Why isn't Socialism/Communism as frowned upon as Fascism?

[Genivaria]

No, he/she's right. Fox is not a realiable source for much of anything.

As reliable as CNN or MSNBC, honesty, though that's not saying much.

Hardly any television news network in the US is that reliable these days (the alphabet three are better than the broadcast networks, but again that's not saying much. Reuters and AP are probably the best.)

Between the three Fox News is objectively the least trustworthy.

[Constantinopolis]

Liberalism isn't leftist. It's a fact. Don't mistake the norms of US politics for the norms of the world. It's the only country in which a liberal would be called a leftist.

Being European, by the norms I'm used to, liberalism counts as center-right.

The left begins with social democracy (which is the center-left), and goes further left from there.

[Genivaria]

Liberalism isn't leftist. It's a fact. Don't mistake the norms of US politics for the norms of the world. It's the only country in which a liberal would be called a leftist.

Being European, by the norms I'm used to, liberalism counts as center-right.

The left begins with social democracy (which is the center-left), and goes further left from there.

I'm an American, specifically a Texan.
In my state I'd fucking welcome a European style Christian Democrat party at this point, and that says alot.

[Claorica]

Being European, by the norms I'm used to, liberalism counts as center-right.

The left begins with social democracy (which is the center-left), and goes further left from there.

I'm an American, specifically a Texan.
In my state I'd fucking welcome a European style Christian Democrat party at this point, and that says alot.

Well when one side is neocon dictatorship and the otherside can't decide if it wants to go full socialist or also be a neocon dictatorship (modern "liberalism" is progressivism had has little in common with classic liberalism), a CD party might stabilize things in the US.

[Ceannairceach]

Liberalism isn't leftist. It's a fact. Don't mistake the norms of US politics for the norms of the world. It's the only country in which a liberal would be called a leftist.

And no, don't you hind behind that trope. Either provide an alternative source regarding the percentage of the economy that is privatized in VZ or admit you're wrong.

No, he/she's right. Fox is not a realiable source for much of anything.

Even an unreliable source can report reliable information. I'm still waiting for evidence it's wrong.

[Arlenton]

It seems like it is. Communism at least.

[The Persian Socialist Federation]

No, he/she's right. Fox is not a realiable source for much of anything.

Even an unreliable source can report reliable information. I'm still waiting for evidence it's wrong.

Here's a Washington Post article saying the same thing: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... venezuela/
It took five seconds to google this people

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And rightfully so

not really, if the soviets had kicked off WW2(hell, they had there own plans and were also responsible for dividing Poland) it would have been the other way around.

People just want to hear what they want to hear...

No, fascism is just a bad ideology to have

Decent philosophical backing? It is insanity to believe that we are all equal or that we should all be given according to our need. It is insanity to want to abolish money, which has been and always will be the best way to trade goods.

The core ideals of socialism are based on theft. How can you view any ideology which, in all aspects, is based on stealing people's property? You worked hard to build your company, but some lowlife suddenly comes to steal it away from you because he thinks all capitalists are that guy from the box of Monopoly?

Economics is where fascism and communism/socialism get interesting. You can really see their similarities, but the ideological reasoning backing the motivations is different. I don't agree that when Marx wrote about socialism he had theft in mind, he more likely had the thought, "sharing is caring."

The core of socialist (/communist, whatever) economics is not theft but unity, as Marx originally wrote it. He wanted to achieve a 'utopian' society by having people live in peace, which meant sharing with each other. When people give up their their share, they allow a distribution of wealth and promote equality around them. Modern communism has taken this idea and used it as a reason for why the government should have control over privatized industry, because who else is trustworthy enough to make sure that the wealth is distributed evenly? *note the sarcasm

Fascism is on a similar wavelength. They favored a little bit of capitalism (but Europeans have the tendency to kill anyone who wouldn't give them a good price on bread), so they opted for a corporate collaboration. On paper, private industries was separate from the government, but, in reality, the state held control over private industries. They dictated what was to be sold and what wasn't needed to glorify the nation (ie. if the state had a higher demand for purple shirts, all clothing companies would produce a higher supply of purple shirts). Everything is about the glory and honor of the nation.

The issue is that fascism does have one major bug, just as socialism does. Socialists expect their participants to be willing to give up some their little wealth to help other people when human beings aren't hardwired to be like that. We're selfish creatures and when we gain a little bit of power we're unwilling to give that up. This can be noted in Stalin (who was supposed to be the guiding hand of sorts after Lenin's death) who, instead of attempting to implement a true communist nation per his predecessor's wishes, decided to become a dictator.

Fascism's bug is that people are expected to be less than others. In any capitalist nation this is also a true statement, but, unlike capitalism, fascism doesn't allow growth. There is a hierarchy and you're expected to live all your days in the bracket that you were born in. If you were poor, you stay poor, and if you are wealthy, you stay wealthy. This wouldn't necessarily be that big of an issue, studies have shown that people are happier when they're poorer rather than wealthier, if you didn't combine this system of government with a racist ideology. When you do, well, I think we all know the results...

However, the question isn't about that, it's about perception. It's not about which one is better, or which one caused the least number of deaths.

This is all from an American point of view, so bare (bear? sp) with me:

When one hears the word communism, one instantly associates the word dictatorship with it. We remember the Cuban missile crisis, the Iron Wall, the flooding into Eastern Europe. All bad things.

With fascism, the word that comes to mind is Hitler, and, of course, his name drudges up loads of bad association. Do I even need to discuss it?

Socialism is the one that gets the most slack. We think of Europe and how successful they are with 'free' healthcare, a stable welfare system, and their education system is brilliant.

I think you're arguing this as a person who has a thorough understanding of both communism and fascism but not as an everyday Joe, you know? Most people think only about what they remembered from their History class, and, if they didn't take an advance course, their knowledge may be lacking. Plus humans always play the word association game, and, with Americans, it's definitely drilled into our heads that communism is bad, fascism is bad, and socialism is a'ight.

You're right on the last part lol, my civics/economics class literally had the question: "why is communism bad and capitalism good?" smh

The bolded is hands down a ANTIFA talking point.

It's just "Antifa." It's not an acronym.

Yes it is: Anti-Fascism/Fascists

And of course it is: Antifa draw heavily from socialists and anarchists, and thus have similar ideas regarding self defense. For what it's worth, I don't support Antifa because their image is too tainted to save, though I am sympathetic to their cause and goals. Anyone who punches fascists and doesn't apologize for it is A-OK in my book.

Pretty much the same here

OP, what world are you living in where Socialism and Communism isn't frowned upon? Where students aren't indoctrinated in state funded schools to loath socialism as a system of constant famine, death squads, gulags and cults of personality? Where so much as calling yourself a Socialist wouldn't give you confused or ugly looks?

I swear to God, 90% of the time these threads are propped up on a ridiculously distorted view of reality that comes from their interactions with online communities.

just as they are indoctrinated about Fascism, yeah...being misunderstood bites.

Misunderstanding of what about Fascism? It teaches extreme nationalism to the point of killing people who aren't like you and forced assimilation "for the good of the nation"

It's essentially a group of economically far-right anarchists in suits.

This made me laugh

Islamic theocratic states.

Yeah....ok /s

Yes, and I agree. I never said otherwise.

My problem is your insistence that this is somehow an unmalleable definition, and that anything which does not fit its criteria to the letter is inherently not true Socialism.

A Scotsman cannot be a Scotsman if they're not from Scotland, no matter how Scottish they act. If it doesn't follow the principle of Worker ownership of the means of production, it is not socialist, end of discussion.

Thank you! I hate when people hurl the "no true scotsman" mess like it's the best thing since the discovery of fire!

No, he/she's right. Fox is not a realiable source for much of anything.

Even an unreliable source can report reliable information. I'm still waiting for evidence it's wrong.

Hm, you have a point

[Nulla Bellum]

Because the false dichotomy of left vs. right instead of capitalist vs. statist keeps the categories confused.

Implying capitalism is not the system by which most statists function and advocate. Good joke.

It isn't pure capitalism if it's regulated.

[Ceannairceach]

Implying capitalism is not the system by which most statists function and advocate. Good joke.

It isn't pure capitalism if it's regulated.

Then "pure capitalism" has never existed. Regulation has always existed in capitalist systems, as capitalism has always existed alongside states.

[Nulla Bellum]

It isn't pure capitalism if it's regulated.

Then "pure capitalism" has never existed. Regulation has always existed in capitalist systems, as capitalism has always existed alongside states.

I don't think you'll find any market that became more free with more regulation of what can be sold and who can sell it. Capitalism is the opposite of statism.

[Ceannairceach]

Then "pure capitalism" has never existed. Regulation has always existed in capitalist systems, as capitalism has always existed alongside states.

I don't think you'll find any market that became more free with more regulation of what can be sold and who can sell it. Capitalism is the opposite of statism.

Your apparent confusion comes from the idea you hold that capitalism is equatable to a free market. That's a false assumption. Capitalism benefits from a free market, but by no means requires it. Capitalism has never existed without statism, and likely cannot.

[Kubra]

Who the hell do you consider the "left," then? You just listed nearly every leftist ideology.

That's also false. More than 70% of VZ's economy is privately owned. That's a fact that is easily discernible.

Liberalism and the Center-Left are a thing, y'know. Quite the massive thing, I might add.

Most of Venezuela's GDP comes from its oil industry, which is state-owned. Nevermind the many other state-owned sectors.

Where are you getting the notion that it's largely privatized?

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/171.htm
"Venezuela’s oil revenues account for about 95 per cent of export earnings. The oil and gas sector is around 25 per cent of gross domestic product."
put simply, export revenue=/=total GDP. Economic activity is internal before it is external. Both numbers are absurd and indicate overreliance, make no mistake, but let's not overstate the extent. We'll be like Bastiat stating the Roman economy was based off pillage and plunder, whilst forgetting that plebs were engaged in trade with each other.

http://cepr.net/blogs/the-americas-blog ... s-suggests
"Venezuela actually has, according to the latest statistics, 2.49 million public employees – including all levels of government. With a labor force of about 13.5 million, this is about 18.4 percent of the labor force."
A somewhat biased source, but from certified policy wonks. It's unclear if their source is entirely reliable, given that it's the venezuelan governments official census data, but given the subject matter I'd think they'd have a greater incentive to overreport rather than underreport public employment.

Contrast with China
https://www.export.gov/article?id=China ... nterprises
"SOEs, both central and local, account for 30 to 40 percent of total GDP and about 20 percent of China’s total employment."
That's within SOE's proper, mind you, employment in government services is not taken into account, which might bring total public sector employment into the 40%-50% range.

Of course, we should not therefore conclude that China is thriving because it has a greater amount of public sector employment and comes closer to socialism or whatever. We may point out that Chinese SOE's are not almost entirely revolving around oil and natural gas. SOE's control the majority of China's energy production, but less for the export market and more for keeping energy cheap for business's within china.

[Oil exporting People]

Considering Reverend King and his family were (and his family are still) conservative. No, I don't think they are continuing his mission. Especially considering 90% of them would call him a hateful bigot for holding the views that a baptist pastor does.

King, at the time of his assassination, was known to be consorting with militant Black Nationalist groups and was beginning to advocate for more radical measures, including making thinly veiled threats. Further, given his known associations with Communists, self-identification with Socialism and multiple affairs, that he was a conservative is an utterly absurd claim to make.

MLK was a socialist, who fought against America's unique brand of fascism, so I fail to see how it isn't relevant.

So you don't understand what Fascism is, I see.

[Oil exporting People]

OP

Simple: Fascism doesn't serve the interests of the elites. That in the American context most Liberals don't understand what Socialism is either increases this effect.

[Constantinopolis]

Simple: Fascism doesn't serve the interests of the elites.

LOL.

Every single time that fascism actually came to power, it was literally because the elites made a deal with the fascists in order to prevent socialism from coming to power. Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister by the King of Italy. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the conservative President Hindenburg. Franco led a conservative-fascist coalition in a civil war against communists, social democrats and anarchists.

Whatever fascism may be in theory, in practice it has been the last resort of desperate capitalists who see it as the only way to avoid a working-class revolution.

[Oil exporting People]

LOL.

Every single time that fascism actually came to power, it was literally because the elites made a deal with the fascists in order to prevent socialism from coming to power.

Whatever fascism may be in theory, in practice it has been the last resort of desperate capitalists who see it as the only way to avoid a working-class revolution.

The only example of that which you speak of was Italy, the remainder of Fascist (or National Socialist, etc) were in no danger of Socialist revolution. That Capitalists were willing to surrender control of the nation to Fascists, who in general recognized the basic need of private property and hierarchy, should come as no surprise.

[War Gears]

Every single time that fascism actually came to power, it was literally because the elites made a deal with the fascists in order to prevent socialism from coming to power.

The Free State of Fiume, which was the first fascist state to come into existence, certainly didn't come into existence because of that. Rather it had to do with nationalist and irredentist tensions.

OP

Simple: Fascism doesn't serve the interests of the elites.

It does though. It creates a new elite and entrenches them in the state, often with the collaboration of the older ones.

[Forsher]

Simple: Fascism doesn't serve the interests of the elites.

LOL.

Every single time that fascism actually came to power, it was literally because the elites made a deal with the fascists in order to prevent socialism from coming to power. Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister by the King of Italy. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the conservative President Hindenburg. Franco led a conservative-fascist coalition in a civil war against communists, social democrats and anarchists.

Whatever fascism may be in theory, in practice it has been the last resort of desperate capitalists who see it as the only way to avoid a working-class revolution.

Elite support for Hitler is generally thought to stem from the erroneous belief that they could keep him on side (see: Kerhaw's Hitler Myth). Whatever the theory of fascism that attracts elites to it, in practice fascists are perfectly happy doing their own thing and generally just co-opt things that elites also enjoy (Franco being an interesting illustration of this point).

I guess Oil Export here is arguing that it is the betrayal of elite expectations that causes fascism's worse reputation because the alternative is to believe that they hold communism to serve the interests of the elites which boggles my mind so I refuse to believe that possibility.

[Constantinopolis]

Whatever the theory of fascism that attracts elites to it,

Well, an ideology which says that some people are superior and others are inferior and the superior people need to be in charge, is generally going to be attractive to elites - certainly more so than any ideology which says that all people are equal.

(even if the elites did not originally agree that superiority/inferiority is based on nationality, race or bloodline, at least they agree with the idea that superiority/inferiority is something to be affirmed and defended)

[Novowarsawianka]

Simple: Fascism doesn't serve the interests of the elites.

LOL.

Every single time that fascism actually came to power, it was literally because the elites made a deal with the fascists in order to prevent socialism from coming to power. Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister by the King of Italy. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the conservative President Hindenburg. Franco led a conservative-fascist coalition in a civil war against communists, social democrats and anarchists.

Whatever fascism may be in theory, in practice it has been the last resort of desperate capitalists who see it as the only way to avoid a working-class revolution.

I will not defend siding with Fascism in general, but back then, I did make a lot of sense.

1. Experience with the Soviet Union
After having butchered the family of the Russian Emperor, any monarch had a reason to fear Communism comming to power, if not for their own power, then for their lives and their families. Further experience showed that intellectuals and wealthy farmers were also prime targets of such a revolution. The clergy, fearing the same fate as the Orthodox priests of Russia, also had reason enough to fear for their own lives.

2. The simple ideology of Communism
When you try to steal the property of people, then you really should expect them to do what is in their power to stop you.

3. Fascism was new and allying with it prevented a two front war within the nations
No one knew the extent of the evil of Fascism because it was no where in power, while Communism had left a mark already. Trying to make an alliance with them was a means to an end. In Italy and Germany, they had gained power of their own, with that said, the governments of that time would face not just the Communists but the Fascists too (and with pro-leftists factions like the Strasserites, and with, for instance, Mussolini's own past as a hardline socialist, a Fascist-Communist alliance was not that far fetched). Allying with the Communists was pointless due to that hostility already being said, so the try was made to make deals with the Fascists and even try to soften them. This avoided the planned nationalization in Germany which the Nazis planned, and made the republican anti-religious Mussolini less hostile to the church and crown.

4. The red scare
Much of Hitler's rise to power can be attributed to the civil war, started by the Communists. With such wars in Germany, Hungary, and of course the former Russian Empire, Communism was known for having a habbit of ruining society. It is not just those open conflicts, but terrorism as well. For instance, in 1925, the Bugarian Communist Party detonated a bomb in a church during a funeral service, killing around 150, and wounding around 500 people.


All in all, what do you, a person who openly claims to wanting to jail all capitalists, expect?
People were not as informed about things back then as they are now. Do you think regular people were aware that the Holocaust could happen? Sure, it was obvious that the Nazis were anti-semitic imbeciles, but sadly, anti-semitism was not unheard of at that time. We live in a rather peaceful and civilized society, but back then, pogroms were not so uncommon. In fact, even under Soviet control, there were incidents of anti-semitic crimes.
The sad part is that people were so uninformed that high ranking officials, were oblivious to the circumstances. The prime example would be Edmund Glaise-Horstenau, the man who first came to face with the Holocaust in Croatia, when he urged the German leadership to put an end to it, not realizing it to be a plan conducted by his own leadership.

So, there you have it, people chose the party they had little knowledge of, rather than the one the knew well would persecute and oppress them. But I hope we learned the lesson from the war, and that is never to side with any collectivistic lunatics.
And yeah, stop trying to put Fascism and Capitalism in the same basket. It was back then, and back then alone, to prevent Communism, just as allying with the Soviets was a one time thing to stop Fascism once it grew like out of control.

I am still a bit surprised at your own wondering on "why" people allied with others to prevent Socialism/Communism, when, again, you are the one who keeps talking about violent revolution. You do have to understand that, in western capitalism today, around 50-30% of people would lose more than they would gain from your revolution, and a large reminder of the rest would remain on a status quo. You are literally wanting to damage society to help a small portion of society. On top of that, you wish to do it via a war.
I am to assume you never came into close contact with anything related to war, especially civil war, in your life, right?

[Ceannairceach]

I am still a bit surprised at your own wondering on "why" people allied with others to prevent Socialism/Communism, when, again, you are the one who keeps talking about violent revolution. You do have to understand that, in western capitalism today, around 50-30% of people would lose more than they would gain from your revolution, and a large reminder of the rest would remain on a status quo. You are literally wanting to damage society to help a small portion of society. On top of that, you wish to do it via a war.
I am to assume you never came into close contact with anything related to war, especially civil war, in your life, right?

Absolute conjecture based only on your opinions. Socialism is about the masses over the minority who oppress them. We can argue that socialism does not succeed in its mission to do so, but your bias is showing quite hard with your presumption that a socialist revolution MUST be harmful

[Constantinopolis]

[snip]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it was a bad political move, from the capitalist point of view, to ally with fascism against communism. Obviously it was a good move and a good strategy, which had massive benefits for their side, both expected and unexpected (the Great Depression might have never ended without WW2, or ended much later, and in such a scenario it would have been plausible that a wave of communist revolutions may have swept across the industrialized world - so fascism, by starting WW2, may have provided a great unexpected benefit to capitalism).

Really, from the capitalist point of view, the whole fascist period ended with the best possible outcome: the fascists and the communists spent most of their resources fighting each other, liberal capitalism regained a major foothold in continental Europe (after being on the brink of total collapse in the 1930s), and the war ended the Great Depression and ushered in a period of great economic growth and expansion in the capitalist world. The communists did gain half of Europe as a result, but they lost any hope of a working class revolution in the West.

I pointed out that the capitalists sided with fascism in the 20s and 30s in response to Oil exporting People's claim that "Fascism doesn't serve the interests of the elites." The point is that fascism does serve the interests of the elites, and in fact it was precisely because fascism served the interests of the elites that it managed to come to power in most of the places where it did.

The elites, of course, had every reason to ally with fascism and it was a perfectly logical move. I don't criticize my enemies for using effective strategies to destroy me. It's the logical thing to do. If I were a capitalist, I'd support fascism too.

Now, if only the working class was also willing to do whatever it takes to destroy our capitalist enemies, then we'd be getting somewhere.

It makes sense for them to use fascism to crush us. It also makes sense for us to use revolution to overthrow them. They offer no quarter, and we should offer them none. Class war is war.

[Claorica]

[snip]

Now, if only the working class was also willing to do whatever it takes to destroy our capitalist enemies, then we'd be getting somewhere.

It makes sense for them to use fascism to crush us. It also makes sense for us to use revolution to overthrow them. They offer no quarter, and we should offer them none. Class war is war.

And this is why I teeter between not taking Leftists seriously and considering Pinochetan tactics and liberal application of the sedition acts to put you people in jail. For years I always thought the joke about Pinochet’s helicopters being self-defense was just a joke, but two of you are advocating violent revolution. And while I still prefer the idea of just shutting people who espouse your “revolutionary” ideas in insane asylums to just killing them, I can see why this jone/statement is being made when one of your leftist allies in this thread has made direct notion of wiping out the bourgeoisie. This type of rhetoric is warming me up to Falangism, Francoism, and Pinochetism.

[Constantinopolis]

Now, if only the working class was also willing to do whatever it takes to destroy our capitalist enemies, then we'd be getting somewhere.

It makes sense for them to use fascism to crush us. It also makes sense for us to use revolution to overthrow them. They offer no quarter, and we should offer them none. Class war is war.

And this is why I teeter between not taking Leftists seriously and considering Pinochetan tactics and liberal application of the sedition acts to put you people in jail. For years I always thought the joke about Pinochet’s helicopters being self-defense was just a joke, but two of you are advocating violent revolution. And while I still prefer the idea of just shutting people who espouse your “revolutionary” ideas in insane asylums to just killing them, I can see why this jone/statement is being made when one of your leftist allies in this thread has made direct notion of wiping out the bourgeoisie. This type of rhetoric is warming me up to Falangism, Francoism, and Pinochetism.

Are you a worker or a capitalist? If you are the latter, I can't blame you. If you are the former, then you are being foolish, and should join us instead.

I don't blame people for supporting a dictatorship that defends their class interests and being willing to use repression against the opposition. I only warn working class people (who are the great majority) not to support right-wing dictatorships, because they are directly opposed to our class interests. If you are a member of the working class (which, statistically speaking, you probably are), then come join the revolutionary left instead. We fight for your class interests, and - as you can see - we do not shy away from doing whatever it takes to defend them.