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.

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.

Perhaps, but in Communism each person is a proletariat, while in Fascism each person is an appendage of the Fascist leader... until he isn't.

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.

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

If ever there was a time for a third party.... :)

It's much like being given the choice between getting kicked in the left nut or the right nut.

+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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

Great point. +1

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.

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.

Yes, they're two synonymous vulgarities.

Blanco

How do you define "less totalitarian?!?"

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.

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.

Great history lesson! +1

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.

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.

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.

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..."