<strong>I AM a commie - just not a Soviet style communist. This is so typical of Americans (and westerners in general) to simply lump true communists in with Soviets.
Tru communists are those who believe all are equal and that absolutely no one deserves preferential treatment. With the absolution of private property, the public is far better off than in a capitalist society where examples such as private electricity, health care and water services have done nothing but undermine the non-wealthy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
Hmm, ? never quite understood the difference. As to which were the bigger scoundrels, thieves, slave masters, and murders? Well, how long did Communism exist vs. National Socialism. Add, subtract, multiply, divide. You do the math ?
mika.
edit:
ps. yer money grabbing momma has taught you well, little commie ...
p.s. how ya doing buddy? hope you and yers is safe and well. keep yer head down soldier and always remember, if it gets too bad, i've got a couch you can use till ya get situated over here.
<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.
-robo</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
<strong>I AM a commie - just not a Soviet style communist. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever lived in a country governed by a Communist goverment? Can you name one country where communism has been inflicted on the populace that wasn't a bleak, awful, despair filled hell hole?
The answer to the perceived excesses of a free society is not tyranny.
Have you ever lived in a country governed by a Communist goverment? Can you name one country where communism has been inflicted on the populace that wasn't a bleak, awful, despair filled hell hole?
Van you name an actual Marxist communist government? All of them were SOOOOOO off the mark. Of course the mark is unacheivable, kinda like an efficient democracy.
Now in a purely ideological sence I would choose communist because the idea is to make the lives of every one equal, Nazism, thats corporatism which is extremely efficient but also houses some awful ideals. Also I have Jewish blood so...
Perhaps a better argument would be commie or facist?
well, economically communism tends to lead to disaster, but the soviet union produced it's fair share of brilliant writers, artists, scientists, and musicians, so your argument that communism stifles excellence is a little off.
I do agree that facism can create a strong economy, and communism cannot, but does that really make facism better?
Anyway, it seems that the ideals of communism are a lot more humane than those of facism, and that would be my reason for choosing communism over facism, ideologically. Of couse, in real life i wolud support neither, but rather, a socialist democracy.. ie. Capitalist society, but with high taxes, Big government spending on social services, small spending on military, no tax breaks for rich individuals and corporations, lower taxes for poor (rather than the opposite, as seems to happen so often in the USA).
Europe and Canada are ahead of the US in this regard, and have shown that it is a system that works, produces a very high standard of living, and is stable (unlike either communism or facism, which fail on most of these counts).
-robo (wearing my courduroy jacket with elbow patches)
I can't believe it, what kind of an idiot ould even entertain for a minute the "good points" of Nazism.
Murderous, stupidity driven, racist anachronistic, hodge-podge of force driven by an ideal of the "beautiful people" that in reality is an image that is not beautiful but is ugly: Fascism was bad art trying to be government at the expence of real people.
Communism is an idea that cannot work: but is not a malicious idea in the way that Nazism is: Communism idealistically is grounded in the idea of Humanism, meaning its values are derived from the idea that what is human is what is important. The problem is is that it thinks it knows what "humanity" is . . . whereas nobody does.
Nazism on the other hand is not a humanism, it ,in fact, is only the idea that a select few are human, or are "beautiful" and the rest must either dissapear or do as the (usually very stupid but brutal) few say.
Nazism's values have not even the semblance of a respect for others while Communism has the misguided belief that what it does is for the benefit of all.
There should be no comparison.
Now Stalin killed more that Hitler . . . and was just as evil . . . but he also had many many more years to do what he did
anyway Stalinism is not Communism because "Communism" can mean many different things including merely a belief in possibilities while Nazism means only one thing: idiocy, hatred and willfull stupidity
The only reason I can imagine that someone here wold opt fo Nazism is the "snappy outfits" and cool tanks and airplanes --which (if true) shows how Nazism was primarilly motivated by an aesthetic rather than any real political ideas . . . a dangerous blotting out of reality: an art ideal(bad art too) instead of politics.
Only the extreme left wing is intolerant - the whole ideology of the left is be as tolerant as possible.
I believe communism can work - on a smaller scale only though and not through central planning. I would really love to live on a Kibbutz for a while when I finish school - this is as close as a possible one can get to a true comunist society.
I could never chose to be a Nazi over a 'Commie' since I'm Jewish and everyone other than my grandmother was murdered by the Nazis.
<strong>I could never chose to be a Nazi over a 'Commie' since I'm Jewish and everyone other than my grandmother was murdered by the Nazis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jews didn't do to well under Stalin either.
Both ideologies should be abhorrent to any freedom loving person.
well, I don't think anybody today would really contend that Stalin was a real communist.. he was a paranoid, brutal dictator and mass-murderer. Karl Marx was a communist, and all he did was write discourses.
Actually, this silly debate means nothing because of a simple fact:
Nazism was invented by Hitler, who was also a bloodthirsty psychopath.
Communism was invented by some liberal thinkers in the 19th century, and basically existed as some political writings until it inspired revolutions in the early 20th century. Evenutally (decades later) the government of the biggest new 'communist' country, Russia, became headed by Josef Stalin, a bloodthirsty psychopath, just like Hitler. The thing is, Stalin didn't invent communism, in fact, his government was communist more by name than by action.
So, Nazism=Hitler, but Communism!=Stalin, rather Communism=Marx and Engels' writings.
I doubt anyone without a KKK membership card would prefer side with Adolf Hitler rather than with two geeky dudes who are trying to save the world (misguided as they might have been).
<strong>I believe communism can work - on a smaller scale only though and not through central planning.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Communism means a complete lack of any social hierarchy. That's why it's unattainable. Ego will always see that, as George Orwell put it, "some are more equal than others." That's why Stalin isn't a true communist -- he managed to bend the political spectrum into a loop where the two apparently diametrically opposed ideologies touched.
We can extrapolate a bit to say that Nazism = fascism. Fascism believes in the power of absolute authority, and that aside from its absolute leaders, individuals do not exist; they are a faceless mass, a collective "it." Communism believes in the absolute equality of all people, thus eliminating individuality as well. Stalin treated the proletariat as a facelss mass as well -- he was the only exception to the rule, and as the cliché goes, one bad Apple spoils the bunch. The fact that Lenin was the hero of the revolution, the de facto leader of the bolsheviks inherently killed true communism in Russia before it really started.
Communism means a complete lack of any social hierarchy. That's why it's unattainable. Ego will always see that, as George Orwell put it, "some are more equal than others." That's why Stalin isn't a true communist -- he managed to bend the political spectrum into a loop where the two apparently diametrically opposed ideologies touched.
We can extrapolate a bit to say that Nazism = fascism. Fascism believes in the power of absolute authority, and that aside from its absolute leaders, individuals do not exist; they are a faceless mass, a collective "it." Communism believes in the absolute equality of all people, thus eliminating individuality as well. Stalin treated the proletariat as a facelss mass as well -- he was the only exception to the rule, and as the cliché goes, one bad Apple spoils the bunch. The fact that Lenin was the hero of the revolution, the de facto leader of the bolsheviks inherently killed true communism in Russia before it really started.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very well articulated.
Communism = death of the individual = Nazism/Facism
And to all the misguided fellows... the Kibbutz != Communism
Communism exists only on paper. And that?s where it should stay.
Comments
<strong>I AM a commie - just not a Soviet style communist. This is so typical of Americans (and westerners in general) to simply lump true communists in with Soviets.
Tru communists are those who believe all are equal and that absolutely no one deserves preferential treatment. With the absolution of private property, the public is far better off than in a capitalist society where examples such as private electricity, health care and water services have done nothing but undermine the non-wealthy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh come on....who made you say that?
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
-robo
well... actually, a marxist,
cuss
p.s. and a card-carrying wobblie.
Hmm, ? never quite understood the difference. As to which were the bigger scoundrels, thieves, slave masters, and murders? Well, how long did Communism exist vs. National Socialism. Add, subtract, multiply, divide. You do the math ?
mika.
edit:
ps. yer money grabbing momma has taught you well, little commie ...
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
and she is that,
cuss
p.s. how ya doing buddy? hope you and yers is safe and well. keep yer head down soldier and always remember, if it gets too bad, i've got a couch you can use till ya get situated over here.
mika.
ps. d/L the latest SW flic off HL. damn, waht a waste of time.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
sink or swim,
cuss
p.s. you've chosen wisely mika.
<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
-robo</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
Wake up.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
<strong>I AM a commie - just not a Soviet style communist. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever lived in a country governed by a Communist goverment? Can you name one country where communism has been inflicted on the populace that wasn't a bleak, awful, despair filled hell hole?
The answer to the perceived excesses of a free society is not tyranny.
Van you name an actual Marxist communist government? All of them were SOOOOOO off the mark. Of course the mark is unacheivable, kinda like an efficient democracy.
Now in a purely ideological sence I would choose communist because the idea is to make the lives of every one equal, Nazism, thats corporatism which is extremely efficient but also houses some awful ideals. Also I have Jewish blood so...
Perhaps a better argument would be commie or facist?
I do agree that facism can create a strong economy, and communism cannot, but does that really make facism better?
Anyway, it seems that the ideals of communism are a lot more humane than those of facism, and that would be my reason for choosing communism over facism, ideologically. Of couse, in real life i wolud support neither, but rather, a socialist democracy.. ie. Capitalist society, but with high taxes, Big government spending on social services, small spending on military, no tax breaks for rich individuals and corporations, lower taxes for poor (rather than the opposite, as seems to happen so often in the USA).
Europe and Canada are ahead of the US in this regard, and have shown that it is a system that works, produces a very high standard of living, and is stable (unlike either communism or facism, which fail on most of these counts).
-robo (wearing my courduroy jacket with elbow patches)
Murderous, stupidity driven, racist anachronistic, hodge-podge of force driven by an ideal of the "beautiful people" that in reality is an image that is not beautiful but is ugly: Fascism was bad art trying to be government at the expence of real people.
Communism is an idea that cannot work: but is not a malicious idea in the way that Nazism is: Communism idealistically is grounded in the idea of Humanism, meaning its values are derived from the idea that what is human is what is important. The problem is is that it thinks it knows what "humanity" is . . . whereas nobody does.
Nazism on the other hand is not a humanism, it ,in fact, is only the idea that a select few are human, or are "beautiful" and the rest must either dissapear or do as the (usually very stupid but brutal) few say.
Nazism's values have not even the semblance of a respect for others while Communism has the misguided belief that what it does is for the benefit of all.
There should be no comparison.
Now Stalin killed more that Hitler . . . and was just as evil . . . but he also had many many more years to do what he did
anyway Stalinism is not Communism because "Communism" can mean many different things including merely a belief in possibilities while Nazism means only one thing: idiocy, hatred and willfull stupidity
The only reason I can imagine that someone here wold opt fo Nazism is the "snappy outfits" and cool tanks and airplanes --which (if true) shows how Nazism was primarilly motivated by an aesthetic rather than any real political ideas . . . a dangerous blotting out of reality: an art ideal(bad art too) instead of politics.
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Though I've been told that I'm Hitler's poster boy.
I believe communism can work - on a smaller scale only though and not through central planning. I would really love to live on a Kibbutz for a while when I finish school - this is as close as a possible one can get to a true comunist society.
I could never chose to be a Nazi over a 'Commie' since I'm Jewish and everyone other than my grandmother was murdered by the Nazis.
<strong>I could never chose to be a Nazi over a 'Commie' since I'm Jewish and everyone other than my grandmother was murdered by the Nazis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jews didn't do to well under Stalin either.
Both ideologies should be abhorrent to any freedom loving person.
Actually, this silly debate means nothing because of a simple fact:
Nazism was invented by Hitler, who was also a bloodthirsty psychopath.
Communism was invented by some liberal thinkers in the 19th century, and basically existed as some political writings until it inspired revolutions in the early 20th century. Evenutally (decades later) the government of the biggest new 'communist' country, Russia, became headed by Josef Stalin, a bloodthirsty psychopath, just like Hitler. The thing is, Stalin didn't invent communism, in fact, his government was communist more by name than by action.
So, Nazism=Hitler, but Communism!=Stalin, rather Communism=Marx and Engels' writings.
I doubt anyone without a KKK membership card would prefer side with Adolf Hitler rather than with two geeky dudes who are trying to save the world (misguided as they might have been).
-robo
<strong>I believe communism can work - on a smaller scale only though and not through central planning.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Communism means a complete lack of any social hierarchy. That's why it's unattainable. Ego will always see that, as George Orwell put it, "some are more equal than others." That's why Stalin isn't a true communist -- he managed to bend the political spectrum into a loop where the two apparently diametrically opposed ideologies touched.
We can extrapolate a bit to say that Nazism = fascism. Fascism believes in the power of absolute authority, and that aside from its absolute leaders, individuals do not exist; they are a faceless mass, a collective "it." Communism believes in the absolute equality of all people, thus eliminating individuality as well. Stalin treated the proletariat as a facelss mass as well -- he was the only exception to the rule, and as the cliché goes, one bad Apple spoils the bunch. The fact that Lenin was the hero of the revolution, the de facto leader of the bolsheviks inherently killed true communism in Russia before it really started.
<strong>
Communism means a complete lack of any social hierarchy. That's why it's unattainable. Ego will always see that, as George Orwell put it, "some are more equal than others." That's why Stalin isn't a true communist -- he managed to bend the political spectrum into a loop where the two apparently diametrically opposed ideologies touched.
We can extrapolate a bit to say that Nazism = fascism. Fascism believes in the power of absolute authority, and that aside from its absolute leaders, individuals do not exist; they are a faceless mass, a collective "it." Communism believes in the absolute equality of all people, thus eliminating individuality as well. Stalin treated the proletariat as a facelss mass as well -- he was the only exception to the rule, and as the cliché goes, one bad Apple spoils the bunch. The fact that Lenin was the hero of the revolution, the de facto leader of the bolsheviks inherently killed true communism in Russia before it really started.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very well articulated.
Communism = death of the individual = Nazism/Facism
And to all the misguided fellows... the Kibbutz != Communism
Communism exists only on paper. And that?s where it should stay.
mika.