Socialism is Fascism - Socialism is Fascism

[MaxB]

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.

[soilride]

MaxB:

If you have actually read any works by Marx and Engels themselves, you would realize that any such terms such as 'left" "right" "-sms' ect ect has nothing to do with what reality demands from each one of us.

Whatever your opinions on Marx and Engels, really has no significant weight [except for an equally stated counter-opinion-which also has no weight] to the world around us unless one is already sufficiently enaging in their environment and seeing what reality has to say about the facts.

Anyone can restate a fact from any sources that they wish to go to, whether biased or unbiased, but those sources don't determine the condition of our reality.

Any "argument" against the "left" [in this case-you are subjected to your own brutal criticism] is sham. Only because your case against the left and right as terms that belong to the same coin is contradictory, because even after you made your case, you still admit that there is a "left" and its "dependencies"

Marx and Engels were deeper than that. It might help if you were as deep to understand them.

And one other thing. Facts are bits of knowledge. Where does knowledge come from? And why is knowledge accumulated and what is the purpose of knoweldge?

Knoweldge is determined through observation in reality-that is between nature and society. Humans have the capability of being able to cognize the world around them and accumulate libraries of knowledge. How do we aquire knowledge? It is one thing to watch a tv newshannel and recieve all that information about the world and accept that as reality. It could be a book, it could be a newssource, it could be what someone else said it was. But by accetpting what we hear and what read and what the facts are stated in history books, we are not actually using our brains to understand the world around us. In fact the only way for humans to completely understand reality is to engage in it. You and I could have different opinions on an invention of sorts made of machine such as an engine or telphone, or vending machine-and we could "discuss" our own opinions about it. But they are useless if we do not actually get in touch with that reality and see what it can do and actually find out what facts are right and what facts are wrong. by engaging in the world around us, we have come to a better understanding of the world around us-not the world and reality that is contstantly being given to us.

Yours for the revolution,
soilride

[Comrade Marcel]

Facism is nothing like real socialism, in fact in Benito Mousollini's (the guy who started facism) manifesto "what is facism?" he quite clrealy states "Facism is the exact opposit of Maxian Socialism".

Perhaps you should read things for yourself instead of taking to heart what some jack-ass wrote who is obviously just trying to manipulate people for his own purposes.

[Frosty]

MaxB:
It's amazing how you can write such a long post without coming with any good arguments.

[Comrade Marcel]

He didn't even write that himself, he posted the url where he cut and pasted it from.

[Pinko]

MaxB, you seem to be getting socialism and authoritarianism mixed up. A socialist society can be authoritarian or libertarian, as can a capitalist society.
Many people wield the word fascism like a weapon without knowing its true meaning. 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.
The very definition of the word fascist is inimicable to communism.

Also you talk about left and right and socialist etc... without demonstrating much knowledge of their meaning. You bundle the left, socialism, authoritarian communism and liberalism into the same basket when they all mean very different things.

Just because socialist ideals were perverted by authoritarian leaders (itself contradictory to communism) who were generally paranoid wrecks, doesn't mean that is how communism has to be. Agreed, communism under Stalin and Mao had fascistic leanings, but they did not implement true communism, they implemented their own twisted authoritarian brand of communism.

Your assumtion that human greed will always destroy communist ideals, is to an extent correct. The people need educating, there needs to be change. The stains of our greed soaked society need to be erased before we can take large steps toward an egalitarian culture, sexual and racial equallity are a start and look how long it is taking to sort those problems out. There is no quick fix, it will take generations of change to have people be accepting of each others rights and for them to admit that they are above no other. But it is not impossible.

Your assumption that when charity is forced upon us, we will not accept it is wrong. The government tax each and every one of us in order to pay for charity. Welfare, healthcare, law enforcement etc... None of these things pay for themselves. Why would you want the fruits of your labour if you have no need for it? I will tell you; Greed!
If you have food you don't need, why not give it to your neighbour that does need it? If you have a house that is sufficient for your needs, why would you want a bigger one. The capitalist nations have turned need into greed. Why should anyone want a wage so high (in the millions) when that wealth could be redistributed to the needy and help lift them from poverty? Why do we always want more than we have even if what we have is enough to siut our needs? Greed! Nothing more, just greed. It is the greed of the individual that destroys the hopes of the masses. Greed is inherantly an anti-social trait, yet capitalists have built a society founded on it. That is wrong. That is the big flaw in capitalism and that is what communism addresses.


(Edited by Pinko at 7:43 pm on Sep. 7, 2002)

[Rob]

well, our new friend MaxB seems to have had his argument significantly cut to shit.

[Frosty]

Another amazing thing about MaxB is that he registers himself to post the same BS quote in several different forums.

[antieverything]

Wow...this guy is seriously misinformed. Perhaps, MaxB, you should read the FAQ over at http://www.socnet.net to get a better picture of what socialism is. You may even discover that you yourself hold a few socialist beliefs.

(Edited by antieverything at 9:12 pm on Sep. 7, 2002)

[Marxman]

I hope noone would object if I brutally say that MaxB is one of the most idiotic people on this forum. I know I'm rude but my emotions are prevailing on this issue and I can't blame them because when someone pastes a post that equalises socialism with fascism, then I wonder what the hell is this world coming to? Socialism, if you have an IQ of -5, was on this planet. But if you have an IQ of a normal human, then you must know that SOCIALISM NEVER SAW A DAYLIGHT ON THIS PLANET! So, MaxB unscrupulosly pastes and doesn't even bother to examine the BS he has pasted. A typical deed for a cappie. The lines state that communists used the weapon of famine to conquer. Well, if you believe that Elvis was an alien then maybe that's true but if you can read a couple of lines from Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, then you can see that communists use the weapon called BOOKS. It deliberately states that socialist states in Europe had destructive elements to conquer. First of all, it was refering to the stalinist Russia under Stalin. Second of all, fascism is a debate that a cappie boy like MaxB obviously can't comprehend. Third of all, Stalin used every means possible to quench the fire of the revolutionary upheveal of socalism i.e. Germany, Italy, Spain and so forth. So, the first task for MaxB is to understand the nature and the development of fascism as a whole. "Fascism is capitalism in crisis," if I quote Lenin, meaning that the burgeois will never, under no condition give power to the workers or someone else but will cling to extreme measures to hold their power. The same was in Germany. Hitler's clique of 'Nazis' never had planned economy but capitalism under their control. The point was that the burgeois were stealing (which is normal) from the workers as they held (and still do) the means of production. Hitler's clique was straling from the burgeois piece by piece. And burgeois didn't complain a lot because they still had their position and Hitler had the police and army under his control. The burgeois rather have fascists stealing from them than to peacefully accept the dictatorship of the proletariat. So, fascism is capitalism in crisis. Fascism is the extreme measure of capitalism to obtain its power. But wait, there's more. Fascism eventually leads to some kind of a war because the nature of it is very unbalanced and untamed. So, capitalism in crisis means WAR! WWII, if you all recall, was the continuation of the imperialist policies of WWI. Socialism in fact has nothing to do with socialism BUT has a lot to do with STALINISM. So, the article MaxB has posted would be excellent if it would contain a simple word called STALINISM, instead of socialism. I'm not going to deepen myself into explanation of socialism because frankly, if you are all on this forum, the basic of all is understanding of genuine socialism.

[BOZG]

You just have to take a look at the source.

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

Can anyone small religious right wing conservatives? A site that talks about the oppression of freedom by communists and then talks about anti-abortion.

[Frosty]

That's the most retarded site i've ever seen. After loading for a minute on my dsl connection all i can see is moronic bullshit. Even if the quotes are right they are totally misplaced and out of line with reality.

But after looking at the Crusade part i have my doubts about the seriousity of this site. I could all be just a joke. But such people seem to exist.

[Pinko]

I don't think that is a joke. I think it is some extreme right-wing christian freaks.
Probably good little deep-south republicans with more firearms than brain cells.

[KickMcCann]

First off, Comrade Marcel,

You said that Benito Mussolini said:

"Facism is the exact opposit of Marxian Socialism".

When have you ever known a FACIST to tell the truth?

Second of all,

It's an interesting argument that MaxB points out about the the similarities between socialism and fascism. They both encourage the galvinization of society in to one mass, one direction, never leaving any room for indivduality, questioning, free thought or will. I think he makes a good case.

Thirdly,

You accuse MaxB of sighting a biased source, a right-wing conservative religous site. It is biased, I agree. But then you all whine and cry about how bad bias is. Well that just makes you a buch of hypocrites! You accuse him of using a biased source of information, then turn around and offer a left-wing liberal welfare state information source to explain socialism! Of course you don't see that site as biased, it confines to your political opinions, but as an anti-left and anti-right individual, I can tell you that it is biased!
A word of advise: practice what you preach before you go critising someone else for doing the same thing you're doing.

[marxistdisciple]

"It's an interesting argument that MaxB points out about the the similarities between socialism and fascism. They both encourage the galvinization of society in to one mass, one direction, never leaving any room for indivduality, questioning, free thought or will. I think he makes a good case"

I think you need work on your reading. You don't understand socialism either. Socialism is much more complex than you give credit, and entirely detached from the beliefs of 'mono-culturism" (i.e. the USA right now) and lack of individuality, (inherantly formed by hierachy class systems.)

[Pinko]

[KickMcCann]
"...never leaving any room for indivduality, questioning, free thought or will. "

How the hell did you work that out?
It is a high level of education that is required to make socialism work. People need to question things to make sure that things are fair and egalitarian. Without individuality and free thought (which are both fostered through good education) the socialist society cannot survive, who will do the research and the high thought jobs? Who will refine and hone the social structure? Willpower is also an essensial part, it is the will not to be down-trodden that sparks the revolution (not just sitting on your arse all day say "meh" at every social injustice. Will is the driving force that leads to freedom.

[KickMcCann]

When I spoke of the indivduality questioning and free thought or will I was refering to the downside of one-party states. In ideal socialist states, the things I mentioned do exist, but so far in history, it has led to nations where anyone in government must follow the official party-line that is created from high atop the throne of a despot.
On, the other hand though, western nations that are not socialist, have been positively influenced by socialist ideals, such as unions, health care, housing, workers' rights and many others. This was all possible because these nations allowed people to think freely and critize their governments and look for alternative solutions to many problems. If the west had thought in merely capitalistic terms, it would have fallen long ago, just as other nations and systems without internal critism have fallen. What I'm getting at is the preception that many socialists/marxists seem to have, and that preception is that socialism/marxism is a perfect system, and it needs no critism. And that if they came to power, they would eliminate all questioning and critism because they see their held ideal as perfect.
We all most realize that nothing is perfect; no person, idea, political/social system, religon, ethnicity, sex, class, or anything else. And when any society adopts one of these as unquestionably perfect, they will suffer dispair. For a society to truly thrive, it must be willing to examine all the different ideas and systems, then take out of each the best ideas and combine them to create a strong system, but still retain the ability to adapt to changing times and conditions.

[Lefty]

arent we the intellectuals, now?

well, so far i've seen the following arguement on one side, and the other argument on the other side..
MaxB: socialism is bad. it cant work. booo to socialism.
Other people: it can work. capitalism is evil. booo to capitalism.
i personally agree with mixed economy. if done right, with only intelligent people, socialism would work, and it would be great. however, not everybody would want this, and other countries would do what they did with cuba: trade embargos and the like. So, i think the best way to get a socialistic country is to get a fairly left-leaning government and people, possibly by propaganda, and have a mixed economy that slowly seagues into socialism. However, im probably wrong. whatever, thats my two cents worth.

[Marxman]

No individuality in socialism? Do you think we become ants in this system? Do you think we become the Borg? Another unscrupulous statement that is a total BS and obviously the writer doesn't take time to educate himself on socialism/communism. So, I'll just paste a question and answer from www.newyouth.com that gives a great example of this issue.

Q. What about individualism under socialism?

A.. Often, people's idea of individualism under socialism is based on the idea that socialism is represented by either Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. This brings to mind everyone running around in uniform, in terms of both their clothing and their behavior, and an all-powerful state to which the rights and wishes of the individual are subservient, in the "interests of the whole of society". In reality it was not the whole of society whose interests were being served in those cases but the interests of the small bureaucratic clique who led a parasitic existence on the backs of the working class, and on the back of the nationalized, planned economy.

This bureaucratization had a fatal impact on all the gains made by the revolution in Russia, not just economically but in every sphere of life. Bureaucratism has a stifling, suffocating effect not just on production but also on art, science and culture. The Stalinists were terrified of any potential opposition, and especially the intellectuals that they could not control. They were snuffed out, in many cases quite literally. Individual expression was portrayed as counter-revolutionary, even culture was subjugated to the "collective will" - not of society but of a handful of bureaucrats desperate to cling on to their power and privilege. Not just economy but all aspects of life require the oxygen of democracy if they are to flourish.

The capitalist society we live in today is supposedly individualistic, and this is made to sound positive. In reality the profit based society is one that engenders greed, selfishness, and egotism. It is a society based on the idea of "kill or be killed", and under capitalism people will do anything to "get ahead". In the name of profit, the talents and abilities of the vast majority of people are squandered on the production line, or the unemployment line. We don't have the right to a job, the right to an education, the right to healthcare, the rights that could ensure the bare bones of a civilized existence, let alone the right to express ourselves and contribute, to fulfil our potential.

The collective society of genuine socialism is one where the rights of the individual can truly flourish for the first time, without any force or coercion. It will be a society without borders and frontiers, based on the democratic running of all aspects of life by the whole of society on the basis of an economy of super-abundance, where all our needs and more can be catered for. With modern technology we can produce more than enough for all the needs and desires of humanity with relatively minimal effort. For example, it used to take many workers to build a television set. But now, with automation, robotics and other improvements in efficiency, it takes many less workers. But under capitalism, the machines replace the workers, who must then find other, usually lower-paying jobs or be unemployed - wasting their potential away. Under socialism, improvements in technology will be put to the use of humanity. Machines will be made to work for us - the time we save due to their efficiency can then be spent pursuing other goals in life. We will be freed from the drudgery of human labor that is our existence under capitalism, and we will have the time to breathe in life, to study, to travel, to mingle with other cultures, to realize our talents.

The development of our economy, will enable us to spend less time in work, and free us to participate in those fields blocked off from us today either by money or by overwork. Art, science, music, etc. will all will be able to blossom once they are unshackled from the constraints of capitalist society. How many Shakespeares or Beethovens have existed to date? Barely a handful. Or rather barely a handful whose talent we've been able to enjoy. How many more have been confined to the factory, the field or the office? Having done away with the outmoded private profit system and the anarchy it introduces into our economy, not only the rights of the individual, of all individuals, but their aspirations and their dreams will be set loose as well. New heights of human culture will be attained, and from those summits on the horizon ever newer peaks will emerge. Standing on the shoulders of all previous experience, men and women will stand head and shoulders above history. With our primitive past behind us, and with a democratic plan on how to use our resources and technology, humanity will be free to develop and realize its true potential as a whole and as individuals.