Communism and Socialism megathread

[Old Tyrannia]

Distributism is distinguished from socialism by distributists' belief in private property, and the fact that distributism in general is comfortable with social hierarchy and inequality whereas socialism is, at least in theory, inherently egalitarian. At least, as a fellow distributist that's how I tend to draw the distinction.

Indeed. I ask because a fellow of mine on another message board made the claim. I disagreed, obviously. Thought it fit in nicely with the progression of the discussion thus far (meaning other third-way economic philosophies).

I have commented in the past on the tendency for ideologues to lump together all viewpoints they oppose as some sort of monolithic multi-headed monster. Hence conservatives who think liberals are socialists, socialists who think conservatives are capitalists, and capitalists who think distributists are socialists. Not to mention the whole "fascism is reactionary" nonsense.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. I ask because a fellow of mine on another message board made the claim. I disagreed, obviously. Thought it fit in nicely with the progression of the discussion thus far (meaning other third-way economic philosophies).

I have commented in the past on the tendency for ideologues to lump together all viewpoints they oppose as some sort of monolithic multi-headed monster. Hence conservatives who think liberals are socialists, socialists who think conservatives are capitalists, and capitalists who think distributists are socialists. Not to mention the whole "fascism is reactionary" nonsense.

<nods in agreement>

[Conscentia]

You're using the left-right scale wrong.

Left being "me" and everything else being "right" isn't how to use it, either.

Good thing that's not how I'm using it.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Fascism's history was literally "both sides suck, I'll make my own" yet here you are, eighty years later, saying that these guys actually belonged to one of the two sides. If fascism had a side, it wouldn't be fascism anymore. I am also using the left-right scale to mean that left is closer to socialism and right closer to capitalism.

So basically the idea is:
Socialism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the people
Capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production to serve individual needs
Dictatorship: State ownership of the means of production to serve an individual
Fascism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the state itself

Is this about right?

[Arkolon]

Hitler's Mein Kampf spent a lot of time talking about how fascism and Nazism were syncretic and neither left nor right, and Italian fascism was closer to national syndicalism than it was anything else. Italian fascism is quite peculiar.

Hitler had no idea what he was talking about.
Italian fascism isn't peculiar. Nazism is peculiar.

More fascisms have been closer to syncretism than Italian national syndicalism. Falangism, Hungarian fascism, Romanian fascism, Croatian fascism.. the list goes on.

Yeah, notice the capital-C Communism. I refer to the state socialism of Communist states, not communism in itself.

Those similarities would be because both were totalitarian.

Yeah, that's my point.

[Conscentia]

Fascism's history was literally "both sides suck, I'll make my own" yet here you are, eighty years later, saying that these guys actually belonged to one of the two sides. If fascism had a side, it wouldn't be fascism anymore. I am also using the left-right scale to mean that left is closer to socialism and right closer to capitalism.

So basically the idea is:
Socialism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the people
Capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production to serve individual needs
Dictatorship: State ownership of the means of production to serve an individual
Fascism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the state itself

Is this about right?

No.

Socialism is social ownership of the means.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means.
Dictatorship isn't an economic position.
Fascism doesn't care who owns the means, so long as they serve the State.

[Arkolon]

Fascism's history was literally "both sides suck, I'll make my own" yet here you are, eighty years later, saying that these guys actually belonged to one of the two sides. If fascism had a side, it wouldn't be fascism anymore. I am also using the left-right scale to mean that left is closer to socialism and right closer to capitalism.

So basically the idea is:
Socialism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the people
Capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production to serve individual needs
Dictatorship: State ownership of the means of production to serve an individual
Fascism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the state itself

Is this about right?

"Dictatorship" is a bit vague. It was only really after WW2 that the Western world has been generally in favour of democracy and nothing but democracy. For example, dictatorships were, and could be, seen as very favourable types of governments until their demise in the Second World War. Fascism also doesn't necessarily have state ownership of the means of production, but can have it. Otherwise yeah, pretty much.

[Arkolon]

Left being "me" and everything else being "right" isn't how to use it, either.

Good thing that's not how I'm using it.

Right being "reactionary" and left being, well, not, isn't how to use it, then. Not to mention that since fascism isn't reactionary, it would be classed as left-wing here as well. If that isn't how you're using it, you must have a very special scale I've never heard of before.

[Shigiel]

Fascism's history was literally "both sides suck, I'll make my own" yet here you are, eighty years later, saying that these guys actually belonged to one of the two sides. If fascism had a side, it wouldn't be fascism anymore. I am also using the left-right scale to mean that left is closer to socialism and right closer to capitalism.

So basically the idea is:
Socialism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the people
Capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production to serve individual needs
Dictatorship: State ownership of the means of production to serve an individual
Fascism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the state itself

Is this about right?

I disagree, but I'm an adherent to an irrelevant little tendency of communism, so you might just want to ignore me.

Socialism: Social ownership of the means of production (i.e. they're owned by all of society in a classless society).
Capitalism: I agree with you
Dictatorship: Ownership of the means of production by one class, whether it be the workers, the capitalists, or a detached state bureaucracy.
Fascism: Doesn't have a particular economic ideology, but historically it has been capitalism with some regulation.

[Arkolon]

So basically the idea is:
Socialism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the people
Capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production to serve individual needs
Dictatorship: State ownership of the means of production to serve an individual
Fascism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the state itself

Is this about right?

I disagree, but I'm an adherent to an irrelevant little tendency of communism, so you might just want to ignore me.

Socialism: Social ownership of the means of production (i.e. they're owned by all of society in a classless society).
Capitalism: I agree with you
Dictatorship: Ownership of the means of production by one class, whether it be the workers, the capitalists, or a detached state bureaucracy.
Fascism: Doesn't have a particular economic ideology, but historically it has been capitalism with some regulation.

Socialism has a state. I think its very Marxist purpose was to be the transition stage from capitalism to communism. Communism is the classless, moneyless, stateless society you're describing.

[Conscentia]

Hitler had no idea what he was talking about.
Italian fascism isn't peculiar. Nazism is peculiar.

More fascisms have been closer to syncretism than Italian national syndicalism. Falangism, Hungarian fascism, Romanian fascism, Croatian fascism.. the list goes on.

That "syncretism" amounts to what I've already explained - taking some of the left-wing's criticisms of liberal capitalism and the traditionalist right, while rejecting anything that makes the left-wing the left-wing.

Those similarities would be because both were totalitarian.

Yeah, that's my point.

They were totalitarian for different reasons. In one case the state was totalitarian because it was corrupt. In the other case the state was working as intended.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Fascism: Doesn't have a particular economic ideology, but historically it has been capitalism with some regulation.

So basically it boils down to capitalism, but if you're not loyal enough to the state then you're dragged behind the chemical shed and shot?

[Arkolon]

More fascisms have been closer to syncretism than Italian national syndicalism. Falangism, Hungarian fascism, Romanian fascism, Croatian fascism.. the list goes on.

That "syncretism" amounts to what I've already explained - taking some of the left-wing's criticisms of liberal capitalism and the traditionalist right, while rejecting anything that makes the left-wing the left-wing.

... as well as the far-right the far-right. It's syncretic. That's the point.

Yeah, that's my point.

They were totalitarian for different reasons. In one case the state was totalitarian because it was corrupt. In the other case the state was working as intended.

Stalin wasn't so bad in dedicating himself towards communist principles, nor was the USSR as a whole. Stalinism was working as intended, btw.

[Conscentia]

Good thing that's not how I'm using it.

Right being "reactionary" and left being, well, not, isn't how to use it, then. Not to mention that since fascism isn't reactionary, it would be classed as left-wing here as well. If that isn't how you're using it, you must have a very special scale I've never heard of before.

That's not how I'm using it either.
Far from accusing fascism of being reactionary, I've explicitly said that fascism is progressive. It was part of that post I wrote which you ignored most of for no reason.

I don't have a very special scale. As far as I can tell, Old Tyrannia was using the same correct definition I was.

[The Northumbrian Republic]

What do you think of Mutualism?

[Arkolon]

Right being "reactionary" and left being, well, not, isn't how to use it, then. Not to mention that since fascism isn't reactionary, it would be classed as left-wing here as well. If that isn't how you're using it, you must have a very special scale I've never heard of before.

That's not how I'm using it either.
Far from accusing fascism of being reactionary, I've explicitly said that fascism is progressive. It was part of that post I wrote which you ignored most of for no reason.

I don't have a very special scale. As far as I can tell, Old Tyrannia was using the same correct definition I was.

Socialism isn't the only left-wing variant. And I did say left-wing was closer to socialism, not socialism in itself.

[Old Tyrannia]

Fascism: Doesn't have a particular economic ideology, but historically it has been capitalism with some regulation.

So basically it boils down to capitalism, but if you're not loyal enough to the state then you're dragged behind the chemical shed and shot?

Fascists theoretically advocate tripartite corporatism, a system in which workers and employers jointly make economic decisions through negotiation and cooperation between workers' organisations and private companies with the State serving in the role of mediator, with the whole system essentially being geared towards maximising the power of the State (which just about sums up fascism). In practice this has generally translated to some form of heavily regulated capitalism, but fascists have no real devotion to private property or the free market- no one has an inherent "right" to anything, including their property, under fascism and everything is subordinate to the needs of the nation.

[Slakonian]

Convism... ahem wrong thread....

[Conscentia]

That "syncretism" amounts to what I've already explained - taking some of the left-wing's criticisms of liberal capitalism and the traditionalist right, while rejecting anything that makes the left-wing the left-wing.

... as well as the far-right the far-right. It's syncretic. That's the point.

Fascism does not reject what makes the right-wing the right-wing. It embraces it more than any other right-wing ideology I know.

They were totalitarian for different reasons. In one case the state was totalitarian because it was corrupt. In the other case the state was working as intended.

Stalin wasn't so bad in dedicating himself towards communist principles, nor was the USSR as a whole. Stalinism was working as intended, btw.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=197979

[Proletarian Anarchists]

Fascism's history was literally "both sides suck, I'll make my own" yet here you are, eighty years later, saying that these guys actually belonged to one of the two sides. If fascism had a side, it wouldn't be fascism anymore. I am also using the left-right scale to mean that left is closer to socialism and right closer to capitalism.

So basically the idea is:
Socialism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the people
Capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production to serve individual needs
Dictatorship: State ownership of the means of production to serve an individual
Fascism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the state itself

Is this about right?

No very much no.

Socialism: Society or Worker's themselves own the means of production
Capitalism: the means of production are in the hands of one class; doesn't always use a "free"-market, see "Soviet" Union.
Skipping this one cause this is stupid.
Fascism: Capitalism in the service of the state.

[Proletarian Anarchists]

What do you think of Mutualism?

Thumbs up!

[Constantinopolis]

Treating fascism as a timeless ideology, in the same category as socialism, communism, anarchism, liberalism, libertarianism etc., is a mistake.

Fascism was a social phenomenon that arose in Europe after the First World War and was politically relevant for a very short period of time (less than 25 years), after which it basically disappeared into oblivion with only a few very small fringe groups remaining (which do not usually call themselves fascist).

Therefore, fascism is best understood as a specific thing that happened in a specific place and time, not as a set of timeless ideas. There are very few real fascist ideas anyway. Fascism was action-oriented, not idea-oriented. The appeal of fascism came from its claims to be able to solve the general social and economic crisis that affected Europe in the interwar period. Fascists portrayed themselves as men of action, not words, who would somehow vaguely do something to lead the nation back to glory and prosperity.

Once in power, fascists mostly just improvised. They did not coherently follow any principles other than nationalism and militarism (and, in the case of Nazism, extreme racism).

Edit: Oh, and the reason why fascism is far-right is simply because the phrase "far-right" was invented to refer to fascists and similar movements.

To my knowledge, no other category of extreme political movements has ever been commonly known as "far-right". If fascists are not far-right, it seems no one is. Communists and anarchists are typically called far-left. Extreme capitalists are not usually called far-anything; they're simply called extreme capitalists (or, alternatively, they're called libertarians, ultra-libertarians, free-marketeers, etc). Other types of extreme movements also do not usually get called far-something.

[Southern Hampshire]

... as well as the far-right the far-right. It's syncretic. That's the point.

Fascism does not reject what makes the right-wing the right-wing. It embraces it more than any other right-wing ideology I know.

Really?

How often does Fascism embrace globalist capitalism?
How often does Fascism embrace economic immigration?
How often does Fascism embrace private ownership?
How often does Fascism embrace private healthcare?
How often does Fascism embrace enterprise?
How often does Fascism embrace religion?

[Nueva Uruguay]

Fascism does not reject what makes the right-wing the right-wing. It embraces it more than any other right-wing ideology I know.

Really?

How often does Fascism embrace globalist capitalism?
How often does Fascism embrace economic immigration?
How often does Fascism embrace private ownership?
How often does Fascism embrace private healthcare?
How often does Fascism embrace enterprise?
How often does Fascism embrace religion?

For the last one, some fascist leaders were very religious, such as Francisco Franco.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Fascism does not reject what makes the right-wing the right-wing. It embraces it more than any other right-wing ideology I know.

Really?

How often does Fascism embrace globalist capitalism?
How often does Fascism embrace economic immigration?
How often does Fascism embrace private ownership?
How often does Fascism embrace private healthcare?
How often does Fascism embrace enterprise?
How often does Fascism embrace religion?

What's important to keep in mind is that far-right doesn't just describe one's position on the economic scale. Social and cultural scales also come into play. Frankly, the "left-right" political spectrum is good for simplicity's sake, but creates a number of double standards.