I foresee terrible consequences for the world if Communism and Fascism were ever to collide ...
Printable View
I foresee terrible consequences for the world if Communism and Fascism were ever to collide ...
Have you read the manuscripts?Quote:
Marx was, as far as I see it, the enemy of indivdualism.
And another question...
...are you somehow related to Ann Coulter?
Nope, I believe Lenin screwed up too, because he didn't radically change the production system as he should.Quote:
Stalin destroyed the Revolution Lenin fought for and succeeded in
However, 1917 Russia is not the place to start a communist revolution.
I dunno lets see. commie. *wets pants*
I live in a wellfare town. 65% of the population live off wellfare. Most live in the amory square housing projects and the rest live in the ghetto down by the river. I know what it's like to live in a community where peple make livley hoods off selling crack and heroin. But, they do it to themselves. They have a giant chip on their shoulder. The high school I graduated from is one of the lowest funded in my state. The other towns pick on us and talk about how poor windsor is and how stupid our people are. My school is aQuote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
hole. Yet kids still bring themselves out of the
Alot of people don't succeed because they have been told their entire lives that they are doomed to fail. I agree to an extent in personal responsibility, but it is not enough to say "oh, theese people are just lazy, stupid, unmotivated, ect" without looking at the core issues.
Such great amount of thoughts to analyse and reply to, so little time. Considering how I love debating politics and social issues, I think I'll LIKE it here :)
Anyways, just two quick ones for now:
Sadly, that is not the case. You might not be acquainted with post-war fascist regimes, but they're a dime a dozen. Some examples include Chile under Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990) which was pretty much a textbook example of a fascist state: a government that sells out the population to big business, violently suppresses and murders thousands of its own citizens to destroy all opposition and rule by fear, and inculcates a totalitarian culture that is based upon the exaltation of the individual over the needs of others. Similar examples could be found throughout South America in the 1970s, quite notoriously in Argentina from 1976 to 1983 under the so-called "Process of National Reorganisation", which, granted, was not as brutal as Pinochet. Another example would be the military takeover of Uruguay in 1973, which lasted until 1984 although it focused more on ideological repression (torture and kidnapping, performed by members of the armed forces, were still taking place, though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage
All of this not to mention General Franco in Spain, who ruled from 1939 until 1975. So, even as recently as 30 years ago you still have fascism in Europe. I would mention other examples, but these are the ones I know the most about. Needless to say fascism was far from over after the second world war, and although it's fading from visibility, a lot of the manners and ways of thinking have remained, and still underlie modern societies.
Communism and Fascism are, for all intents and purposes, gone. As such they can't really collide, unless you're saying that western capitalist societies are fascist (which could be the case, depending on one's definition of the term), and that they could clash with an opponent as large as China (which is more focused in trading with the west these days anyway). Moreover, in a small scale, Communism and Fascism have already collided: in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), and during the 60s and 70s throughout South America in small skirmishes between fascist government forces and communist guerillas. the world managed to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsunari 2000
I don't think fascism or socialism have dissapeared. I would not say modern western societies are fascist, I don't even believe Bush is technically a fascist, although I don't think he's really far away from that either. What I mean is that fascism as a form of goverment does not exist, but it still exists as an attitude. But then again, maybe fascism dosen't seem like the correct word to use, maybe "absolutist" or something along those lines works better, because fascists are absolutists, but not all absolutists are fascists. Blah, blah, blah.
As for socialism, well, I think it's hard to say. It exists, socialism, communism, anarchism, romanticism, etc, they exist as attitudes, not as political systems (Cuba can be considered the closest thing to socialism, but sadly I tend to associate socialism with social liberalism, and Cuba has some nasty repressive laws). Personally, I take what I like from all of them, although I don't claim to be in any of those to avoid being imagined as some damn social stereotype. But yes, I do believe every social liberal movement has an attitude of those, even if the people in it are not always communists, socialists, anarchists or romantics.
I was referring more specifically to Communist or Fascist states. The ideology is still around. There is not a Nazi state, but there is a nazi ideology among a certain people.
However, it could reasonably be argued that fascism is the ultimate logical conclusion of capitalist ideology. As such, we're living in latently fascist societies, which have socialist elements in order to keep people appeased.
Yes, it could be argued. I understand what you mean, but I don't agree completly. Fascism has a super-powerful state controlling everything, a state lead by a charismatic leader that is meant to know what is to come in history and how to take care of the nation. There is a repression, a censhorip, because a fascist state thinks the ones in the lower sectors, this is the great majority of the people, is not the one who must be in charge of political decisions or even have political consciousness (as far as I understand). Absolut capitalism would have similar consequences, but the main difference here is that there would be no important part for the goverment, and the power would be lead by multinationals. If I have to choose, I choose fascism: I don't like neither, but I prefer a total control of the state- that is meant to somehow take care of the citizens- than a total control of the multinationals, which are only meant to find economical profit. A city under extreme capitalism would be similar to Midgar in Final Fantasy VII.
Umm... you people haven't paid much attention to Marx, have you? He, himself, has been quoted as saying "it's a great idea, but it would never work without..." and then he suggested a variety of things. Amongst others, slaves. If we had a race of subservients to do all the stuff needed to provide our materials, we could make socialism/communism work. Given a couple decades from now, robots should be a viable option.
We'd also have to eliminate selfishness. And THAT, my dear friends and colleagues, is quite unlikely. It's also the difference in all things. The capitalism that martyr is so fond of assumes that helping others is a weakness. That all people really are given equal opportunity. That Jesus (the man- not the religious icon) was a complete moron. Any of these points, your average human would consider absolutely horrible. And in the first-world nations, at least, if we could find a way to convince those that have too much to loosen their grips until everyone had enough, then you might even have truth to that saying.
What people are failing to do, however, is to seperate communism (a purely economic *not political*) system from socialism (a seriously messed up theoretical "stepping stone"). True democracy would be impossible without true communism, and vice-versa.
But, martyr, watch what you say about the poor and downtrodden. They BUILT america, they ARE america. Millions of them from every nationality under the sun fleeing to the one place where all you needed was hard work and the desire to succeed. Because they couldn't make it in their homelands. But here, they turned us into the greatest empire to have ever existed on this world. Nowadays, that opportunity is almost gone. It takes luck to achieve anything here anymore. And soon, even that will be lost.
Can you please tell me where has Marx said the whole slavery thing? Because I haven't read it, but of course, I haven't read the whole Capital, although he did sound too authoritarian on some parts, I prefer the young Marx, much more romantic.
Well, it involves the end of the State.Quote:
(a purely economic *not political*)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
Ok, to be fair, he never advocated the use of slaves. Plato/Socratese/Aristotle, however, did in their theories on how government should be structured. And he quoted them a lot.
I was bringing it up to illustrate the point that Marx himself never believed his system would work. If we had slaves for the hard labor, it could, but since he was for complete human equality, moot point.
I also mentioned the idea of eliminating human greed and selfishness. Yeah, like that will happen. I've been a member of this species my entire life, I know us pretty well, and that's doubtful at best.
P.S. I do, however, want a robot slave :)
Wow, that's amazing. Seeing into the the mind and every single personal reflection of a man who has been dead since 1883 must be quite something.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
tell him not to come to oklahoma lol they'll call him chineese.Quote:
Originally Posted by mecharmor23
Did you even actually pay attention to what I wrote. Both prior posts. I can't see how you did and would still write that comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernhard