't work becomes managers since otherwise are USELESS? The productive people loose, since they can't lose a "necessary backbone worker of the system". Suddently, if I "work hard", I also have to wait for "luck" to get a raise.....and strangely, the "luck" seems to be decided by my boss...so....conclusionly, if I "don't fit in" with their managerial elite because I am pro-workers and anti-boss....."I'm out of luck".

Back to the topic: This is bullshit. The difference between Fascism and Socialism: Fascism serves the state, Socialism has a state to serve the people. Either way, you're screwed. I loathe Socialism, it starts good but will turn out to be State-Capitalism so I say just drop "transistionary state"-bullshit and just jump right over to Communism allready! :angry:
OOOOOOKAAAAY.


I know for one, you have my vote. Yes I agree the transistion period sucks. Somehow I don't think it is ever going to happen that way.

Please note key word 'lucky' in my post.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:26 AM

Please note key word 'lucky' in my post.
If you acknowledge that the only way to not be oppressed in a Capitalist system is "Luck" why not take the chance out and just fix the problem; see that no one is oppressed.

Knowing the problem, knowing the solution, and not fixing the problem is just dum.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by cormacobear+May 13 2005, 08:51 AM--> (cormacobear @ May 13 2005, 08:51 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 02:26 AM

Please note key word 'lucky' in my post.
If you acknowledge that the only way to not be oppressed in a Capitalist system is "Luck" why not take the chance out and just fix the problem; see that no one is oppressed.

Knowing the problem, knowing the solution, and not fixing the problem is just dum. [/b]
Fixing the problem implies I know a solution.

Do you have one?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2005, 09:42 PM
It describes the tendencies of every socialist and communist society that has ever existed.
Except for revolutionary Spain, Titoist Yugoslavia, the USSR under the NEP, the Sandinistas, Makhnovist Ukraine, many low-tech classless societies and others.

Especially the USSR.


For starters, there is no government.

As I said before, only in your dreams. Collective descision making is still a government.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:31 AM
I urge you to name actual socialist and communist societies that have existed, especially the communist ones. This should be good.
Why ? So you can start the "that wasn't reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal communism, that was 'state capitalism' (or whatever contradiction happens to be fashionable nowadays)" game again ?

I'm talking about the reality, not the fantasy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Any system that promotes us to rely on "luck" and gives a fuck in whether or not the effort you're making is to reward the lucky and ignorant and the unlucky and hard-working.

If you think that it's all down to luck, then it would explain why you have had so little success thus far.


Perhaps it's just an excuse to keep the real working people down and those who don't work becomes managers since otherwise are USELESS?

Perhaps the "it's all down to luck" argument is a rationalization to make those intent on stealing other people's property feel less guilty. That one is as old as the hills.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 13 2005, 09:38 AM

If you think that it's all down to luck, then it would explain why you have had so little success thus far.


If you don't think luck has anything to do with it you're deceiving yourself. If it were all on individual merit everyone has to have the same chances.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 13 2005, 03:28 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 13 2005, 03:28 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 04:31 AM
I urge you to name actual socialist and communist societies that have existed, especially the communist ones. This should be good.
Why ? So you can start the "that wasn't reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal communism, that was 'state capitalism' (or whatever contradiction happens to be fashionable nowadays)" game again ?

I'm talking about the reality, not the fantasy.[/b]
You're telling me that there has existed a society where there was no state, no police, no military, and no exploitation? That this society existed in accordance with the simple rule: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

Face it, there is only one communism, and it simply does not have a state. How can you call any country communist when it still has a state?

So, the next logical step would be to say that these countries must've been socialist, as most of the "communist" countries have actually claimed to be. Then these countries were in fact run by the working class, and their state machine was used to defend their interests?

Oh, wait, no. Neither socialism or communism has actually existed. Call what has existed state-capitalism, Stalinism, or just some leftist authoritarian regime if you want. There's your reality.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:18 PM
If it were all on individual merit everyone has to have the same chances.
Everyone does.

[Professor Moneybags]

You're telling me that there has existed a society where there was no state, no police, no military, and no exploitation? That this society existed in accordance with the simple rule: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

I'm telling you that the results don't follow the premises. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does not result in anything beneficial.


Face it, there is only one communism, and it simply does not have a state. How can you call any country communist when it still has a state?

Communism is impossible to enforce without a state.


Oh, wait, no. Neither socialism or communism has actually existed. Call what has existed state-capitalism,

That is no such thing as "state capitalism". The state owning everything isn't capitalism.


Stalinism, or just some leftist authoritarian regime if you want. There's your reality.

That's all communism and socialism ever has been and all it ever will be.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ColinH+May 14 2005, 03:11 AM--> (ColinH @ May 14 2005, 03:11 AM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 13 2005, 03:28 PM

[email protected] 13 2005, 04:31 AM
I urge you to name actual socialist and communist societies that have existed, especially the communist ones. This should be good.
Why ? So you can start the "that wasn't reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal communism, that was 'state capitalism' (or whatever contradiction happens to be fashionable nowadays)" game again ?

I'm talking about the reality, not the fantasy.
You're telling me that there has existed a society where there was no state, no police, no military, and no exploitation? That this society existed in accordance with the simple rule: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

Face it, there is only one communism, and it simply does not have a state. How can you call any country communist when it still has a state?

So, the next logical step would be to say that these countries must've been socialist, as most of the "communist" countries have actually claimed to be. Then these countries were in fact run by the working class, and their state machine was used to defend their interests?

Oh, wait, no. Neither socialism or communism has actually existed. Call what has existed state-capitalism, Stalinism, or just some leftist authoritarian regime if you want. There's your reality. [/b]
I call a communist state, communist if the the geographic area inside borders had a communist revolution and the revolutionaries try to follow Marxism.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 11:32 AM
Communism is impossible to enforce without a state.
USSR was defintely Socialism and not State-Capitalism, but did it's job usefully well, despite western propaganda. But it cracked, and became very corrupt. Socialism is a way of the state fueling the pockets of the people instead of the corporate, but could easily be changed...and Communism is impossible to enforce WITH a state! When the "enforcing of Communism" is about removing the state and thus, we have to have a state to enforce it? Are you on crack? It will consist of different communes "ruling" over the land in direct democracy, and there will be no seat of power. USSR wasn't Communist at all: It claimed to be but was a transistionary state that had a very "beware-of-capitalist-reactionaries" policy, and I see it was very justified: The capitalists should've taken over Russia before the Communists, as Feudalism>Socialism>Communism is inefficent, to say the least - And they never "got trough" that phase because it had to go trough the growth of Capitalism first, and that is an scientific fact. But after Capitalism, THEN Socialism should come. The Capitalists would've taken Russia if Lenin and the Bolsheviks hadn't....so they had to stand against the very "time of Capitalism" itself. Had they done it today after a century of Capitalism, it would've surely had worked more.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 14 2005, 04:39 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 14 2005, 04:39 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 13 2005, 03:28 PM

[email protected] 13 2005, 04:31 AM
I urge you to name actual socialist and communist societies that have existed, especially the communist ones. This should be good.
Why ? So you can start the "that wasn't reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal communism, that was 'state capitalism' (or whatever contradiction happens to be fashionable nowadays)" game again ?

I'm talking about the reality, not the fantasy.
You're telling me that there has existed a society where there was no state, no police, no military, and no exploitation? That this society existed in accordance with the simple rule: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

Face it, there is only one communism, and it simply does not have a state. How can you call any country communist when it still has a state?

So, the next logical step would be to say that these countries must've been socialist, as most of the "communist" countries have actually claimed to be. Then these countries were in fact run by the working class, and their state machine was used to defend their interests?

Oh, wait, no. Neither socialism or communism has actually existed. Call what has existed state-capitalism, Stalinism, or just some leftist authoritarian regime if you want. There's your reality.
I call a communist state, communist if the the geographic area inside borders had a communist revolution and the revolutionaries try to follow Marxism. [/b]
"Communist state" is an oxymoron. Whether or not the revolutionary workers wanted communism or not, a government was installed that claimed to be socialist, but did not equally distribute wealth or truly work for the people. I doubt those in power really followed Marxist principles, instead slapping the hammer and sickle on everything and holding their places with nationalist rhetoric.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 11:32 AM

You're telling me that there has existed a society where there was no state, no police, no military, and no exploitation? That this society existed in accordance with the simple rule: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

I'm telling you that the results don't follow the premises. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does not result in anything beneficial.


Face it, there is only one communism, and it simply does not have a state. How can you call any country communist when it still has a state?

Communism is impossible to enforce without a state.


Oh, wait, no. Neither socialism or communism has actually existed. Call what has existed state-capitalism,

That is no such thing as "state capitalism". The state owning everything isn't capitalism.


Stalinism, or just some leftist authoritarian regime if you want. There's your reality.

That's all communism and socialism ever has been and all it ever will be.
It's very simple. You want to get pissed about the term "state capitalism," go right ahead, but there is no such thing as a "communist state." There have been states that have been ruled by a single party that called itself a Communist party, but I could just as easily point to Usama bin Laden and say, "There's your typical Muslim."

Communism and socialism are very simply defined. Neither have been put in place, so how can you fault either one? Go ahead and blame the revolutionaries for allowing new rulers to come to power, but as leftist as they were, they did not follow socialism. Maybe you'd like to blame anarchism next for soccer riots or something?

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 14 2005, 05:23 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 14 2005, 05:23 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 11:18 PM
If it were all on individual merit everyone has to have the same chances.
Everyone does. [/b]
A child whose perants earn 15,000 has the same chance of attending an Ivy League school as the child of multi millionaires?

Wow someone as bad at determining odds as you should really try and stay away from capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

A child whose perants earn 15,000 has the same chance of attending an Ivy League school as the child of multi millionaires?

I was waiting for some idiot to take that out of context. I would be you wouldn't it ?

Rant all you want. There is no legal difference between them.

[cormacobear]

Law is another matter of inequality The best lawyers are only affordable to the wealtiest ten percent. If you take a look at the research regarding conviction rates and income, you'll find the same trend of inequality as with education, access to medical care....etc...etc...etc. There is no possible legitimate argument for condoneing the inequal treatment of citizens if all men are created equal.

[OleMarxco]

There is no equality, withouth economical equality.
Do the LAWS care that the "Ivy League School" technically says...
"You're not rich enough?" ;)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:53 PM
There is no equality, withouth economical equality.
Sorry, that mantra doesn't ring true.

Economic equality leads to political inequality. It leads to a society where some people may legally violate the rights of others. Not only that, it's a breeding ground for irresponsible economic behaviour.

[cormacobear]

Who gets to define responsible

There is greater political equality if there is economic equality. Wealth is the most determinate factor in defineing an individuals degree of power and influence in a capital society. When equality is mandated the insentive to infringe on others rights is reduced, as the only way to insure your rights is to protect everyone.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 14 2005, 09:19 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 14 2005, 09:19 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 08:53 PM
There is no equality, withouth economical equality.
Sorry, that mantra doesn't ring true.

Economic equality leads to political inequality. [/b]
It doesn't? Well -- allow me to retoy, then!

"Econimical equality leads to political inequality".
REALLY? I'm having a hard time thinking of you but one of the intellectual academia
who sit at computers late at night on crack discussing with people on the internet, but I will try to be REASONABLE with that statement.

Okay, so let's pretend;
Everyone has the exact same amount of money.
Suddently, the political balance becomes unequal.
Coincidence? Hell yes, it must be.
For the FIRST, if everyone had an equal amount of money,
and that amount was proportional to the "cost" of doing elections....
Would there be "political inequality"? Hardly. But what you're saying is
INANE, and out of touch with reality. For the SECOND, it's more or less
the opposite of what you're saying: Economical INEQUALITY leads to
political inequality. If everyone has to pay, say, a 1000 dollars to start-fund
an election, and there is poor people who have 500 and the Rich who have 2000...
And everyone who is poor has leftist ideologies and everyone who is rich have
rightist ideologies...hypothetically speaking, of course...GUESS WHAT LEADS TO
POLITICAL INEQUALITY!? *slams Professor Moneygrubber with hammer* :hammer:

[Professor Moneybags]

Who gets to define responsible

Don't come that claptrap. You know what "responsible" means.


There is greater political equality if there is economic equality. Wealth is the most determinate factor in defineing an individuals degree of power and influence in a capital society.

Nope. You get one vote just like everyone else. Economic and political power are two different things.


When equality is mandated the insentive to infringe on others rights is reduced,

Economic equality doesn't reduce the incentive to violate other people's rights, it legalises it and magnifies it.

[Professor Moneybags]

REALLY? I'm having a hard time thinking of you but one of the intellectual academia
who sit at computers late at night on crack discussing with people on the internet, but I will try to be REASONABLE with that statement.

Your sort are rarely reasonable, as my quote collection testifies.


Okay, so let's pretend;
Everyone has the exact same amount of money.
Suddently, the political balance becomes unequal.
Coincidence? Hell yes, it must be.
For the FIRST, if everyone had an equal amount of money,
and that amount was proportional to the "cost" of doing elections....
Would there be "political inequality"?

<snip the rest of the one-dimentional blather>

Because if some fool spends all his money on say, drugs and ends up bankrupt, some else would have to hand over some of their money to him to make us all economically equal again (for him to do it all over again). Sooner or later, people are going to be fed up of being exploited (yes, exploited) by this person and will either a) join him, knowing that they can get away with living such a lifestyle too, or b) leave.

Either way, such a society is heading for disaster.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 05:19 AM

Who gets to define responsible

Don&#39;t come that claptrap. You know what "responsible" means.


There is greater political equality if there is economic equality. Wealth is the most determinate factor in defineing an individuals degree of power and influence in a capital society.

Nope. You get one vote just like everyone else. Economic and political power are two different things.


When equality is mandated the insentive to infringe on others rights is reduced,

Economic equality doesn&#39;t reduce the incentive to violate other people&#39;s rights, it legalises it and magnifies it.
According to a growing number of Americans irresponsible behaviour includes homosexuality, abortions etc. etc. So the defenition of responsible is a relevant matter for discussion.

For your statement to be true you must refuse to acknowledge the financial status of the majority of elected officials, the rising costs of campaigning, and that disenfranchisement doesn&#39;t take place. Your living with your head in the sand if you don&#39;t think financiasl power also conveys political power.

Saying it doesn&#39;t make it true I provided a psychological bases for my argument, that the more of Maslows hierarchy of needs are met the lower the crime rate and better educated the people are, and that under economic equality you remove the political inequality inherent in a capitalistic oligarchy. By putting everyone on equal ground the only way of ensuring your own freedoms is to ensure everyones.

If you persist on stateing falshoods as fact at least try and back them up.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:08 AM
Fascism: racist, "my country&#39;s best", dictatorial, suppressive, "big brother is watching you" and a tool of the bourgeoisie (in fascism there often still is capitalism).

Socialism is NONE of that. i cant really think of something socialism and fascism agree on.
1. fascism isnt necessarily racist, thats nazism, secondly ya rosa luxembourg was jewish, and marx had roots in judaism, and so was william leibkniecht