[quote]Originally posted by robo:
<strong>I am just curious to know what anyone finds 'theoretically appealing' about Facism? I can understand what's appealing about Communism (ie. no rich/poor, everything is shared, everyone cooperates for the common good), but Facism (ie. you are property of the state.. if the state (ie. the dictator) decides you are not good for the state (the dictator), you get shot).
Of course, Communism tended to morph into dictatorships little different from facism in real life, but as an ideal, I'm a little disturbed by the people who would rather be nazi than communist.. Or maybe you guys are still in elementary school and haven't taken any european history classes yet
It's sometimes hard to tell ages on a messageboard, so pardon me if that's the case.
The appealing thing about Fascism is that there is still some shred of ability for an individual to excel. In communism, there is not.
I had this argument with a kid last night who claimed to be a "quasi-communist." Truth was that he was just a rebellious high schooler who didn't know what he was talking about. It's the "I want everything to be equal, and everything to be better" argument that fails in communism.
The reason why the Soviet Union fell apart was more economic than anything else. Their producers stopped producing unless they could get some sort of benefits, which is a totally non-communist concept. When a society's creative, intelligent, and productive citizens lose interest, the country goes to hell. That's what communism enables to happen.
Now, there's the "why are you so much of a money grubber" retort. Money = exchange of service. Communism tries to make all services of equal importance, which seems pretty ridiculous, at least to me. There are services that require huge amounts of sacrifice of those who provide them. These tend to be those occupations that require a lot of education and experience. Since almost anyone can be a bricklayer without much of a degree of formal education, and not everybody could be an electrical engineer, even with training, it would seem to me that an electrical engineer is more valuable, since they're harder to come by and train. What better way is there to measure value than through income? The engineer deserves it.
And lastly, in this very country it has been gradually proven that state-owed enterprises are ineffective in rasing the level of technology in the marketplace, and usually fail to serve consumers as well as competitive, privately owed (or corporately owned) businesses. (Think AT&T especially, which wasn't even truly state owned) State-owned businesses are not exacly free of corruption. I believe that there's actually a good bit more corruption with them than in private companies. And worse, when there's corruption in a state-owned enterprise, we all suffer from bad quality and have to fund the wrong doing through taxation. In a case like Enron, there are obvious repercussions, but since investors are the only ones who have to deal with the economic issues, it's less of a public problem that with the state owned enterprise.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>