Replies

Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, etc. It's all bullshit, they're all totalitarianism. That's what people don't understand, it's not left vs. right, it's totalitarianism vs. anarchy. Neither is workable, we all have to live with one another. We can't have total anarchy or people will live like animals, it's survival of the fittest. We can't allow totalitarianism either because it'll result in the state taking everything you have under the guise of "fairness" which is really just buying the support of the lazy by redistributing to them the labor of the productive.

There is essentially no difference between Fascism, Communism, or Socialism. They're all totalitarian ideologies that are the opposite of freedom and we should be fighting all of them. Freedom was hard won by our forefathers and is unique in the human history, far too many idiots in the U.S.A. want to give that up for some kind of perceived safety.

In the end, Hitler had to sell his party as the anti-Communist agenda and the anti-SPD (socialism party) agenda. I don’t think labels mattered....you just listed all the problems, and then blamed them on the two opposing political parties of the 1920s/1930s.

If you pull out the 1930 Nazi political platform (I think there are 30-odd agendas), and you didn’t mention it was the Nazi platform, I think modern people would support 75-percent of the agenda without much discussion.

Ever read the last paragraphs of the second chapter of the Communist Manifesto?

When in the course of development class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.

If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled by the force of circumstances to organize itself as a class; if by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class, and as such sweeps away by force the old conditions of production; then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Marx promised an anarchistic paradise as the final form of communism. What he seemed oblivious to (or wanted to try to conceal) was the fact that dictatorships with absolute power tend to hold on to power indefinitely.

“That’s what people don’t understand, it’s not left vs. right, it’s totalitarianism vs. anarchy. Neither is workable, we all have to live with one another.”

I see it more as a fight between traditionalists vs radicals, ie, what has been shown to work over the centuries, even if imperfectly, vs some perfect utopian paradise that will never exist, but that will cause immense suffering in the process of getting “there”.

The French revolution is a perfect example of this. In fact, that’s where the terms “left” and “right” originated based on the seating arrangement in the assembly.

It’s a pathological yearning for an “equality” that will never exist.

Or as Tocqueville eloquently put it,

“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”
“