Log in

View Full Version : Socialism is Fascism - Socialism is Fascism



MaxB
7th September 2002, 17:34
I like to deal in facts and not idealism or fantasies. For example, Right and Left are just terms we use against each other. Didn't you people know that Fascism is very much like Socialism.

http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html

The unconditioned, intelligent, open minded will see this. The biggest irony is for a Left winger to call somebody who doesn't agree with them a "Fascist". This is like "the pot calling the kettle black". MARXISM, SOCIALISM, AND FASCISM ARE JUST LETTERS BELONGING TO THE SAME COIN. But just like warring siblings, they tend to call each other names, and while their tactics might be slightly different,---THE END IS THE SAME--------DISASTER. Yes, one thing common to all Socialist states has been its inability to deliver what Socialism promises and redistributing poverty and famine.
And, the Leftist inept and obtuse keep on revising and reclassifying themselves to justify the dismal failures of their Socialism in its many different forms.

One tactic of liberals is to describe Western Europe as "Socialist". THIS IS INCORRECT. Western Europe is a mixture of Capitalism and some Socialism; it's a MIXED ECONOMY----and like any other country or system in this planet, not without their own problems. Western Europe is full of Corporations (http://www.europages.com/en/). So Western Europe can not be "Socialist". You see, Leftists don't have much of an argument on anything that's factual or based on reality, that's why everything to them has to be "relative".
One of the tactics of the Socialist is to point out the imperfections of "Capitalism" and mobilize the "masses". This is as far as it gets or ever will because while Leftists are good at pointing out problems (who isn't), THEY'RE NOT GOOD AT SOLVING ANY OF THEM. The whole Socialist/Collective concept of "success" lies on the assumption that "you are your brother's keeper" and "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." EXAMINE THIS: This sound wonderful and it sounds even better if preached during a sermon.
That flawed philosophy that says that "you are your brother's keeper." That it's wrong to think of yourself first. That you ought to be thinking about others before yourself. That's pure garbage. It has never worked, it doesn't work, and never will.
"There's a good reason for that: if you are thinking first of others, why aren't others also thinking first of you without the interference of government, which wants to "take" part of your earnings and gives it to "the needy," making "need" a demand upon your earnings. Since "thinking about others" must be forced, it takes away from the person who earns his own way the incentive to earn. If you don't get to keep the result of your labors, why work at all? Why not become "needy" and benefit from the labor of others? When "need" becomes the standard, people fall over themselves to be the most needy".
Yes, we should be charitable and altruistic to the old, the sick, and disable. But when charity becomes forced upon us by some "higher power: government", it's not charity anymore, it's stealing. FOR A SOCIETY TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE MUST WORK AND PEOPLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO KEEP AND ENJOY THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. While Corporations are greedy (who isn't), they provide services, products, and jobs. That once in a while an ENRON comes along is no excuse to look to Socialism (a failed ideology) as a "solution" to the problem; but yes, such a Corporation should be prosecuted and punished for its misdeeds. We should always strive to make Capitalism better, more charitable, and more altruistic.
Marxists are dense and obtuse people. One of the things Marxists have benn trying to do since the death of Stalin, and specially since the collapse of the Iron Curtain, is to try to revise history and reclasify themselves. You'll hear such ridiculous things as: "Stalin was a Fascist" or "the 'right form' of Socialism hasn't been tried". Since ALL SOCIALISM is based on "collectivism" it will never work. Say what you will, HISTORY, FACTS, AND REALITY speak louder than words. THE CONCEPT OF ALL LEFTISTS IS BASED ON WHAT THEY CAN GET FROM THOSE THAT PRODUCE AND WORK, AND NOT ON PRODUCING THEMSELVES. YES, WHEN "NEED" BECOMES THE STANDARD, NOBODY PRODUCES AND THE WHOLE HOUSE FALLS APART.

Know what Marxism is and read so you can see that there is very little difference between Fascism and Socialism. While the Nazis practiced "racial genocide", the Communists "class genocide". The Nazis/Fascists had extermination camps, the
preferred weapon of the Communists was famine (this was an easy thing to do when there is central control/ownership of all resources, such as in a Socialist country. Opinions different to that of the party line can be "silenced" very quickly). Socialist dictators (and any other type of dictator) are good at concealing facts, "the absolute denial of access to archives ..., the total control of the print and other media as well as of border crossings, the propaganda trumpeting the regimes's 'successes,' and the entire apparatus for keeping information under lock and key were designed primarily to ensure that the awful truth would never see the light of day." They viciously attacked all who attempted to reveal the truth, they attempted to justify their crimes as a "necessary aspect of revolution," (You can't make anmelet without breaking eggs.)

Read the works of Marx and Engel and see how these two were dinosaurs from another era with a limited view of the world not knowing what the future would bring. Creating DEPENDENCY is what Leftists are good for---and nothing else.

Nateddi
7th September 2002, 17:49
Why are you spamming this shit in every forum?

Frosty
7th September 2002, 19:31
It's probably just his sense of propaganda

Dynatos
7th September 2002, 19:48
Social fascism:

Theory made famous by Stalin from 1928 to 1934. Stalin's theory held that social democracy and fascism were one in the same. Social Fascism became a charge Stalin frequently used against Bolsheviks, whose party had once been a part of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.

Your basic argument is that Communism is against human nature right? Communism worked in America for thousands of years befor Columbus came.


(Edited by Dynatos at 8:06 pm on Sep. 7, 2002)

pastradamus
7th September 2002, 20:42
Facism comes from communism.
Nazism comes from capitalism.


Which is worse?
Nazism (WWII germany)
Facism (WWII Italy)

Pinko
7th September 2002, 20:47
[pastradamus]
"Facism comes from communism.
Nazism comes from capitalism."

How on earth did you work that out?

Anonymous
7th September 2002, 20:54
Nazism is a form of fascism. In any case they are both stridently leftist.

Furthermore, I don't see how the National Socialist Worker's party of Germany (nazi party), was in any way rooted in capitalism.

Pinko
7th September 2002, 21:34
Fascism was an authoritarian form of government in Italy (1922-1943), it was characterised by extreme nationalism, militartism, anti-communism and restrictions on personal freedoms.
A Fascist is a member of that government or movement.
Calling someone a fascist is likening their views to those of that government. Just like calling someone a pleb (or plebian) you are not indicating that they were a low-born commoner of ancient Rome, you are generally likening them to them.

Nazism is an extreme form of Nationalism. It is not a form of Fascism, as the Fascist movement was contemperary to the Nazi movement. They may be similar in outlook (they did ally together in WW2).
How on earth you can call Fascism leftist boggles the mind. The Nazis had leftist roots but Hitler twisted and changed that when he became leader.

pastradamus
8th September 2002, 03:40
Quote: from Pinko on 8:47 pm on Sep. 7, 2002
[pastradamus]
"Facism comes from communism.
Nazism comes from capitalism."

How on earth did you work that out?


Well think about it..
mussolini was a socialist,he even worked for a socialist newspaper.Then obviously turned facist.But almost compleatly abandoned socialism,he was just rutless to get into power.

Hitler on the other hand,helped his way into power by being anti-communist.

Facism & Nazism were two sererate scenario's
But when people discovered that both had almost exact matching elements they called the two of these forms "facist".

Marxman
8th September 2002, 10:12
Quote: from pastradamus on 8:42 pm on Sep. 7, 2002
Facism comes from communism.
Nazism comes from capitalism.


Which is worse?
Nazism (WWII germany)
Facism (WWII Italy)



Totally wrong, I'm sorry. Fascism comes from capitalism, capitalism in crisis. Nazism is fascism but Nazism can't exist. Look, Nazism = National socialism is a discrepancy. Nazism = National socialism = socialism in one country (Stalin's stupid idea). It cannot be. If you claim that's true, you're not a genuine communist but a stalinist. Now, I'll post Engels' "Principles of communism" here and you shall se why socialism in one country is a total nonsense. Let me ask you, can capitalism be in one country?

Q. Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

A. No. By creating the world market, large-scale industry has already brought all the peoples of the earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of all civilized countries to such an extent that in all of them bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the two decisive classes of society and the struggle between them the main struggle of the day. The communist revolution, therefore, will be not merely a national one; it will take place in all civilized countries simultaneously, that is to say, at least in England, America, France and Germany. It will in each of these countries develop more quickly or more slowly according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence it will go most slowly and will meet most obstacles in Germany; most rapidly and easily in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world and will radically alter and accelerate their course of development up to now. It is a universal revolution and so will have universal range.

[In fact a successful revolution in ANY country in the world would have a shock wave effect on the rest of the world which is now more globalized and inter-connected than ever - editor]

pastradamus
8th September 2002, 14:53
No your taking what I said compleatly wrong,I agree with what lenin said about facism about it being capitalism in crisis.
I just ment that the person that first put facism into its place was orignally a socialist.(although there was a few early facists before mussolini,they didnt contribute towards his idealology in a big way).
I think there are visable differences between Mussolini & Hitlers policies,of which im sure your already aware of.

And no way dude im not a stalinist.
Im not a communist either.
Im democratic socialist.

suffianr
8th September 2002, 15:25
"Nazism is a form of fascism. In any case they are both stridently leftist..."

No shit, Sherlock! And how, may I ask, did you come about with this conclusion? You cappies seem to be getting smarter by the day... :)

pastradamus
8th September 2002, 15:39
Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 8:54 pm on Sep. 7, 2002
Nazism is a form of fascism. In any case they are both stridently leftist.

Furthermore, I don't see how the National Socialist Worker's party of Germany (nazi party), was in any way rooted in capitalism.


YOur either increadably stupid of increadably Funny.

American Kid
8th September 2002, 17:34
Well put, MaxB.

new democracy
8th September 2002, 17:37
i kind of liked you ak, until this post.


(Edited by new democracy at 5:39 pm on Sep. 8, 2002)

American Kid
8th September 2002, 17:38
:) Save it. Let me have it when I come back in a week.

-AK

new democracy
8th September 2002, 17:40
and i always thought that you are a social capitalist(social democrat).

American Kid
8th September 2002, 17:41
Actually let me explain. I agree with his comments on communism. Which you yourself, in the past, have stated to not be such a fan of either.

I'd go back and quote his post but..................I don't feel like it.

-Ass Kisser

edit: I know his post was about "socialism", but to me, that's a gray area. Especiallywhen he starts talking Marx, Marx was a genius, but probably so was Dr. Mengele.

Marxism is dangerous and I think different than socialism.

And ND, don't forget, we're for the same thing, a democratic gov with full rights and freedom of speech.

And again, I'll reiterate, MaxB's post was just, simply, well put.

(Edited by American Kid at 5:45 pm on Sep. 8, 2002)

new democracy
8th September 2002, 17:43
i am not a fan of communism. i am honest to respect it INTENTIONS(and i know you honest to do that too).

American Kid
8th September 2002, 17:48
But it's fatal flaw is it's intentions never fall through.

How many "experiments" are there going to have to be until people realize it's not going to work?

"experiments"= USSR
China
Cuba
N. Korea
Romania (yikes, that was a bad one)

etc......

-AK

American Kid
8th September 2002, 17:49
Cambodia.........

new democracy
8th September 2002, 17:56
i read your post again. now i realize. i didn't understand it right. i thought you said that i am a communist, and once was not, when you meant that i said that communism is a nightmare in the past. and i stick with my opinion that communism is a nightmare that once had good intentions.

American Kid
8th September 2002, 18:00
Good. I feel better. Now read my goddamn e mail I sent you :)

-AK

Marxman
8th September 2002, 18:52
Quote: from new democracy on 5:43 pm on Sep. 8, 2002
i am not a fan of communism. i am honest to respect it INTENTIONS(and i know you honest to do that too).


I see your IQ is decreasing every time a stalinist state falls into ruins. THOSE WERE NOT SOCIALIST STATES, YOU EINSTEIN. EVER HEARD OF STALINISM? The only, the only socialist revolution was the October revolution and that doesn't mean Russia was socialist then. Lenin emphasized that millions of times. It had only the dictatorship of the proletariat, which fell into ruins because (1) Russia was a backward peasant state, (2) revolutions didn't spread quickly into advanced capitalist states, (3) Russia was intervened by 21 foreign capitalist states, (4) a devestating horrible civil war followed, (5) stalinism arrived from the degenerated workers' state and the death of Lenin.

new democracy
8th September 2002, 19:08
first of all, stop patronizing. second, from your posts it's look like you read only communist literature and never put your hand on history book. if you do, you will probably read about the fact that lenin took food from poor peasants that opposed him, and those poor peasants would have been without the external aid from other countries. and how did the proletariat ruled the country? lenin ruled the country. when there was a workers uprising in 1,922 lenin crushed it brutally. why does lenin have to attack the wrkers? ha?
(note: i kind of write in the patronizing way you did but i had no other way to say it)

Marxman
8th September 2002, 20:53
New Democracy, I suggest you stop learning from Western school books and dialectically learn from history (not from a potted one). I've heard better slanders, I thought you were more original than that. What about the famous burgeois saying:"Lenin was a German agent."

new democracy
8th September 2002, 20:58
you say that everything that i read in my history book is just untrue propoganda? maybe it is a little biased, but completely untrue?

honest intellectual
8th September 2002, 21:34
Quote: from new democracy on 7:08 pm on Sep. 8, 2002
first of all, stop patronizing. second, from your posts it's look like you read only communist literature and never put your hand on history book. if you do, you will probably read about the fact that lenin took food from poor peasants that opposed him, and those poor peasants would have been without the external aid from other countries. and how did the proletariat ruled the country? lenin ruled the country. when there was a workers uprising in 1,922 lenin crushed it brutally. why does lenin have to attack the wrkers? ha?
(note: i kind of write in the patronizing way you did but i had no other way to say it)
You're damn right. I agree completely.

AK, where did you get the idea that Cambodia was in any way communist? The (US-backed) Khmer Rouge hadn't a single communist policy.

Anyway, to get back to the Socialism = Fascism argument from tfp.org:

1. They obey common ideologists: Marx and Hegel. "Mussolini likes to affirm that Marx is his spiritual father." This refers to Mussolini before he became a fascist
"Croce and Gentile, the ideological mentors of Fascism, resort to Hegel in the elaboration of Fascism." Hegel's philosophy had nothing to dowith politics. I don't deny that some fascists as well as Marx may have followed his dialectics, but that doesn't mean there is a resemblance between fascism and Marxism

2. Both have an atheistic doctrine."Kinder, Kirche, und Kuche" was the famous Nazi slogan on the role of women. Mussolini had close relations with the Vatican. Fascism stresses the importance of religion as a form of authority

3. Both have a dialectical doctrine. Yes, but Nazism calls for racial war, whereas communism advocates class struggle. Communism aims to end differences (classless society), whereas Nazism calls for total racial division.

4. Both have an evolutionist doctrine. Well I hope so! Very few leaders have wanted a static society.

5. Both have a revolutionary doctrine.Because both oppose the status quo of 'democratic' capitalism

American Kid
9th September 2002, 03:18
Kmer Rouge means (roughly, no I'm not a "native"):

Red community;

or Red Communists

-AK

Marxman
9th September 2002, 05:26
Total nonsense, which is totally biased by cappies. Guess what, I'm not a cappie to be so naive to believe things like Mussolini was a socialist. Did you know that Hitler was in the Labour group also and when he came to power he killed all the workers there? Come on, grow up and believe seriously. What do you think Mussolini did with the workers fighting for communism? Or why do you think Stalin killed all the Bolsheviks? But what you say about Lenin really makes me think:"What the hell are you doing here, on this forum?" Go to a Nazi forum or some cappie organisation or read some BOOKS first before you make stupid moves like equalising fascism with socialism. Okay, prove it that Lenin killed farmers or anyone that standed in his way! Prove it if you dare.

new democracy
9th September 2002, 12:06
i can't prove it because the book were i read it was a book in hebrew. and even if it not true, you can't deny that lenin was an absolute ruler of russia. a less cruel than stalin, but an absolute ruler.

new democracy
9th September 2002, 15:01
now i have a source. go to: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/b...um/musframe.htm (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm) . check the faq there, and read faq number 4.
i know it is an anti communist website, but it have some point.

(Edited by new democracy at 3:03 pm on Sep. 9, 2002)