Forums | MacLife

I thnk many  citizens here know a lot about Communism and they know it's no better than living under a so-called "right wing" dictatorship.

No way!! In right-wing dictatorships the economy always grows an the country becomes much better for the majority (i.e. those who support the dictatorship).

In communist states, on the other hand, everyone starves to death until the regime falls due to its own flaws.

Just compare Pinochet to Chavez. One brought order and prosperity (and lots of deaths, nothing significant though) and the other brought chaos and poverty.

If you prefer Pinochet to Chavez, you're a moron.  Pinochet is a bastard who should die.  The people who were victims of his reign certainly thought so.

By definition, facism is a liberal doctrine. Consider that the NAZI party is the german workers socalist party. In the USA, there's the democrat party, which is the American analog to the german workers socalist party.

In all the world, there is no analog to the Republican party, being that it's such a new philosophy( basically 200 years old). The closest thing might be ancient greece.

Out of curiosity, if iraq invaded Turkey from the rear, would greece help ?

By definition, facism is a liberal doctrine.

Actually, it's not.  Invest in a dictionary.

It's a left-wing philosophy.  Read the NAZI party's platform sometime.  Very similar to communism.

All fascism is, is a government that rules with an "iron fist" it can be a Dictatorship, Monarchy, or, if you play your cards right, a Democracy.

Fascism can be either right or left, the true oppositre of fascism is Anarchy, as the chart said.

It's true that the opposite of total government control is anarchy, no matter what that retarded chart says.

Anarchy, of course, has another element to it- no government to protect citizens from the abuses of others.

khannon: The fact of the matter is, facists embrace private property, but in order to be facist you must accept the state's ability to seize it if the state needs it.

Ooh, I strongly disagree with how this is phrased.  The sentence is a contradiction, and only the second half is right. 

First of all, let's keep in mind that paying lip service to private property is not the same thing as actually maintaining it (and let's keep in mind that Hitler and Mussolini derided capitalism).

Second, let's get straight what private property is.  It is possession backed by the force of law.  If it is or can be taken away by the state, at will, it isn't private property.  It's simply a)something loaned to the citizen, or b)the citizen is effectively an employee of the state, and he's managing state property, which, of course, can be reallocated at any time the state wills it.  Or you can say it's both; oftentimes, there's no difference.

Third, let's get straight what private property isn't.  It doesn't simply mean "control of property by an individual or group individuals."  Property can only be controlled by an individual or gropup individuals.  That's true even in socialism.  If you're the socialist central planning board, you've got to pick someone to manage the farms, so you assign farmers to run the separate plots of land.  They may work their entire lives on those plots of land and be rewarded with some percentage of what they produce--all by the will of the state--but the state still owns the land.  It isn't the farmers' private property.

Fascism and socialism are two superficially different forms of the same thing.  Whether (as in socialism) the state declares that it owns a business, which it can liquidate or re-staff if it wishes, and ultimately has the power to determine what percentage of the produce its employees get to take home--or whether (as in fascism) the state declares that the people who run the business own it, but the state gets to take as much of what they produce as it wishes (in the form of taxes), and can expropriate the business or re-staff it at will--the effect is exactly the same.  It's just a difference of semantics. 

Socialism and fascism are indistinct with respect to private property--in neither case does it actually exist, at least not in their pure forms.  (Note: If what you're saying is that fascism is simply more hands-off than socialism, then that simply means fascism is socialism-lite, not that they are on opposite sides of the spectrum).  I believe "left" and "right" are largely undefinable and meaningless terms.  The far more important dichotomy is authoritarian/libertarian.

It's a left-wing philosophy.  Read the NAZI party's platform sometime.  Very similar to communism.

Ya, thats why the communists were the first to be killed.

Ya, thats why the communists were the first to be killed.

Again, this make my point. Hitler went after the communist because communist doctrine has the same appeal and policies as the german workers socialist party, and was thus viewed as a competing threat by Hitler.

It's analogous to the vicious and violent infighting we witnessed last year over the house minority leadership. pelosi and the competing candidate had the exact same doctrine, but pelosi politically killed off the competing candidate, who happened to be black, in order for the dnc to maintain leadership in the hands of white limousine liberals from old money.

Well, Best Buy's first paragraph is definitely true.  Cyril, how did your post contradict Best Buy's?

I challenge anyone to point out a crucial difference between socialism and fascism--if you make some reference to private property, see my long post.  I think they are the same thing with slightly different facades or perhaps one is a more extreme version of the other.  They're both about absolute state power, and I think that's the most critical feature.  The rest is window dressing.

Capitalism and socialism are both economic systems, not governmental systems. Fascism is authoritarian hierarchical government, not an economic system. Comparing economic systems to governmental systems is a task best performed by the mentally irregular. It's dumb.

Both capitalistic and socialistic economic systems can be governed through fascism as they can through democracy.

so said:

In my opinion Capitalism by it's very nature moves towards Fascism, whereas Socialism by it's very nature moves towards the opposite of Fascism, Democracy.

As wrong as he was, "the enemy of my enemy is not nessisarily my firend" so.

Economic systems can lean a government in any direction, it all depends on who is running the companies, not in any one specific direction for a certian system.

tievsky2 said:

Because socialism can also be run by a dictator, this isn't what I'd call a "crucial difference." At most, you could say that fascism is a type of socialism.

Capitalism, too, can be run by a dictator. However, its socioeconomic policies are completely contrary to those of fascism. Capitalism emphasizes the superiority of individual over so-called "collective interest.

No, this statement is entirly false.  Fascism is not a type of socialism, just because one example of a leader had certain views as far as economics go, doesn't make them the same.   Fascism is not a type of socialism as fascism is a type of GOVERNMENT and socialism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM it is a column A, column B relationship, you get one of each. One has NO bearing what-so-ever on the other.

In a democracy "the state" is public. In fascism "the state" is private.