Posted on 01/22/2021 6:31:03 AM PST by OKSooner
Open discussion for the purpose of defining of these terms, especially in the classical and modern usage.
Hi.
“It all means a boot on my neck.”
And none of those “isms” will leave you alone.
That’s why the Founders gave us the Second amendment.
5.56mm
Diffrent color uniform
The bullets and death camps all feel rather the same.
Very Highly Recommended reading: “Dorothy Thompson’s Political Guide.” Written in 1938, it provides an excellent 120-page assessment of the “isms”. My favorite pages, personally, are 64 and 65.
On one hand, we might try to carefully, precisely define them. But on the other, we could use these words the same way the left used words and phrases like “racism” or “white supremacy” - that is, as weaponized floating signifiers. For example, to charge that Biden and Harris are ushering in “communism.” In a post-truth world definitions lose their political relevance.
They don't GET that overarching, dehumanizing tyranny is the same what ever you call it.
Some scholars love all their intellectual gymnastics in mincing out ‘differences’ between the many kinds of tyranny. Fine.... but no matter how you cut it up... down here on the ground..it all plays out the same.
It's the radical oppression of individuality, denial of personal property (including rapacious and coercive taxation) and the attitude that absolutely everyone is a minute particle within a mass of undifferentiated ‘being’.
With THAT logic, Plato, Michelangelo, Newton, Beethoven and any of the other giants of human development are completely insignificant....HOW ridiculous!
According to Karl Marx socialism and communism are the same. He preferred the term communism because socialism was completely discredited at the time.
“Slavery”.
biden/harris are ushering in fascism
China is now fascist. They have a tightly controlled private sector but the individuals only have rights that the state allows.
Merely different trunks of the same tree is the analogy I’ve always used.
They’re all basically the same thing with some spelling variations.
Corporation oppression of the peoples' rights, for example you must wear a face mask/get vaccinated, before you can buy anything at Walmart.
Initially anyway, the government can't directly take away your rights so easily, but can via a business alliance and licensing/regulation.
First define socialism. The others are competing forms of socialism. They have all at one time or the other both collaborated and have fought each other over how socialism should be implemented, but they are all socialists.
I asked a similar question some time ago.
Answer I liked best:
“They are all the same.
Just the uniforms are different.”
This is where the left has communism on the left and nazism on the right.
The spectrum really goes from anarchy to totalitarianism.
Here is a good explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZPZOpFLHVE
BTW, I would propose the US government without fair voting and ruled by a few pols, tech giants and rich people would be a totalitarian oligarchy.
There is some overlap and some apples/oranges differences.
Simplest definitions I know of:
Marxism = the area of thought that serves as the foundation of socialism and communism.
Socialism - the government controls distribution, but production is private.
Communism - the government controls both distribution and production.
Note, free market, which Marx called capitalism, is where both production and distribution are private.
Fascism - exemplified by the Fascisti party (Mussolini).
Nazism - exemplified by the Nazi party.
Marx viewed the world by viewing people through the prism of economic classes. Believing that individualized free markets left many disenfranchised, he believed only a more communal world could cure this ill.
So, in economic terms, you can rate an economy on a scale of government control - Laissez-faire being zero, socialism being a five and communism a ten. Free market somewhere between 0 and 5.
Unfortunately, there are many facets to an economy just like there is to life in general which can make these strict classifications difficult, e.g., the US, generally considered free market, but has social security and medicare - government control of retirement and medical resources for certain groups.
Fascism and Naziism include socialism. The apples/orange bit here is that it involves the militarization of the government to enforce rule with force - a high degree of totaliarianism.
In other words, how strongly does the government enforce order? By definition, this force applies to the roles the government has taken. If the government is laissez-faire economically, it can still apply extreme force to maintain order in other areas, say by shooting jaywalkers on sight. Such treatment will get the government labelled as a “fascist” one.
Where Nazis differed from the Fascisti is the obvious jew hatred and government sanctioned murder. The Germans and Italians of WWII fought communists because the communists, exemplified by Stalin’s Russia, did not want the government hierarchy that the fascists did. In Stalin’s world, it was the central committee and everyone else. The fascists liked a strict militaristic hierarchy.
You can probably spin wheels forever trying to pin down universally acceptable definitions for these terms. I basically look at socialism, communism as concerning governments control of economy, and fascist, nazi as concerning government’s forced control of order.
My totalitarian scale would run from anarchy at zero to fascist at 7 and nazi at 10.
Things changed with Lenin. Communism came to mean a form of dictatorship that controlled the economy and much more. The Socialist parties were seen as advocating more gradual path to control and ownership of the means of production. It might be compatible with personal property and some private ownership of businesses.
Socialist parties have moved further away from the original understanding of socialism to advocate something that is compatible with private ownership of businesses. So today, socialism is an ambiguous word.
Does it mean what Socialist parties have brought to the Scandinavian countries, something similar to what Democrats want to establish here? Or does it refer to the more radical reorganization of the economy that Socialist parties originally advocated?
Stalinazi Satanism.
Our present form of totalitarian subjugation by the unelected elites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.