Fascism, Socialism, and Communism

[Burke]

In their real world examples, really just the same thing: collectivist thug states.

The full name of the former Soviet Union was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Nazis were National Socialists, their name having been made from the German words for national socialism.

Communism is supposed to be an ideal stateless, classless society. Marx idea was that after the dirty capitalists were overthrown, they would evolve through socialism into it. None of the supposed communist nations such as China, the USSR, Cuba, etc. have ever gone past plain socialism.

The alternative to all is a free, capitalist society, one that protects individual rights as our Founders envisioned.

Read all about it here:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html

And here:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism-nazism.html

And learn what Leftists really are.

[bluelang]

Democracy is also a collectivist thug state by your bastardization of Rand's definitions. So what? Be a ****ing anarchist already.

[rpmGator]

Anything taken to the extreme, is the same as any other system taken to an extreme.

Even the type of extreme you like.

[Burke]

Democracy, unlimited majority rule, is a thug state. The will of the majority overrides the rights of individuals. The rule of the majority has given the world Hitler, Mussolini, the mullahs of Iran, Hamas in Gaza, now the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Chavez in Venezuela, Kirchner in Argentina, and slavery in this country, among other things.

The only just state is one that exists to protect the rights of individuals.

Socialists like to claim that there is some big difference between socialism and fascism.

That fascists are monsters but socialists, beneficent.

But Stalin and Mao murdered many, many more people than Hitler did.

You might call these "inconvenient truths."

And what do they all hate the most?

America, of course. The freest nation in history, the real alternative to their dreams.

[rivergator]

Wait a minute, who hates America?

[Burke]

All lefties.

But they do like something about America.

There is more here to loot.

[rivergator]

All lefties.

But they do like something about America.

There is more here to loot.

You used to take it further. Anyone who wasn't a Rand cultist hates life, right?

[Burke]

People who love their lives generally want to be free to live.

Those who hate their lives can't stand the sight of those who do, of what they themselves have given up. Accordingly, they hate the freedom that makes happy people possible and the countries that provide that freedom.

The haters frequently become "humanitarians" seizing the wealth of the happy and productive. Environmentalists "saving the planet" from them, etc.

And they tend to be very sympathetic to the truly dedicated life haters who fly planes into tall buildings and so forth.

[Dreamliner]

"Extremes meet." BWA-HA-HA! That's as funny as "You can have liberty and equality."

[busigator96]

Take away money and artificial scarcity

[madgator]

Thanks for these links. I've been thinking quite a bit about the actual differences between communism/socialism and fascism. Great food for thought.

[busigator96]

What do you know about a resource based economy? Peter Joseph can explain it to you on YouTube.

[Minister_of_Information]

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -- Mao Tse Tung

BTW, the grand link between Objectism and these philosophies is Utopianism rooted in eschatological dualism.

[GatorRade]

I'm not sure that I see this as anything other than a semantic argument. You want to define fascism as communism? Sure. You want to define Obama as a fascist. Ok. The real question is what are the underlying principles that define fascism or communism. That is the question that this board so rarely addresses.

For me, these two aren't even really in the same category. Communism is an economic system, whereas fascism seems to include quite a bit of social aspects. In my view, one of the major aspects of fascism is strong national identity and squashing opposing viewpoints. Here, I see this done quite a bit by people calling ideas "unAmerican". In this regard, there isn't much that is more fascist than this idiotic Piers Morgan deportation debacle.

[wgbgator]

It should be noted however, that however one wants to define "communism" or "fascism," they arose as alternatives and reactions to the crises and failures of capitalism and classical liberalism in the West to deliver a "free" society.

[108]

It should be noted however, that however one wants to define "communism" or "fascism," they arose as alternatives and reactions to the crises and failures of capitalism and classical liberalism in the West to deliver a "free" society.

Which is why Capitalism needs a leash within a democracy

[MichiGator2002]

It should be noted however, that however one wants to define "communism" or "fascism," they arose as alternatives and reactions to the crises and failures of capitalism and classical liberalism in the West to deliver a "free" society.

It would be more precise to say they arose as alternatives to the imperfect realities of a free society; they are alternatives to freedom. Capitalism and classical liberalism are not means of attempting a free society that fall short of doing so; they are the mechanism of a free society, warts and all.

[wgbgator]

It would be more precise to say they arose as alternatives to the imperfect realities of a free society; they are alternatives to freedom. Capitalism and classical liberalism are not means of attempting a free society that fall short of doing so; they are the mechanism of a free society, warts and all.

Alternatives to freedom as defined by capitalists and liberals, that is. I'm sure communists thought a classless society was both liberating and free.

[philnotfil]

Democracy is also a collectivist thug state by your bastardization of Rand's definitions. So what? Be a ****ing anarchist already.

QFT, both parts :)

[Dreamliner]

You guys talk about anarchism like it's a bad thing. Look what government has done to us.

[Burke]

Anarchism is just the rule of many small thugs instead of one big one.

And it degenerates into the rule of one big one.

There is no rational alternative to having one govt dedicated to protecting individual rights.

[Dreamliner]

Anarchism is just the rule of many small thugs instead of one big one.

And it degenerates into the rule of one big one.

There is no rational alternative to having one govt dedicated to protecting individual rights.

I like the odds better fighting a few than fighting untold millions. Oh, and government does not protect individual rights. As you can clearly see, it savages them.

[Burke]

What I clearly see is a modern world that exists as a consequence of govts (primarily ours) that have protected individual rights better than any in history.

[Dreamliner]

What I clearly see is a modern world that exists as a consequence of govts (primarily ours) that have protected individual rights better than any in history.

Death By Government:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

These figures include the 37,000,000 that were killed in WWI, the war that governments fought to save the world from anarchy.

*snickers*

[Burke]

You're lumping good govts with bad govts just as lefties lump "haves" and "have nots" without observing that wealth is earned by some of the haves and stolen by other haves.

It's called "package dealing."

And, of course, you are hurting only good govts, just as leftists hurt only those who earn their wealth.

Basically, it's a failure to discriminate, one of the two essentials of rational thought.

[Dreamliner]

You're lumping good govts with bad govts just as lefties lump "haves" and "have nots" without observing that wealth is earned by some of the haves and stolen by other haves.

It's called "package dealing."

And, of course, you are hurting only good govts, just as leftists hurt only those who earn their wealth.

Basically, it's a failure to discriminate, line of the two essentials of rational thought.

To the contrary, I'm throwing the government you defend tooth-and-nail squarely into the center of the mix.

Based on numbers killed, you probably have a better chance of surviving to a ripe old age in Somalia.

[108]

I like the odds better fighting a few than fighting untold millions. Oh, and government does not protect individual rights. As you can clearly see, it savages them.

sounds just like more groups of people fighting

[Dreamliner]

sounds just like more groups of people fighting

Well, we know that's what government is. But the advantage of government, for people who want to fight, is that government gives them bigger guns to fight with.

[Burke]

For those who dont know, Rand despised govt haters, that is, many libertarians.

Blaming "government" for bad governments is a way of blaming victims for being victims.

If people didn't organize into groups and form govts for self-defense, there would be bliss, no crimes, etc.

Many Objectivists regard them as worse than socialists or theocrats.

Fortunately, most pay no attention to them.

[Dreamliner]

For those who dont know, Rand despised govt haters, that is, many libertarians.

Blaming "government" for bad governments is a way of blaming victims for being victims.

If people didn't organize into groups and form govts for self-defense, there would be bliss, no crimes, etc.

Many Objectivists regard them as worse than socialists or theocrats.

Fortunately, most pay no attention to them.

It's enough for me to know that Rand despised people who loved freedom.

[Burke]

Libertarians would surrender the world to the Jihadists.

It's all our fault because we won't go along with the Islamics who want to die and take us with them.

[rpmGator]

If you have to have a "common" defense in the "United" States, you might be in for a letdown when you find no nation on earth is for individuals only.

You are protected by others, yet don't want to say thanks.

[Dreamliner]

If you have to have a "common" defense in the "United" States, you might be in for a letdown when you find no nation on earth is for individuals only.

You are protected by others, yet don't want to say thanks.

And no thanks to government by acting as to produce enemies of the state that it now has to protect me from.

[rpmGator]

So no thanks to those who died for your freedom because you hate the government...

[Dreamliner]

So no thanks to those who died for your freedom because you hate the government...

Well, for starters, they didn't die for my freedoms. And in fact, they almost always played a role in the diminution of my freedoms. Now, does that mean you worship them in vain ? I'll leave it to you to decide.

[Burke]

It's no accident that the greatest political system in history was founded during the most rational period of human history: the 18th Century Enlightenment. Men wanted to be free to think and act upon their rational thoughts, as opposed to the religious mysticism that had been forced upon them preciously.

The Founders were Enlightenment intellectuals, men who sat down together and rationally chose to found a govt upon an idea:

The idea of individual rights developed by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke.

This is why Rand wrote that the United States is "the nation of the Enlightenment."

We became the greatest nation in history because of our Enlightenment heritage of reason and rights.

As opposed to the rule of faith and force that succeeded the Founders' creation, has been undermining it from its inception, and is collapsing against collectivism and the rule of an even more primitive and violent religion, Islam.

Political systems are products of cultures, which are products of prevailing moralities, which are in turn products of underlying philosophies.

The US is going to hell because of the prevalence of some very bad ideas.

[Dreamliner]

Your so-called 'rule of faith and force' was subsidizing the American colonists. They were the welfare queens of the British Empire.

[Burke]

Libertarians like to pretend that they are the ones who are the champions of liberty.

But in order to sell that idea, they find it necessary to attack the real champions of liberty.

With ridiculous claims to the effect that subjects of the British monarchy were freer than the people who fled it.

That we are responsible for 9/11 and brought it on ourselves, etc.

What libertarians want is not freedom from tyranny, but freedom from reality, from the fact that liberty must be fought for.

Freedom from the fact there are bad people who must be dealt with.

Like pacifists who not only thrive while others are dying for their freedom, but who actively undermine them with claims that they are the problem.

There should be a special place in hell for true Libertarians.

[wgbgator]

Anyone with an ideology thinks they are the "real" champions of liberty.

[Burke]

I doubt that, but even if true, so what?

There is a right and a wrong and consequences to be had for making bad choices.

[Dreamliner]

Give me your money. Never mind why. Never mind how much. Give me your money. I'll decide when it's enough. And I'll decide when I need more.

Oh, and I'll decide how you are to protect yourself, the provisions you're entitled to, and the pursuits you are allowed to undertake.

I'm the government. How do you like me now ?