[Ask the Gulch] The world is stuck on fascism versus communism. When did this start and when will it end?
Posted by rbroberg 8 years, 8 months ago to Ask the Gulch
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Blanco
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
1. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are totally owned and controlled by the state.
2. Communism (Nazi-ism) is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, but controlled by the state.
3. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately held.
It is easy to extrapolate from these simple definitions just which system allows for the greatest freedom. Further, without any research at all, but with a few of Einstein's thought experiments it will be easy to tell which societies will require coercion in order to work and which won't depending upon the degree in which the societies adhere to the collectivist model. The reason I indicated Fascism as being more evil is because it lies about its production in order to lure buyers into thinking they'll get the same quality as private companies produce. As to the evil of collectivist societies, there is no difference. They always devolve into the need for the use of force on their own people as well as on other societies The only difference is the viciousness of the dictator that these societies inevitably create.
Socialism is a system in which thmeans of production are held by the state.
Fascism (Nazi) is a system where the means of production are privately held but controlled by the state.
Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately held.
In order to determine which system offers the greatest freedom, it is not difficult to extrapolate from these simple definitions which are wrapped around production what the outcome in personal liberty would be. from that it would be easy enough to postulate all the evils of collectivist societies as opposed to capitalism. One point I made was about Fascism being worse than communism, but in appearence only, since it tries to give the impression of a freedom it does not grant, so dishonesty in appearance compounds the system. As to the degree of evil in these states, they are basically all the same except for the viciousness of the particular dictator that these states inevitably generate.
Regarding the original point, I suppose the more relevant piece would be Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or Return of the Primitive.
"Regarding the original point,...": Ayn Rand wrote many articles and answered questions on the intellectual requirements to change the politics. It was all through the articles in her periodicals, now reprinted in various anthologies, and there are at least two books just on interviews with her and answers to questions at various appearances.
You can see that the progress of statism-collectivism in the US was not a single event either. It has been a gradually worsening problem for over a century resulting from the intellectual European counter Enlightenment and its influence in the US beginning in the 19th century. See Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels in particular.
But the popularization of the false notion of a major distinction between communism and fascism promoted as a false alternative began with the Soviet propaganda following the collapse of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Capitalism was lumped with fascism by the communist propagandists.
Regarding the last sentence, I believe that is correct. The painful truth is how many people accept it.
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.
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.
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.
BLM has a ton of Marxist references against the "police state". It is interesting in the sense that it is a great example of how modern Marxist dogma is adapted to define a movement in terms of race (rather than socioeconomic status). Is this the reason you term BLM fascist rather than Marxist?
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.
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...
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.
I disagree with the notion of "hate crimes" and "terrorism", but I see no direct connection between them and fascism. The BLM thing seems even less related. They are against racism, which is a huge problem for the US, and even if I don't agree with all their policy ideas, I'm glad they're raising the issue and trying to something about it. It seems lightyears away from anything related to totalitarian gov't.
Sure, much of it is morally unacceptable. However, using a supposed motive of "hate" to associate the crime with the motive is 1) irrelevant, and 2) a scary way to empower the government to decide what constitutes this negativity that needs to be exterminated.
All are just a version of 1984.
I never brought up terrorism.
I don't see it as nationalist or a mob. My exposure to it has just been a sermon at church and the sign they put out a year or so ago. It seems to me it's an organization addressing a major problem of our time.
"Hate Crimes are a state definition of crime with a supposed negative motive, largely by a group of people sought to be silenced by the majority viewing the opinions of the perpetrators as "unacceptable", by what I assert are the "state nationalists'. "
I cannot understand this sentence. I think I would get it if it were in active-voice and the groups were identified. The concept of hate crime is questionable; that adds to the confusion.
"using a supposed motive of "hate" to associate the crime with the motive"
Yes. I never agreed with the words hate crime or terrorism, which I believe are the same thing. They are crimes whose motive was to threaten an entire group. In addition to your 2 problems, I'll add mine:
1) It aggrandizes the perpetrators.
2) It causes us to buy into the perpetrators' way of thinking of people in terms of groups
3) Some members of threatened group may not feel threatened.
I do not believe hate crime or terrorism are real.
But the 'hate crime' movement in particular is reversing that, intending to criminalize what you think apart from actions, usually imposing criteria from invalid, tribalist notions based on their 'ethnicity' philosophies.
They pull the wool over people's eyes in promoting this because the nature of law and crime itself has become statist and collectivist: The invalid collectivist notions of 'crimes' against the state and against 'The People' have replaced the concept of crimes as violations of the rights of the individual. When law is enforced for government control of individuals for collectivist purposes, the concept of law as protecting individual rights is destroyed and lost.
Collectivism rejects not only unapproved individual actions, but fundamentally, independent thought itself. In contrast, a free society protecting the rights of the individual is based on the moral necessity of independent thought and action by individuals. And that is the source of the clash with the 'hate crime' movement.
At least Malcom X preached hard work and clean living, and dressed like an human.
BLM are asserting the problem is racial prejudice. This is not the problem. Clear evidence in Ferguson,where the fascist movement was born. Criminal felon attacks a cop and is shot. Not even interesting, until a lynch mob mentality is fomented into a rage, which is precisely the motivating force behind fascism, particularly when it becomes a "movement".
I stand by what I said. Hate Crime legislation, Hate Speech legislation and BLM are all virtually identical to RightSpeak of 1984.
The Black Lies Matter movement is fascistic in its underlying broader racist ideology, though it is profoundly anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical with respect to an explicit theory of government. It's activism as such has not been particularly fascist as opposed to any other kind of collectivism, but its leaders are part of the overall fascistic movement in this country.
What the ----- are you smoking. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=87c_13...
That link is for a hate crime and no one could disagree.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14259356
That link is for an example of terrorism.
Subjective emotion.
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
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.
The cure, maybe, is teaching the ones who want to be left alone that you cannot be polite to people who wish to control you. You must defeat them. Peace through strength and all that.
People can only tolerate a tyrant for so long.
my 2 bits.
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.
Communism believes everything should be collectively owned and controlled. It starts out that way from it onset and the fist only tightens.
My 2 bits.
There is a difference between one offering the false hope of government creating management utopian environment to dupe a people and the other promising a vision of utopia that it has little intention to deliver (communism - no government everyone (theoretically) gets their portion according to their need).
c est la vie
So I never ask what evil cause brings on communism and fascism. Human tendencies naturally decay in that direction if we don't put energy into the system to push toward liberty.
If you're right, we have to ask why we see so many bad philosophical ideas. Why didn't we see utopian societies that respected human rights cropping up, even some large scale ones? I think gov't respecting rights is the exception to the rule.
See Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It, her essay "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in The Romantic Manifesto, and Leonard Peikoff's recorded lecture course on the history of western philosophy to see how the (mostly bad) ideas and their variants all around us developed and were propagated in various forms since the time of the Greeks.
For the explanation of how we form concepts, and how and why higher level abstractions are formed and validated and their importance, see her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which is her validation and explanation of man's conceptual reason.