Communism and Fascism

[NeOmega]

Communist Ideology:

All are equal, each contributing what he can for the good of the state. The state is the only company, and it's purpose is to serve the people, not make money. Which becomes it's downfall.

Fascist Ideology:

Caste system. Know your place, and do not defy the law. Your leader knows better than you. It's strength leans on making a supermajority the priviliged. Fascism has no real downfall, except that the minority is squashed.

Communist reality:

Steals from the rich, to give to the poor. Poor become rich, and do not give back to the poor.

Fascist reality:

The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor.

Any style of government reality:

The little guy loses to the powerful.

Human reality:

Power corrupts.

Mussolini said Government + Corporation = Fascism.

[Jarvin]

The difference is that fascism admits to being violent and oppressive. Communism likes to pretend otherwise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

. If you just want women to give you babies, why have this sort of political indoctrination for women?

Because you have to get them believing that their role is to have as many babies as possible. So they don't buy into this crap about women's lib.

The facisst did think the enlighttenment was wrong, but it was wrong not becuase it overthrew old traditions: Edmund Burke thought the same thing, as do many conservatives, like George Will.

I think it is interesting you bring up Burke, because he is contrary to your point. Burke HATED the Enlightenment because it overthrew the old traditions. Burke's whole philosophy (and conservative philosophy) is the belief that traditions should not be case aside because they are the filtering of great thinking throughout the ages. In Reflections on the Revolution in France he talks about how the testing of ideas for the ones that work have led to what we call tradition. The revolution in France was wrong because it threw that old, proven thinking aside.

Gradual changes are ok, but wholesale rejection of tradition is definetly not.

Fascism was a modernist system,a radical and revolutionary one, and one that did not justify itself simply on tradition.

It was also, in many ways, quite reactionary.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because you have to get them believing that their role is to have as many babies as possible. So they don't buy into this crap about women's lib.

If all you want to do is keep them were they always have been, why the hell would you indoctrinate them in the first place? There was no womens lib movement in Europe at that time, anymore than there was one in the US. Sorry, no dice on this point.

I think it is interesting you bring up Burke, because he is contrary to your point. Burke HATED the Enlightenment because it overthrew the old traditions. Burke's whole philosophy (and conservative philosophy) is the belief that traditions should not be case aside because they are the filtering of great thinking throughout the ages. In Reflections on the Revolution in France he talks about how the testing of ideas for the ones that work have led to what we call tradition. The revolution in France was wrong because it threw that old, proven thinking aside.

Gradual changes are ok, but wholesale rejection of tradition is definetly not.

Yes, thank you: gradual change OK, not revolution. Well, what the hell was facism but a revolutionary movement out to take out the decadent orders tha had taken hold in the decades after? Burke would have seen the fascist just as they saw themselves, as revolutionaries.

It was also, in many ways, quite reactionary.

Certainly the basic ideology of Fascism is muddled, which is why radical revolutionary reactionism (which is what they were) does no make for long-term policies. But as i said, even if they wanted women to be breeders for the state, that is not the same as "abrefoot and in the kitchen" idology of many others.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If all you want to do is keep them were they always have been, why the hell would you indoctrinate them in the first place? There was no womens lib movement in Europe at that time, anymore than there was one in the US. Sorry, no dice on this point.

Are you nuts?! There were huge women's lib movements in Weimar. That government, dominated by Socialist Parties, were very into increased rights and oppertunities for women. The Nazis had to drill out of womens' minds that this was good.

Yes, thank you: gradual change OK, not revolution. Well, what the hell was facism but a revolutionary movement out to take out the decadent orders tha had taken hold in the decades after? Burke would have seen the fascist just as they saw themselves, as revolutionaries.

A revolution to return to the ways of doing things would NOT be frowned on by Burke. Remember, he was a big proponent of the Glorious Revolution, because it returned England to its traditions.

But as i said, even if they wanted women to be breeders for the state, that is not the same as "abrefoot and in the kitchen" idology of many others.

It is very very similar.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A revolution to return to the ways of doing things would NOT be frowned on by Burke. Remember, he was a big proponent of the Glorious Revolution, because it returned England to its traditions.

Revolutions, by definition, don't go backwards but forwards. If it goes backwards, it's a restoration.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Revolutions, by definition, don't go backwards but forwards. If it goes backwards, it's a restoration.

Restorative revolution?

It's all semantics, but when reactionaries revolt, Burke wouldn't mind (ie, the counter-revolution).

[GePap]

But its not a counter revolution: the Fascist seek to destroy all semblages of democratic institutions that had been built up. That's not restorative, thats radical and totalitarian. Would Burke approve of that? Most certainly not.

Again, and for the hundreath time: Fasicst are radical revolutionaries, not just run of the mill reactionaries. HUGE difference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Would Burke approve of that? Most certainly not.

No, but because it was TOO reactionary. As you said democratic institutions had been built up. A progressive revolution would have included more democracy, not less.

They may have been radical revolutionaries in some aspects, but in many aspects they were reactionaries.

[Lazerus]

Communism, ultra liberal to the extent your jailed for mentioning other types of government