Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 14
    Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
    Fascism and communism are both variants of socialism. The world is "stuck" on them because it is "stuck" on collectivist altruist ideology. It will end when bad philosophy is replaced by a philosophy of reason and individualism. Ayn Rand discussed this extensively. Read her nonfiction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 1 month ago
      It is important to note, however, that there is a difference in the way these two collectivist ideologies are implemented.Communism is closer to the socialist blueprint. The use of force through revolution and the continued use of it during administration is a variant. Fascism and Nazi-ism though, is a deadlier form because in communism as in socialism the means of production is entirely held by the state, but Fascism and the Nazis allow the means of production to be privately held but controlled by the state, thereby giving the illusion of competition and free enterprise.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Maritimus 5 years, 1 month ago
        Hello, Herb,

        I think that things are a bit more complicated and more subtle than you say. Let me first say what I like to point out to my friends. Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Tito, Mao and Paul Pot all identified themselves as socialists. These labels: socialism, communism and fascism are attempts do differentiate, make sound unique, movements in various specific national, cultural and political environments to improve chances of obtaining governmental power. If possible, absolute power, i.e. dictatorship.

        Fascism or nazism are not polar opposites of communism. The communists in Europe, after the WW2, have made it their practice to label everybody that opposes them as fascist, using the fact that Hitler attacked Stalin and thus made the imperial conquest ambitions seam to be based on different ideologies. Read a very well written book on this subject by Jean-Francois Revel: Last Exit to Utopia - The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era - English translation 2009.

        The meanings of these political labels are, I think deliberately, ill-defined. Just like liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism etc. these days in our country. They mean whatever is convenient at the moment.

        I beg to differ with you on the deadliness, Stalin and Mao killed many more people than anybody else. I think that I can document this if we need to.

        Both communists and nazi-fascists effectively expropriated the means of production. The difference is that Mussolini and Hitler left competent ex-owners to manage the production internally (no business strategic decisions allowed) instead of incompetent but equally well paid party apparatchiks to bungle things up. As you say, it was a deliberately perpetrated illusion.

        All the best.
        Maritimus
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 1 month ago
          Believe it not, we are in pretty much complete agreement. What you have misunderstood is my approach via economics rather than internal and external intercourse. Let me be clearer; I would put forth three forms of economic performance as used by collectivist VS capitalist economies.
          1. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are totally owned and controlled by the state.
          2. Communism (Nazi-ism) is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, but controlled by the state.
          3. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately held.
          It is easy to extrapolate from these simple definitions just which system allows for the greatest freedom. Further, without any research at all, but with a few of Einstein's thought experiments it will be easy to tell which societies will require coercion in order to work and which won't depending upon the degree in which the societies adhere to the collectivist model. The reason I indicated Fascism as being more evil is because it lies about its production in order to lure buyers into thinking they'll get the same quality as private companies produce. As to the evil of collectivist societies, there is no difference. They always devolve into the need for the use of force on their own people as well as on other societies The only difference is the viciousness of the dictator that these societies inevitably create.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 1 month ago
          This may make you wonder, but we are pretty much in complete agreement. We take for granted that all socialist regimes boil down to the use of coercion in order to keep their citizens in line and since they usually don't produce products well they'll expand thru the use of force. I was referring to the types of collectivist states via their means of production, which after all, determines their viability in competition with other countries. It goes like this:
          Socialism is a system in which thmeans of production are held by the state.
          Fascism (Nazi) is a system where the means of production are privately held but controlled by the state.
          Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately held.
          In order to determine which system offers the greatest freedom, it is not difficult to extrapolate from these simple definitions which are wrapped around production what the outcome in personal liberty would be. from that it would be easy enough to postulate all the evils of collectivist societies as opposed to capitalism. One point I made was about Fascism being worse than communism, but in appearence only, since it tries to give the impression of a freedom it does not grant, so dishonesty in appearance compounds the system. As to the degree of evil in these states, they are basically all the same except for the viciousness of the particular dictator that these states inevitably generate.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
        I agree with Herb and take the argument a step further. Communism dictates all people become "proletariats" whereas fascism just dictates. In fascism, a person is just the appendage of the fascist leader, not simply in practice -- as in the case under communism -- but also explicitly according to doctrine.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
      Well said. They are both a distraction from the principles of personal responsibility and a true market economy. It's an example of the classical red herring: distract, distract, distract from the truth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      What is your favorite non-fiction that she wrote?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
        Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but that isn't relevant to this.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          Pardon the digression, but have you read How We Know? I am about 50 pages into the book.

          Regarding the original point, I suppose the more relevant piece would be Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or Return of the Primitive.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
            "...have you read How We Know?" Not yet so I can't comment on it. I have found in general that Ayn Rand's explanations, read and re-read, are far better than the followers' repetition and lack of originality and clarity. There is no one doing what Ayn Rand accomplished routinely, though Leonard Peikoff's explanations of Ayn Rand's works are excellent. But I can't comment on Harry Binswanger's book you are reading.

            "Regarding the original point,...": Ayn Rand wrote many articles and answered questions on the intellectual requirements to change the politics. It was all through the articles in her periodicals, now reprinted in various anthologies, and there are at least two books just on interviews with her and answers to questions at various appearances.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      I love her non-fiction even more than her fiction. I suppose the answer to "when did it start" is either "Kant, in its current manifestation" or "time immemorial". Of course, I was hoping for a more specific time when it can end that does not involve too much pain and suffering. Perhaps your answer "when bad philosophy is replaced" means philosophy teachers teaching the correct philosophy, first and foremost.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
        There isn't going to be a single time when it all changes. It's a gradual, long term intellectual process and then a subsequent political process.

        You can see that the progress of statism-collectivism in the US was not a single event either. It has been a gradually worsening problem for over a century resulting from the intellectual European counter Enlightenment and its influence in the US beginning in the 19th century. See Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels in particular.

        But the popularization of the false notion of a major distinction between communism and fascism promoted as a false alternative began with the Soviet propaganda following the collapse of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Capitalism was lumped with fascism by the communist propagandists.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          I appreciate the understanding of the hierarchy of concepts implied in your first sentence; the intellectual process has to occur first.

          Regarding the last sentence, I believe that is correct. The painful truth is how many people accept it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 5 years, 1 month ago
    Fascism vs communism is a distinction without a difference. Both are destructive of personal liberty and both can be easily recognized by the fact they can only be imposed by use of force. The only real difference between the two is who are the oppressors? True capitalism is a component of personal liberty. Only when men are able to exchange goods and services without government interference are they truly free. All other "freedoms" are illusory without freedom of exchange. The most insidious form of servitude is that where the slave is kept ignorant of the weight of his own chains.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 1 month ago
    Hello rbroberg,

    When the first tyrant/bully leader of a clan told an underling what to produce.

    When they run out of other peoples' money. This happens when the producers, seeing the futility, give up producing, or rebel en masse. At such a point in history it is a dangerous time. The prevailing philosophy could be replaced with something better, or worse.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      Then we need more philosophy professors who have learned Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, Bernstein, Biddle, etc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 1 month ago
        Indeed. It wouldn't hurt if we actually taught a bit of philosophy in primary school too. We should be teaching kids how to think and that should include some basic logic, how to check one's premises, syllogisms, basic epistemology with an emphasis on empirical evidence. Ronald Reagan — 'It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.' Today it would seem that too many have no philosophic foundation and operate on emotional whim. Since primary schools do not adequately fulfill this function and many do not go to college, the task then falls upon the parents. Those ill equipped would do well to get a few books and learn along with their offspring. Just one book from Rand, such as Philosophy: Who Needs It, would go a long way.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 1 month ago
    The first philosophical justification for an all controlling central state was Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan." In that treatise, he contended that an individual could not possibly wield enough power to survive without the protection of the state. Although Hobbes was justifying the power of the British monarchy, which he regarded as benevolent, his writings laid the groundwork for an all powerful central authority which was Fascist in nature, where one prospered as long as he recognized the absolute authority to control relied on a great leader.

    The ideological roots of Communism go back much further, to Socrates and Plato, who envisioned a society with communal ownership and absolute order, but the modern political vision came from Karl Marx in the mid 1800s. The Soviet Union was the first successful Marxist state.

    Modern Fascism was invented by Benito Mussolini after the end of WW I. His vision was of a central authority to provide efficiency and order in a crony capitalist society. He invented the term "totalitarian" to describe a state that made sure everything its citizens needed was assuredly provided, ergo totally altruistic. His version of Fascism started with noble intent and evolved into increasingly harsh oppression of opposition, as do nearly all idealistic visions of a perfect government.

    At one time Americans envisioned an almost Marxist future, in that worldwide, nations would evolve to a more perfect state of individual freedom and a capitalist free market that provided plenty for all. Unfortunately, as with all idealistic visions, human differences and flaws have continued to get in the way of social progress. Until we self-evolve, or are replaced by artificial intelligence successors, we're probably going to see more of the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 1 month ago
      The USSR was hardly successful, and would have been even less so, if we hadn't supplied them with the technology that they did have.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 1 month ago
        Agree. Their "success" relied heavily on the U.S. many times. Herbert Hoover led an American effort to help the USSR survive a crushing famine in the early 1920s, largely brought on by a dramatic drop in farm production due to Kremlin mismanagement. Our lend-lease program provided them with the war materials that enabled them to drive out the Nazi war machine in WW II. However, the creation and survival of the huge Communist state enabled the spread of that doctrine, like a cancer, to China, Korea, Vietnam, and the Warsaw Pact countries. I didn't intend to mean success in the sense that we Americans would describe it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      People are compared to swarming insects (bees) in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and I sense a jab to this effect from Hobbes as evidenced in the manner in which you describe his thesis. People, however, are nothing like bees. We are not stashing sweetness for the "future of the race" whether human, Aryan, insect, or alien, but for our own life. To view all humanity as a single organism is possible to Martians, but not to members of the human race.

      Fascism cannot have a "noble intent" at all due to the fact that it is based not on individual rights, but on state control. It is not good in theory, and unworkable in practice. It is unworkable in theory.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 1 month ago
    A real key in this is that few people associate facism with Hate Speech rules, Hate Crimes rules, and movements like BLM. These are all examples of facisim, but..."They are the good guys..." "We won't let this get out of hand..."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      "Hate crimes" can be addressed with criminal charges: Harassment, vandalism, and conspiracy to commit said crimes are legal definitions. The intent of the action and the action are separable in terms of charges, but both are relevant in determining motive.

      BLM has a ton of Marxist references against the "police state". It is interesting in the sense that it is a great example of how modern Marxist dogma is adapted to define a movement in terms of race (rather than socioeconomic status). Is this the reason you term BLM fascist rather than Marxist?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by unitedlc 5 years, 1 month ago
      Great point. +1
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 1 month ago
        Young people associate 1984 with conservatives, but they are not the only RightSpeakers.

        I feel like young people would resonate with freedom, but they lack the responsibility side of the equation. Far too much value is placed on artistic expression, and far too little on hard work. To support their view of "we are all winners...certainly I am". They have to justify their value, they have to inflate the estimate of the value of what they can do. Harry Potter, Percy Jackson and a host of other role models that are born/walk into greatness with no effort.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by unitedlc 5 years, 1 month ago
          Yes, but even Rand believed that some people were simply born with a gift to more easily achieve greatness than others. It has to do with the genetic lottery in athleticism, intelligence, creative ability, etc. Those people can often make great leaders to give us inspiration to achieve. Certainly there is nothing wrong with "the arts" as long as it is quality enough to be self sustaining through capitalistic demand.

          The problem lies with the notion that the younger generations all believe they have one of those genetic gifts that only a tiny percentage of the population of the earth posses. I agree, that "I am special" mentality that is taught to our kids is a load of crap. Hard work is what it takes for the vast majority of us.

          I do have to defend Harry Potter, though. While he was born "destined for greatness", he still worked hard to perfect his craft... Unlike someone like Randy Moss, who could have been the best receiver in football of all time due to ridiculous physical characteristics, but had a mediocre career due to laziness...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 1 month ago
            +1 for Moss!

            Perhaps I should've said that the young people have an subtle problem with the market setting the value of various capabilities, and therefore, socialism is needed to address an injustice. A few good questions can help with this. In particular, if they have a skill that is valuable, or a hypothetical question about professional athletes, performers or actors.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
      "few people associate facism"
      I disagree with the notion of "hate crimes" and "terrorism", but I see no direct connection between them and fascism. The BLM thing seems even less related. They are against racism, which is a huge problem for the US, and even if I don't agree with all their policy ideas, I'm glad they're raising the issue and trying to something about it. It seems lightyears away from anything related to totalitarian gov't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 1 month ago
        "Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism". I am associating "nationalism" with the mob behind each of these. All get their strength from associating negativity in another. BLM is a mob of supposed downtrodden. Hate Crimes are a state definition of crime with a supposed negative motive, largely by a group of people sought to be silenced by the majority viewing the opinions of the perpetrators as "unacceptable", by what I assert are the "state nationalists'.
        Sure, much of it is morally unacceptable. However, using a supposed motive of "hate" to associate the crime with the motive is 1) irrelevant, and 2) a scary way to empower the government to decide what constitutes this negativity that needs to be exterminated.

        All are just a version of 1984.

        I never brought up terrorism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
          "BLM is a mob of supposed downtrodden."
          I don't see it as nationalist or a mob. My exposure to it has just been a sermon at church and the sign they put out a year or so ago. It seems to me it's an organization addressing a major problem of our time.

          "Hate Crimes are a state definition of crime with a supposed negative motive, largely by a group of people sought to be silenced by the majority viewing the opinions of the perpetrators as "unacceptable", by what I assert are the "state nationalists'. "
          I cannot understand this sentence. I think I would get it if it were in active-voice and the groups were identified. The concept of hate crime is questionable; that adds to the confusion.

          "using a supposed motive of "hate" to associate the crime with the motive"
          Yes. I never agreed with the words hate crime or terrorism, which I believe are the same thing. They are crimes whose motive was to threaten an entire group. In addition to your 2 problems, I'll add mine:
          1) It aggrandizes the perpetrators.
          2) It causes us to buy into the perpetrators' way of thinking of people in terms of groups
          3) Some members of threatened group may not feel threatened.

          I do not believe hate crime or terrorism are real.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
            The acts of crime are real and so are the motives of terrorism to destroy and frighten for the goal of putting people into a state of terror. Aside from the motive of overthrowing the government, motives for fear and 'hate' are states of mind that cannot be crimes. The acts are criminal. Criminalizing states of mind is itself crime perpetrated by government.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 1 month ago
            WRT your last statement, I assume you mean neither Hate Crime or Terrorism are crimes. The crime is one thing and the motive is another?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
              Thugs committing crimes have motives and hatred but the action employing force is the crime. A motive can be relevant in establishing if an act is intentional, but what the thug thinks about you is not what makes crime a crime. The 'hate crime' movement is trying to criminalize thought, usually related to 'ethnicity'.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
              Yes. I think the crimes are real, but I don't think the motive makes the crime different.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                Motive can be important in establishing intent to commit the crime, but does not change the criminal nature of the act. The crime is the initiation of force against others, not what you think.

                But the 'hate crime' movement in particular is reversing that, intending to criminalize what you think apart from actions, usually imposing criteria from invalid, tribalist notions based on their 'ethnicity' philosophies.

                They pull the wool over people's eyes in promoting this because the nature of law and crime itself has become statist and collectivist: The invalid collectivist notions of 'crimes' against the state and against 'The People' have replaced the concept of crimes as violations of the rights of the individual. When law is enforced for government control of individuals for collectivist purposes, the concept of law as protecting individual rights is destroyed and lost.

                Collectivism rejects not only unapproved individual actions, but fundamentally, independent thought itself. In contrast, a free society protecting the rights of the individual is based on the moral necessity of independent thought and action by individuals. And that is the source of the clash with the 'hate crime' movement.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 1 month ago
            BLM is not addressing a problem of our times. They are creating a racial rift by aggrandizing a lesser problem that they allow to continue by asserting victim status, rather than stepping up and looking in the mirror.
            At least Malcom X preached hard work and clean living, and dressed like an human.

            BLM are asserting the problem is racial prejudice. This is not the problem. Clear evidence in Ferguson,where the fascist movement was born. Criminal felon attacks a cop and is shot. Not even interesting, until a lynch mob mentality is fomented into a rage, which is precisely the motivating force behind fascism, particularly when it becomes a "movement".

            I stand by what I said. Hate Crime legislation, Hate Speech legislation and BLM are all virtually identical to RightSpeak of 1984.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
              Rioting and racialism are not in themselves specifically fascist. Alinskyite thug and smear tactics go with any kind of collectivist street activism.

              The Black Lies Matter movement is fascistic in its underlying broader racist ideology, though it is profoundly anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical with respect to an explicit theory of government. It's activism as such has not been particularly fascist as opposed to any other kind of collectivism, but its leaders are part of the overall fascistic movement in this country.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 1 month ago
    Let's look into a libtard's mind.
    Fascism is bad.
    Fascists would be Trump and the rest of those multi-phobic Republicans. Why fascists? Hitler and Mussolini were fascists. That's why.
    At this point fascists would include the Founding Fathers who wrote that restrictive quaint relic called The Constitution. You know, there's a reason why ancient history is called ancient.
    Communism is good.
    Why? Che T-shirts are cool.
    A little yankee ingenuity will make communism better than it has turned out elsewhere. We just need to give it a chance, y'all.
    And just call it socialism because hicks in places like Alabama are resistant to the C-word portal to the new world order utopian paradise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 1 month ago
    When people found out what socialism really intends, with the death camps our military found in Germany, socialists wanted to back away from the obvious conclusion, and wanted to paint fascism as "right wing." Thus, not only was a variant of socialism passed off as "capitalism," but the depravity of socialism was hidden under a lie. Another thing that was passed off was eugenics, an idea that justifies killing people who are "unfit." This is also a core tenet of socialism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
      Soviet propaganda smeared capitalism as fascism and misrepresented fascism as fundamentally different than communism when the Hitler-Stalin pact broke up, long before the US entered WWII. Killing people deemed to be "unfit" is one form of the consequences of moral demands for sacrifice to collectivism, not a core tenet of socialism. Germany, Russia and Japan all practiced it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 1 month ago
    Probably well before the flood but it is clear we have served one or the other and sometimes combinations of both since the days of Sumeria and Babylon with a few exceptions but as the music always returns to the chorus from time to time, so do these systems of oppression.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
    I'm looking for the antidote to a painful future. If I can determine the beginning of this split and its common base of underlying assumptions, then I can dissolve the issue before it takes another breath.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JuliBMe 5 years, 1 month ago
      There is no antidote to human nature. There will always be a small but noisy group of people who want to control what you do and there will always be more people, who are much more polite, who just want to be left alone.

      The cure, maybe, is teaching the ones who want to be left alone that you cannot be polite to people who wish to control you. You must defeat them. Peace through strength and all that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
        Politeness is a Canadian value. Its not un-American, but not much of an argument as evidenced from the fact that Trump got elected. Confrontation through a strong verbal challenge is enough to ward off most attacks.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
    I think in the end fascism will win out because it is seductive and less totalitarian than communism. Fascism will end when the state becomes so controlling that blood will have to be spilled to maintain its grip or, the other side, to loosen its grip.

    People can only tolerate a tyrant for so long.

    my 2 bits.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 1 month ago
      How do you define "less totalitarian?!?"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
        Fascism starts with nationalism and convinces people of its qualification to make decisions for the group. In time fascism grows to be so restrictive as to be totalitarian.

        Communism starts with full government ownership of everything (good, decisions, etc) and makes people qualify for what was supposed to be their "share". Communism does not depend on nationalism only their boot cleats. In other words, it starts out totalitarian where fascism leads to it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          Nope, going to agree with ewv. Fascism is totalitarian from the outset. There is no guise of freedom there, no excuse for it's "seductive" nonsense. Though the fascists used the buzzword "industrial" or "science", that didn't make slave labor in the VW plant or institutionalized racism anything but the same mold-covered excrement. The formula has been the same for the past five millennia. Fascism is a new name for an old game and isn't anything beyond rape and murder.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
            You're entitled to, of course. Still, you must not ignore patriotism's allure. The seduction is in the fascists regime's promise that the state is in the best position to all for its people. I have ancestors from Italy under Mussolini and that, patriotism and the pride of country, not totalitarianism, was his appeal. That "appeal" delivered them to a totalitarian state. While I never met that branch of family the stories told about the promise of national greatness and the promise of prosperity through the managed state did reach me.

            Communism believes everything should be collectively owned and controlled. It starts out that way from it onset and the fist only tightens.

            My 2 bits.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
          Odd. A simple assessment of the initial appeal of fascism and where that appeal leads to gets a point taken.

          There is a difference between one offering the false hope of government creating management utopian environment to dupe a people and the other promising a vision of utopia that it has little intention to deliver (communism - no government everyone (theoretically) gets their portion according to their need).

          c est la vie
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
        Yeah, Constitutional Conservative. My futurist mind only see's ugly at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by unitedlc 5 years, 1 month ago
          Unfortunately, I have felt compelled to have a bunker mentality for that very reason. I collect weapons & ammunition for 2 reasons. First, it's a fantastic investment with huge gains that also happens to be fun to play with. Second, just in case...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
    We're biologically adapted to travel in bands of hunter/gatherers who operate more like a family. When we organize in much larger groups, groups where we can't possibly personally know all the people we interact with and depend on, we form kingdoms that operate with elements of a family: communal ownership and autocratic parents. This is unfortunately the normal condition for humankind.

    So I never ask what evil cause brings on communism and fascism. Human tendencies naturally decay in that direction if we don't put energy into the system to push toward liberty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
      There are no biologically innate ideas and people in civilized societies are not "hunter gatherers". Kingdoms and communal ownership are not "natural". They result from bad philosophical ideas, not lack of "energy in the system".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
        This is interesting. I don't see any way we are not born with biological predispositions that developed from selective pressures.

        If you're right, we have to ask why we see so many bad philosophical ideas. Why didn't we see utopian societies that respected human rights cropping up, even some large scale ones? I think gov't respecting rights is the exception to the rule.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
          There are no innate ideas. Philosophical ideas are conceptual formulations originated by man and accepted explicitly, with or without validation, or absorbed uncritically from others. Correct abstract ideas and truth are not automatic. Formulating correct ideas, including the principles of ethics and rights of the individual, and validating them as true is an achievement that takes work.

          See Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It, her essay "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in The Romantic Manifesto, and Leonard Peikoff's recorded lecture course on the history of western philosophy to see how the (mostly bad) ideas and their variants all around us developed and were propagated in various forms since the time of the Greeks.

          For the explanation of how we form concepts, and how and why higher level abstractions are formed and validated and their importance, see her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which is her validation and explanation of man's conceptual reason.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo