Fascism vs Socialism?

[manifold]

...we're now incorrectly describing fascism as "socialist" in nature?

This comment by Agna got me thinking.

Certainly I can see how fascism and socialism differ in theory. In fact theoretically, they differ quite significantly. However, in practice it seems they end up looking very much alike: All power (and control of resources and means of production) in the hands of a very few. Far fewer even than with capitalism.

Discuss.

 

[AllieBaba]

No discussion necessary. You're right. A socialist regime will end up as a fascist one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False first premise. Start over.

 

[PixieStix]

It is kind of like an unholy trinity

Facism+marxism=Obamunism

all of these have their foundational roots in socialism, without which they would not have been able to build

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You can't rightfully lump Capitalism in with Fascism and Socialism. To that I mean, the latter deal with government control whereas the former does not.

At this point in time, those yelling we have a socialist wannabe government with President Obama are incorrect. What is being promoted, is a furtherance of fascist control. Notice I said furtherance. As ugly as it is, it didn't start with President Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pixie and Allie, you have not defined your terms. Until you do, your premise is unprovable.

Come on, pay attention, and step up.

 

[L.K.Eder]

cool, an -ism debate without facts!

 

[JakeStarkey]

cool, an -ism debate without facts!

Allie and Pixie are hoping, I think, that everyone else will not notice!

 

[Oddball]

Fascism vs Socialism?

Two aspects of the same authoritarian mindset.

In both systems, the individual is looked upon as a mere meat puppet means to the ends of the state.

Arguing over fly fishing for trout versus trolling for tuna is more intellectually stimulating.

 

[AllieBaba]

cool, an -ism debate without facts!

Allie and Pixie are hoping, I think, that everyone else will not notice!

Allie has, down through the years, posted the facts and argued this topic successfully ad nauseum. I grow weary of educating a new batch of retards every 3 months or so, so I don't bother.

 

[L.K.Eder]

cool, an -ism debate without facts!

Allie and Pixie are hoping, I think, that everyone else will not notice!

Allie has, down through the years, posted the facts and argued this topic successfully ad nauseum. I grow weary of educating a new batch of retards every 3 months or so, so I don't bother.

this one guy at the busy street corner is arguing his stuff "successfully" for years, too.
just by passing buy i can tell he is full of shit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Basic difference is this:

Socialism is a Utopian economic theory (similar to pure free market capitalism, in the sense that neither has ever really existed.)

Fascism is a form of government, that has unfortunately existed.

Any questions?

 

[Agnapostate]

This comment by Agna got me thinking.

Certainly I can see how fascism and socialism differ in theory. In fact theoretically, they differ quite significantly. However, in practice it seems they end up looking very much alike: All power (and control of resources and means of production) in the hands of a very few. Far fewer even than with capitalism.

Discuss.

That would be the case if we were to acknowledge Leninism and its derivatives (Stalinism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc.) as "socialist" in nature. However, since its origin as an identifiable political ideology, socialism has always placed emphasis on the public ownership of the means of production, with the American Heritage Dictionary defining socialism as "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." While the idea that terms and definitions change over time is obviously defensible, the idea that a term can legitimately describe a political and economic arrangement that is the precise opposite of its original nature stretches this concession far past its breaking point. And it seems readily apparent that your description of a political system with "[a]ll power (and control of resources and means of production) in the hands of a very few" is radically different from "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community."

As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, there has been mutual interest among the two major propaganda systems to have existed in recent times (that of the ruling class of the United States and that of the ruling class of the Soviet Union) in perpetuating the myth that Leninism and its derivatives are "socialist" in nature, the ruling class of the U.S. wishing to maintain strong ideological objections to socialism and the ruling class of the Soviet Union having wished to promote the myth that the political arrangements in that country were "collective" in nature. However, as I've noted previously, legitimate socialists have always objected to this mischaracterization and have predicted dire consequences for the fate of socialism if the USSR was disingenuously predicted as such, even as the Bolsheviks' power and prestige was increasing (which destroys the myth that these socialists were simply jumping off a sinking ship). For example, the anarcho-communist theorist Peter Kropotkin included this section in a 1920 letter to Lenin:

Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the arty,” that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution – the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization....If the present situation continues, the very word “socialism” will turn into a curse. This is what happened to the conception of “equality” in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

Now, I would describe Leninism as being similar to fascism in the sense that it's also oligarchical and reliant on heavily authoritarian methods of political organization, but the two ideologies are quite distinct in other significant ways, with private property having played a major role in the economic structure of Nazi Germany, for example. So even aside from the ideological conflicts in fascist and socialist theory (which I've described before and won't mention again here unless you request it), there are relatively significant conflicts between Leninism (which you've conceived as "socialism") and fascism.

 

[Soaring]

You most likely need to post your source before you get zapped by the admin. Agnapostate.

 

[Agnapostate]

The only external sources there were the American Heritage Dictionary and Kropotkin's letter to Lenin, both of which I mentioned.

 

[veritas]

I had a cat once named Kropotkin.

His code name was: Ippolitov-Ivanov

 

[Agnapostate]

let's hope there was no bestiality involved

 

[veritas]

none at all.

just russian sounding baby talk........

 

[edthecynic]

...we're now incorrectly describing fascism as "socialist" in nature?

This comment by Agna got me thinking.

Certainly I can see how fascism and socialism differ in theory. In fact theoretically, they differ quite significantly. However, in practice it seems they end up looking very much alike: All power (and control of resources and means of production) in the hands of a very few. Far fewer even than with capitalism.

Discuss.

Socialism says the means of production is controlled by ALL of society.
There can be no larger group than that!!!

 

[Ravi]

The prism through which the op sees the world smacks of absurdism...even quackism.