Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Communism is facism without the need to respect a country's borders to control the people.
Err.. no sorry - communism is not fascism, since it doesn't have anything racial in mind.
Sort of like today's corporatism, that doesn't care much about the "country's borders."
the problem is that in practice it requires an insane degree of control by government , in theory it is the most just way to have things in sofar as inequality is eliminated , despite what arch conservatives believe , a starving kid in india is not merely too lazy to go to college and get a valuable degree
I was born in the USSR and saw how communism was realized in practice.Of course, I did not see the most brutal time in the USSR in 1930-1960, but my parents and grandparents saw. And in general it is possible to characterize so that under communism the people are wholly owned by the state and are its "expendable" material the government demanded unconditional obedience from the Soviet citizens and brutally punished any dissidence.
I've heard both words mentioned a lot (usually one group calling the other side one of the terms). I know that both are Big Government anti-liberty systems, but what exactly is the difference?
I mean, we have heard of classical examples of fascists (Adolf Hitler (Germany), Benito Mussolini (Italy), Francisco Franco (Spain)) and, possibly, Vladmir Putin (Russia), and communism (Joseph Stalin (Russia/USSR), Mao (China), Fidel Castro (Cuba) and Kim Jun Un (North Korea)).
However, one might argue that those cases above are all extremes. So how could one argue, for instance, that Trump is a fascist or that Bernie Sanders is a Communist or that they will lead us that way?
Diff matter's academically, doesn't matter politically, especially when the terms are used by the media to push a political agenda.
Call it a hurricane or typhoon, your choice.
Whether the deer was shot with a 30.06 or a .308 makes zero difference.
Look up the dictionary definition online.
Questioned posed by a democrat. The world must be divided between two extremes, there are no degrees of a position.
Both use domestic terrorism, both own the mainstream media who acts as an official propaganda machine, both use character assassination, both use lies and rumors to promote their agenda, both accuse the opposition of the same crimes of which they stand accused, both situations the government rules the people, both have elite political classes vs the people. Both are left wing utopian orders where everything the government does is for the good of the people. the people are treated as ignorant and even when told legislation must be passed to find out what is in it, the people are so conditioned, they never object.
So given the similarities, the differences are pure academic and meaningless outside a classroom.
If the question still remains, look at the 8 years of the last administration and you can see what a socialist, communist, fascist salad looks like. Even Obama took the worst of each and made it his own. He was a SoComiFas.
If the question still remains, look at the 8 years of the last administration and you can see what a socialist, communist, fascist salad looks like. Even Obama took the worst of each and made it his own. He was a SoComiFas.
It all adds up to TOTALITARIAN OPPRESSION, and ultimately at the muzzle of a gun. That is why the Progressives (Democrats) want to disarm law abiding citizens that legally own guns.
the problem is that in practice it requires an insane degree of control by government , in theory it is the most just way to have things in sofar as inequality is eliminated , despite what arch conservatives believe , a starving kid in india is not merely too lazy to go to college and get a valuable degree
Even if it didn't become tyrannical, the very system of communism would inevitably be a destroyer of ambition and innovation. Ambition is destroyed because the incentive to get ahead isn't there. The only ambition is political ambition to brown nose enough to get promoted in the party.
Innovation would be dangerous to a communist government. Government can't control the means of production if there is unauthorized innovation occurring. Central planning requires as much consistency and predictability as possible. Major innovations would constantly be messing up 5 year plans (not that they work anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikJac
And in general it is possible to characterize so that under communism the people are wholly owned by the state and are its "expendable" material the government demanded unconditional obedience from the Soviet citizens and brutally punished any dissidence.
Exactly, because Marxism is based on materialism. Everything and everyone is material for the state/party and nothing more.
Diff matter's academically, doesn't matter politically, especially when the terms are used by the media to push a political agenda.
Call it a hurricane or typhoon, your choice.
Whether the deer was shot with a 30.06 or a .308 makes zero difference.
Look up the dictionary definition online.
Questioned posed by a democrat. The world must be divided between two extremes, there are no degrees of a position.
Both use domestic terrorism, both own the mainstream media who acts as an official propaganda machine, both use character assassination, both use lies and rumors to promote their agenda, both accuse the opposition of the same crimes of which they stand accused, both situations the government rules the people, both have elite political classes vs the people. Both are left wing utopian orders where everything the government does is for the good of the people. the people are treated as ignorant and even when told legislation must be passed to find out what is in it, the people are so conditioned, they never object.
So given the similarities, the differences are pure academic and meaningless outside a classroom.
If the question still remains, look at the 8 years of the last administration and you can see what a socialist, communist, fascist salad looks like. Even Obama took the worst of each and made it his own. He was a SoComiFas.
Even if it didn't become tyrannical, the very system of communism would inevitably be a destroyer of ambition and innovation. Ambition is destroyed because the incentive to get ahead isn't there. The only ambition is political ambition to brown nose enough to get promoted in the party.
Innovation would be dangerous to a communist government. Government can't control the means of production if there is unauthorized innovation occurring. Central planning requires as much consistency and predictability as possible. Major innovations would constantly be messing up 5 year plans (not that they work anyway).
Exactly, because Marxism is based on materialism. Everything and everyone is material for the state/party and nothing more.
This is true.
Essentially, while denying the existence of God, the communists claim the teaching of Christ more or less as their own. They tried to be a substitute of the "promised land of milk and honey," or the "shining city on the hill" - or whatever you want to call it...
“Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.
Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.”
Completely and totally wrong, but whatever. This is a right-wing forum, where anything other than worshiping Trump and wanting a mix of theocracy and oligarchy gets you labeled a "communist."
Believe whatever nonsense you folks want - it doesn't make it right.
The poster you quoted believes pretty much the conclusion Orwell came to. In practice they are all the same they just use different rhetoric. Ultimately it all boils down to who has the power, the individual or the state. Theory in this sense makes no difference becaus all systems require power and all systems are heriarchial in nature no matter the rhetoric. It’s all about control of the state and power.
How very authoritarian of you. Trump’s attacks on the press are not compatible with democracy.
Yes his attacks are devastating. I mean feelings are at stake here. It's not like the members of the media would ever make up endless streams of garbage to promote their own beliefs or promote so much false information that it costs innocent people their lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.