I think we should explore what makes somebody a Marxist, or what makes somebody a Fascist, without naming any names.

Id say many members here have been called fascists, and a few have been called marxists, or commies. The charges get denied so I believe in order to accurately call someone a marxist or fascist, you must be able to provide evidence of what constitutes one or the other.

I tried to start another thread like this on fascism...

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11553

I'm sure we didn't exhaust the discussion though:D

Fascism is a majority led power structure that typically is authoritarian in nature. It goes more by what is "good" than what is "fair" IMHO. Good being subjective, makes for some major problems. Good can be sticking the Jews in concentration camps. I fear a fascist gov't far more than a communist one.

Communism has yet to exist, only varying degrees of socialism. In theory, it is a focus on "equal distribution" over what is "fair." Part of the problem is when there an authoritarian leader over a "communist" state, such as what happened with Stalin, et al. They were a combination of fascism and socialism. It was the fascism parts that we attack them for. Neither socialism or communism have any part of their plan that involves killing off tens of millions of people. Neither have a part that includes massive gov't spying.

In my mind fascism is a horrible place to live in, commnism is simply less-desirable.

Justin

What makes someone a Marxist, or Fascist?

Someone who identifies with either number Marxism or Facism.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized

or

Main Entry: Marx·ism
Pronunciation: 'märk-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1897
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society
- Marx·ist /-sist/ noun or adjective

Originally posted by Unrepresented
I tried to start another thread like this on fascism...

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11553

I'm sure we didn't exhaust the discussion though:D

Fascism is a majority led power structure that typically is authoritarian in nature. It goes more by what is "good" than what is "fair" IMHO. Good being subjective, makes for some major problems. Good can be sticking the Jews in concentration camps. I fear a fascist gov't far more than a communist one.





Communism has yet to exist, only varying degrees of socialism. In theory, it is a focus on "equal distribution" over what is "fair." Part of the problem is when there an authoritarian leader over a "communist" state, such as what happened with Stalin, et al. They were a combination of fascism and socialism. It was the fascism parts that we attack them for. Neither socialism or communism have any part of their plan that involves killing off tens of millions of people. Neither have a part that includes massive gov't spying.

In my mind fascism is a horrible place to live in, commnism is simply less-desirable.

Justin


Sorry Justin, I musta missed that thead or been sleepwalking...I didnt mean to step on your toes.


Isnt "fair" also subjective?
I dont think 50% of my income going to the govt is fair, do you?
Some will tell me yes it is good and that I am greedy and selfish, others will tell me its my money, I earned it and I should be able to do with it as I see fit.

Equal distribution....Can anyone tell me why I should be forced to give my hard earned money away to someone who didnt put in the time, sweat, risk, costs of starging their own business and having it become successful? I would say equal distribution is grossly unfair, subjective, and only punishes those who succeed and provides little incentives for those who want to succeed.
Also, can you name me one maxist state that hasnt had a dictator?

Look at Pol Pot for example, well educated, the best intentions initially and look at his dismal record.
What ideology is responsible for more death? We know the Soviets have done in over 20 million, we know the Red Chinese have also done in tens of millions...you are saying there is mixing of both, and there very well may be...I would conclude that with communism comes fascism to a large degree.

I just dont see how you can fear Fascism more than the well documented track record of Communism. I pretty much fear both.

Just found this interesting little tidbit...
I cant vouch for accuracy, but it does show similar numbers to what Ive read in other various places.

Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR) 20,000,000
People's Republic of China 65,000,000
Vietnam (North & South) 1,000,000
North Korea 2,000,000
Cambodia 2,000,000
Eastern Europe (thanks to FDR) 1,000,000
Latin America 150,000
Africa 1,700,000
Afghanistan 1,500,000
Cuba 15,000


Thats about 100 million dead!

Death count in the U.S.S.R. is now estimated to be as high as 65 million.

While the theory behind communism and fascism sre quite different, in practice, the differences are slight. Both are totalitarian in nature, and both rely on a big, centralized government.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Sorry Justin, I musta missed that thead or been sleepwalking...I didnt mean to step on your toes.

No problem:)

Originally posted by Powerboss
Isnt "fair" also subjective?
I dont think 50% of my income going to the govt is fair, do you?
Some will tell me yes it is good and that I am greedy and selfish, others will tell me its my money, I earned it and I should be able to do with it as I see fit.

Yes, "fair" is subjective. I put it in quotation marks for that very reason:)

And by "fair" I meant that while yes, you have to put in 50% of your income, all others will be matching your economic contribution as well, perhaps not all equalling your hard work. Some may pass yours, others may be weaker. That's one of communisms most obvious flaws, motivation.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Equal distribution....Can anyone tell me why I should be forced to give my hard earned money away to someone who didnt put in the time, sweat, risk, costs of starging their own business and having it become successful? I would say equal distribution is grossly unfair, subjective, and only punishes those who succeed and provides little incentives for those who want to succeed.
Also, can you name me one maxist state that hasnt had a dictator?

Because everyone else is giving as well. You don't need to start your own business in a communist state. Communist states aren't known for their entrepeneurs. You simply make what needs to be made, or do what has to be done. you are in theory assured that you'll have what you need, and what needs to be done will be done. It's a flatter redistribtution than America. It's going to be better for some, and worse for others. It uses unity over competition, and as a result it builds from strength in numbers rather than improvement through market forces.

Communism as an economic system in itself is not better or worse as a sum than captialism, but depending on where you fall withing it, it could be better or much worse. It depends how you calculate the wealth of the state, is it by the average citizen and gov't, or is it by the capabilities of the individual?

Originally posted by Powerboss
Look at Pol Pot for example, well educated, the best intentions initially and look at his dismal record.
What ideology is responsible for more death? We know the Soviets have done in over 20 million, we know the Red Chinese have also done in tens of millions...you are saying there is mixing of both, and there very well may be...I would conclude that with communism comes fascism to a large degree.

Its track record sure points to that. The problem with communism is that it can't happen overnight. It has to go through multiple phases on its way (if true communism is indeed possible) when dealing with a group as big as a state. So far history seems to show that authoritarian gov't's will be the tendency on its supposed track. For that reason alone I'd be opposed to an implementation in the US.

Originally posted by Powerboss
I just dont see how you can fear Fascism more than the well documented track record of Communism. I pretty much fear both.

I don't fear communism because I have yet to see communism in action, and if it goes as planned once fully implemented at worst I'll be underpaid and overtaxed. Fascism, I'll likely lose my life. I fear communist implementation because it will likely include fascism along the way.

Justin

I fear communist implementation because it will likely include fascism along the way.

And seeing that socialism leads to communism I totally agree.

Because everyone else is giving as well. You don't need to start your own business in a communist state. Communist states aren't known for their entrepeneurs. You simply make what needs to be made, or do what has to be done. you are in theory assured that you'll have what you need, and what needs to be done will be done. It's a flatter redistribtution than America. It's going to be better for some, and worse for others. It uses unity over competition, and as a result it builds from strength in numbers rather than improvement through market forces.

Communism as an economic system in itself is not better or worse as a sum than captialism, but depending on where you fall withing it, it could be better or much worse. It depends how you calculate the wealth of the state, is it by the average citizen and gov't, or is it by the capabilities of the individual?



I will remind you of one of the commandments at Animal Farm.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Thats what is wrong with communism, it totally discounts human nature to be corrupted, greedy, evil and other bad virtues that humans have.
Thats why it is worse than capitalism. It is not based in reality, it doesnt work, as it fails to take in some very important aspects.
Thats why it has to be implimented at the point of a gun.

I don't fear communism because I have yet to see communism in action, and if it goes as planned once fully implemented at worst I'll be underpaid and overtaxed. Fascism, I'll likely lose my life. I fear communist implementation because it will likely include fascism along the way.

Well again, look at the number of dead under the communist regeimes, they didnt call themselves fascists, and I suspect you have as great if not a greater chance of losing your life.

And also, communism in action cannot ever work. EVER.
Many reasons have been given as to why it has never worked but it boils down to the excuse "The right people weren't in charge". :bs: to that I say!

And by "fair" I meant that while yes, you have to put in 50% of your income, all others will be matching your economic contribution as well, perhaps not all equalling your hard work. Some may pass yours, others may be weaker. That's one of communisms most obvious flaws, motivation.

Exactly... by catering to the lowest common denominator, communism ultimately brings everyone down.

Because everyone else is giving as well. You don't need to start your own business in a communist state. Communist states aren't known for their entrepeneurs. You simply make what needs to be made, or do what has to be done. you are in theory assured that you'll have what you need, and what needs to be done will be done. It's a flatter redistribtution than America. It's going to be better for some, and worse for others. It uses unity over competition, and as a result it builds from strength in numbers rather than improvement through market forces.

Unity = mediocraty (again, lowest common denominator)

Competition = excellence (You have to improve/improvise in order to be competative)

Communism as an economic system in itself is not better or worse as a sum than captialism, but depending on where you fall withing it, it could be better or much worse. It depends how you calculate the wealth of the state, is it by the average citizen and gov't, or is it by the capabilities of the individual?

Generally for those who are in extreme poverty, communism looks very appealing. You are assured housing, clothes, food, a job, and all the other necessities of life. The problem is that after a while, people aspire to more than mere subsistance. At the very least many people would like to put something together so that they may have a chance to actually enjoy life a little before the trip to the pine box hotel.

I'm a firm believer that the condition of the individual is a reflection of the condition of society as a whole.

Its track record sure points to that. The problem with communism is that it can't happen overnight. It has to go through multiple phases on its way (if true communism is indeed possible) when dealing with a group as big as a state. So far history seems to show that authoritarian gov't's will be the tendency on its supposed track. For that reason alone I'd be opposed to an implementation in the US.

True communism only works in very primitive societies or under conditions where the group must band together for survival. When the pilgrims first set foot on this continent, it would be safe to say that they likely lead a communist type of lifestyle for a while. Money was meaningless, and everybody had to work together to build houses, plant crops, etc.

Notice though that in both these cases, the people involved have a common goal. In a large "multicultural" society, forget it.

I don't fear communism because I have yet to see communism in action, and if it goes as planned once fully implemented at worst I'll be underpaid and overtaxed. Fascism, I'll likely lose my life. I fear communist implementation because it will likely include fascism along the way.

You would probably have better luck learning to leap tall buildings in a single bound than seeing a communist state sucessfully implemented.

How did I get sucked into defending communism?:p

I have no great love for it, and so far I agree with most of the attacks on it.

It probably won't work on a state-wide scale.

But if it did, I'd still rather live in it (assuming it could work) than a fascist state.

They're both less desirable ways to live than our current system.

Justin

Wouldn't be hard... just get a group together, go find a deserted island, and go for it! :p

OK, so is it accurate to call someone who may hold some positions, such as love of country, or supporting the govt in a particular instance, a fascist?
Is that accurate?
Or is it a matter of how many fascist ideals you embrace before it is accurate to be called a fascist?

Same for a Marxist.....when does it become appropriate for someone to be labeled a marxist?
Approximately how much percentage of their ideology must you embrace before it is an accurate term?

OK, so is it accurate to call someone who may hold some positions, such as love of country, or supporting the govt in a particular instance, a fascist?

Most people call that patriotism

Is that accurate?

No

Or is it a matter of how many fascist ideals you embrace before it is accurate to be called a fascist?

That and attitude. Example... when someone we know once said something to the effect that they believed in private property, but that you can't use it to discriminate, i.e. government legislation to that effect, a fascist ideal.

I generally consider people who advocate big government meddling in people's affairs to be fascists.

Same for a Marxist.....when does it become appropriate for someone to be labeled a marxist?
Approximately how much percentage of their ideology must you embrace before it is an accurate term?

As above. I see egalitarianism and Marxism to be the same thing.

Originally posted by Powerboss
OK, so is it accurate to call someone who may hold some positions, such as love of country, or supporting the govt in a particular instance, a fascist?

It may be, but of course the devil lies in the details. Fascism is a position along a continuum. That one particular instance may be nearly identical to the position of fascism, or it may be moderate.

Loving your country is fine, supporting your gov't is fine, but if that love and support translates into a majoritarian/authoritarian standpoint then you may be closer to fascism.

It all comes down to what that particular instance is...

Attacking all Muslims, immigrants, etc. and suggesting that they're ruining the strength of America and should be removed strikes me as a standpoint that is quite similar to fascism.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Is that accurate?

No, it would be an example of one single belief. No one's political ideology can be adequately covered by a single belief, but in all likelihood, unless a person is contradictory and hypocritical, a single idea and standpoint can be interpretted as a larger standpoint, if understood correctly.... but of course that's an artform not a science.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Or is it a matter of how many fascist ideals you embrace before it is accurate to be called a fascist?

Believing in one idea and being a hypocrite or contradictory in other beliefs might not make you a fascist, but it would make you a flake and FAR less credible IMO.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Same for a Marxist.....when does it become appropriate for someone to be labeled a marxist?

Same for the fascist, only the examples would obviously be different. For instance if the person were advocating the destruction of a capitalist system and implementing financial equality.

Originally posted by Powerboss
Approximately how much percentage of their ideology must you embrace before it is an accurate term?

In theory, you can label them after hearing one item, but be willing to accept changes to your label if they contradict it with different beliefs. For instance, I think the majority of the regulars have a pretty good understanding of where the others will fall. Turbo calling me a liberal would be a better catagorization than a new person coming in and calling me an anarchist. The more information you can cite the better the argument.

Justin

Someone who has been economically abused as a child... they wanted Santa Clause... but he never showed up, so they latched onto another 'red suit'.