Is there a difference between Socialism, Marxism and Fascism?

[Saint Peter]

Enough of Polical Naughty.

Bring back the Naughty that posts naked pics and talks like a sailor.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Enough of Polical Naughty.

Bring back the Naughty that posts naked pics and talks like a sailor.

Way to get her riled up.

 

[naughtycakes]

Enough of Polical Naughty.

Bring back the Naughty that posts naked pics and talks like a sailor.

Ahoy, Petey

I like to get my political thrash on, too. I am not just a naked-pic poster, hahaha.

But because I love you and you ask so nicely...

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/10/19-1625266133T.jpg

 

[naughtycakes]

Way to get her riled up.

Oh, please, you know I'm a total marshmellow for the right peeps.

ETA: And neither of you two voted in my poll, dammit!

I shoulda kept my boobies to maself!

 

[KingOrfeo]

What all these things have in common is a subset of the citizens believing they are smarter than liberty, objective law, and the marketplace in ordering some, or all, aspects of everyone else's life in order to make life better for everyone.

Communism, socialism, and facism ALL share the same root philosophy. They differ only in the degree and detail of the implementation of their agendas.

Michael Lind's analysis (post #41) is more persuasive: Objectivists and radical Libertarians have more in common with Marxists than with humanists -- they are rationalists, whose goal is to re-order society in line with a set theory. They differ from Marxists only in the values they assume at the outset -- to Objectivists, liberty trumps all other considerations; to Marxists, equality. Fascists differ from both, and from humanists, in being romantics. To fascists, will trumps everything else.

 

[KingOrfeo]

One of the key characteristics of fascism is the protection of private enterprise, business and commercial interests above all else.

No, it isn't. Neither in practice nor in theory.

 

[Saint Peter]

Way to get her riled up.

Make me write bad checks.

Ahoy, Petey

I like to get my political thrash on, too. I am not just a naked-pic poster, hahaha.

But because I love you and you ask so nicely...

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/10/19-1625266133T.jpg

Thanks! You can go back to roasting the wingnuts now.

 

[naughtycakes]

No, it isn't. Neither in practice nor in theory.

Well, I've read several of the pieces you've cited here, and though I may not be as well-read in the subject as you are, I clearly remember reading from several sources that fascist regimes protect industrial and business interests above individual rights. This is one of the defining characteristics of fascism, according to many sources. Mussolini did it in Italy, Franco did it in Spain, Pinochet did it in Chile.

Thanks! You can go back to roasting the wingnuts now.

Excellent, though I think I may have gotten my fill for now.

 

[bluntforcemama]

I really want that corn dog.

 

[RobDownSouth]

rlmao

The home of Segregation. I get the feeling at times that Throb would love to go back to that old-time Democratic South...

He hates gays so much that he goes crazy every time you mention them.

You're projecting again, AJ.

 

[naughtycakes]

I really want that corn dog.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m245/mccallkr/corndog.jpg

 

[bluntforcemama]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m245/mccallkr/corndog.jpg

Yesterday, at a strawberry festival, someone was selling foot-long corn dogs. I almost succumbed. If fair food involves fascism, I'm all for it.

 

[naughtycakes]

Yesterday, at a strawberry festival, someone was selling foot-long corn dogs. I almost succumbed. If fair food involves fascism, I'm all for it.

I love fair food, too. The ultimate would be a chili-cheese corndog. Don't ask me how, but I would like it done.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well, I've read several of the pieces you've cited here, and though I may not be as well-read in the subject as you are, I clearly remember reading from several sources that fascist regimes protect industrial and business interests above individual rights.

Certainly, but not above the interests of the state. Fascist regimes have no respect for "property rights" in practice nor in theory. If a Nazi ministry had decided to nationalize a given industry without compensation to the owners, it would have done so; the owners would have had not recourse to the courts.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Certainly, but not above the interests of the state. Fascist regimes have no respect for "property rights" in practice nor in theory. If a Nazi ministry had decided to nationalize a given industry without compensation to the owners, it would have done so; the owners would have had not recourse to the courts.

This seldom happened, however. That is why industrialists usually supported Hitler and Mussolini.

 

[naughtycakes]

Certainly, but not above the interests of the state. Fascist regimes have no respect for "property rights" in practice nor in theory. If a Nazi ministry had decided to nationalize a given industry without compensation to the owners, it would have done so; the owners would have had not recourse to the courts.

Again, I'm not sure that Nazis qualified as fascists, though I realize most here disagree with me, and you've said my definition is too narrow. Could make the same point with Italy or Spain at that time?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Again, I'm not sure that Nazis qualified as fascists, though I realize most here disagree with me, and you've said my definition is too narrow. Could make the same point with Italy or Spain at that time?

The economic policies of Fascist Italy remain controversial to this day, the controversy being over whether Mussolini really had an economic plan or not. However, it is clear that his state always intervened in the economy exactly as much as it felt expedient at the time, without letting consideration of capitalists' property rights get in the way.

WRT Franco's regime, the picture is more complicated:

Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional.[3][4][5][6][7] Stanley Payne, the preeminent scholar on fascism and Spain notes: "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist."[6][8] The consistent points in Franco's long rule included above all authoritarianism, nationalism and anti-Freemasonry; some authors also quote integralism.[9] All in all, Franco's regime showed a frontal rejection of Communism, Socialism and Anarchism.

In 1940, the "Vertical Trade Union" was created; it was inspired by the ideas of José Antonio Primo de Rivera[citation needed], who thought that class struggle would be ended by grouping together workers and owners according to corporative principles. It was the only legal trade union, and was under government control. Other trade unions were forbidden and strongly repressed along with political parties outside the Movimiento Nacional.

All cultural activities were subject to censorship, and many were plainly forbidden on various grounds (political or moral). Despite Franco being himself Galician, in accordance with his nationalist principles, only Spanish was recognized as an official language of the country, although millions of the country's citizens also had other native languages, such as Catalan, Basque or Galician. The use of these languages was discouraged, and some public uses were forbidden (books and films were freely produced and distributed in these languages). This cultural policy was initially very strict, but became relaxed with time, most notably after 1960. Still, even after 1960, all government, notarial, legal and commercial documents were drawn up exclusively in Spanish and any written in other languages were deemed null and void.

Although a self-proclaimed monarchist, Franco had no particular desire for a king[citation needed], due to his strained relations with the legitimate heir of the Crown, Don Juan de Borbón. Therefore, he left the throne vacant, with himself as de facto regent. In 1947 Franco proclaimed Spain a monarchy, through the Ley de Sucesión en la Jefatura del Estado act, but did not designate a monarch. Instead, he set the basis for his succession. This gesture was largely done to appease monarchist factions within the Movimiento. He wore the uniform of a captain general (a rank traditionally reserved for the King), resided in the royal Pardo Palace, appropriated the kingly privilege of walking beneath a canopy, and his portrait appeared on most Spanish coins. Indeed, although his formal titles were Jefe del Estado (Head of State) and Generalísimo de los Ejércitos Españoles (Generalissimo of the Spanish Armed Forces), he was referred to as Caudillo de España por la gracia de Dios, (by the Grace of God, the Leader of Spain). Por la Gracia de Dios is a technical, legal formulation which states sovereign dignity in absolute monarchies, and had only been used by monarchs before Franco used it himself.

As John J. Reilly, reviewing Thomas Eatwell, puts it, "Franco’s Spain was not fascist because Franco was not an artist, but a cop (or, as they used to say in my old high school, a “Prefect of Discipline”)." The same applies to Pinochet.

 

[Ishmael]

Michael Lind's analysis (post #41) is more persuasive: Objectivists and radical Libertarians have more in common with Marxists than with humanists -- they are rationalists, whose goal is to re-order society in line with a set theory. They differ from Marxists only in the values they assume at the outset -- to Objectivists, liberty trumps all other considerations; to Marxists, equality. Fascists differ from both, and from humanists, in being romantics. To fascists, will trumps everything else.

You're a fucking idiot posing as someone that actually has a brain and uses it. BTW, you don't and you can't. Your posting record speaks for itself. You don't even know what the root philosophy is of the major 'isms' so you quote some new age bullshit written by someone that either doesn't know either, or does and is trying to blow smoke up your ass. Obviously you're so fucking ignorant that he was successful.

You're the poster child in the argument for post-partum abortion.

Ishmael

 

[The_Trouvere]

You're a fucking idiot posing as someone that actually has a brain and uses it. BTW, you don't and you can't. Your posting record speaks for itself. You don't even know what the root philosophy is of the major 'isms' so you quote some new age bullshit written by someone that either doesn't know either, or does and is trying to blow smoke up your ass. Obviously you're so fucking ignorant that he was successful.

You're the poster child in the argument for post-partum abortion.

Ishmael

You flame because you cannot refute. Unlike many of the wingnuts here you can write in complete sentences, but you rarely indicate much of anything in the way of reading and understanding.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You don't even know what the root philosophy is of the major 'isms' so you quote some new age bullshit written by someone that either doesn't know either, or does and is trying to blow smoke up your ass.

As noted, Bertrand Russell held the same view (WRT the philosophic roots of fascism and Marxism; Objectivism had not yet emerged at the time of his writing, or at any rate was not well-known). I've never yet heard Russell described as "new age bullshit." Nor Lind, before now.

Moderate libertarianism is humanist. Radical libertarianism/Objectivism is rationalist. J.S. Mill was more of a humanist than his rationalist Utilitarian predecessor Bentham, and he would have had very little patience with Ayn Rand.

 

[Sean]

You flame because you cannot refute. Unlike many of the wingnuts here you can write in complete sentences, but you rarely indicate much of anything in the way of reading and understanding.

AJ will have to put him on iggy now.

 

[MechaBlade]

What all these things have in common is a subset of the citizens believing they are smarter than liberty, objective law, and the marketplace in ordering some, or all, aspects of everyone else's life in order to make life better for everyone.

No, what Marxism and socialism have in common is that they believe in equality over the marketplace and over a man's right to the sweat of his brow.

You people are so busy identifying trees that you get lost in the Forest...

We're trying to identify the forest and you're telling us that the trees are really cacti.

Whatever you want to call it it fails besides capitalism.

Pure socialism and pure capitalism fail equally. Granted, pure socialism fails society while pure capitalism only fails the poor and middle class.

 

[naughtycakes]

Pure socialism and pure capitalism fail equally. Granted, pure socialism fails society while pure capitalism only fails the poor and middle class.

Tell that to Madoff's victims.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's been a mantra of the socialists since 1890's Germany...