All Hail the Glorious People's Revolution in Vietnam!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


The problem with this, Blackcat, is that most commies today say they also favor democracy. So what is a democratic commie?

A socialist?

A communist and a socialist.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is why I call fascism a form of leftist government.

That's because you have no clue what Fascism actually is. Nationalism is not a leftist trait.

Imran, then two countries can be identical in economic and social structure, one being labelled extreme right wing, the other extreme left wing, based solely on their "nationalism?"

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Fascism isn't an economic ideology. They're into promoting family, the military and the nation, as well as destroying individualism and perceived deviance.

That's pretty much what Imran said. Again, two countries can have identical economic and social structures and one be labelled left wing and the other right wing depending primarily on their attitudes on nationalism, etc.? That is what you are saying.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Bosh

Well there is fascist-style Corporatism, which is vaguely similar to Asian Tiger-style economics (ie government economic intervention in a dedicedly un-leftist manner).

What does this mean, exactly?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Exactly, because being on the left means freedom for those who have been oppressed. That's why we don't equate small government with freedom.

Finally we have someone who actually seems to agree with my original post. As one imposes more and more controls on the economy to reduce the natural abuses of a free market system, one moves to the "left." One also move "up" on the authoritarian axis. The social axis also moves "left" as net freedoms of the individual are increased.

Now none of this speaks of primacy of the state, family, etc., or about racism (err nationalism). I can argue that as one moves to the left and imposes more control over the economy, one de-emphasizes individuality. So individuality is part of the same access as economic freedom.

The primacy of the state concept is wedded in the authoritarian access. No one can doubt that communism, in all its actuall forms, does not transform into authoritarian states.

Finally, family is allegedly emphasized in fascism and de-emphasized in socialism. However, this is because the family imposes an independent power block to an authoritarian state.

Nationalism is a form of racism, and seems to be inherent in most peoples regardless of other politics. Take a look, for example, at what is going on in Communist China vis-a-vis Japan.

In sum, I submit that fascism in practice and socialism in practice are very similar. They both are highly interventionist into the economy for the betterment of the common folk even though their rhetoric may be "different." Both de-emphasize individuality in favor of the state, etc., etc.

The bottom line, as one imposes more and more controls on the economy for the benefit of the whole, one moves left, not right. Fascism in not to the right of a free market economy, it is to the left.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr. Fun, you think of capitalism is private control over people while I think of capitalism as a result of free markets. Regardless, you would agree as we impose more government controls on a free market to reduce the abuse of power by the wealthy, one moves to the left, not to the right.

Capitalism is investors having control of the means of production. A free market is not limited to capitalism. My brand of socialism, for example, is free market because the non-essential industries are owned by co-ops that work like capitalist corporations except that the employees, instead of investors, pick the board of directors. hence, that is why I call myself a Liberal Socialist (liberal in the classical sense of being pro-free market).

[Spiffor]

Ned, I'm afraid to say you are completely off the mark. If you are comparing the totalitarian regimes of the soviet bloc with the totalitarian nazi regime, I'd agree that they were similar in practice, save for economics (that would be the totalitarian part).
If you want to compare the totalitarian regimes of the soviet bloc with non-totalitarian fascisms (such as Franco's Spain), know that they were completely different 8hint: in one case, the totalitarian aspect was lacking).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
I can argue that as one moves to the left and imposes more control over the economy, one de-emphasizes individuality. So individuality is part of the same access as economic freedom.

Now you have stopped using the word freedom and transplanted the word individuality in it's place. Economic freedom (individuality) /= freedom from control.

[Ned]

Spiffor, yes there are differences. But consider the starting point:

Extreme right wing economics is the completely free market (max individualism).

As one imposes more controls, one moves left!

Now, if you say that the controls are their to benefit a few, a class, such as in fuedalism, and not the whole, then I would simply like to point out both Nazism and Communism are one-party states where the party members, particularly in Communism, are in control and actually are an aristocracy.

But still, both forms impose controls on the economy that limit individual freedoms and for this reason all, aristocracy, fascism and communism are to the left of a free market economy.

[Kidlicious]

Again Ned, you are ignoring the point. Being left wing means advocating freedom for oppressed people. If you have to control the economy to get that freedom you are reducing control over those people, not increasing it. If you do not really want to increase freedom for the oppressed people then you are not really left wing.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
But still, both forms impose controls on the economy that limit individual freedoms

A restricted market doesn't mean that the people are necessarily less free. What has the free market to do with the way you punish criminals. What has the free market to do with the freedom of being a homosexual, of holding subversive ideas, of believing in whatever God you want? What has the free market to do with being free from material need, or from society-grounded coercion?

for this reason all, aristocracy, fascism and communism are to the left of a free market economy.

And so is any ideology that is not libertarianism. Even the US is to the left of a free market economy, considering that there are regulations and taxes. You can bunch up Republicans in your list, along with the aristocrats, fascists and communists. They're all the same really

[Kidlicious]

This is why I don't like the two axis spectrum. Freedom is control. Thinking of freedom as being the abscence of control is not realistic. Control is necessary for society to function.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Control is necessary for society to function.

And which is why Libertarians are morons.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
That's pretty much what Imran said. Again, two countries can have identical economic and social structures and one be labelled left wing and the other right wing depending primarily on their attitudes on nationalism, etc.? That is what you are saying.

Fascist regimes do not have identical economic structures to communist regimes, Ned. They just don't. Fascists are economic pragmatists who will happily enter into cosy relationships with private companies, as Che pointed out. They're also quite prepared to use certain socialist policies.

Fascists don't think that people are defined by their economic circumstances, unlike communists and capitalists. For fascists, nation and/or race is the all-important factor. You, as a capitalist, have difficulty understanding such a view, which is why you're making such a big deal over this, and acting as if nationalism is some insignificant detail. To you, if their economies are the same, then the two countries are, for all intents and purposes, the same. To a fascist, this is simply not the case. They would view the economic arrangements as irrelevent and concentrate purely on nationality and race.

So, yes, a fascist state and a communist state can have the similar economic arrangements, although it is exceedingly unlikely. But they have completely different reasons for having them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


Fascist regimes do not have identical economic structures to communist regimes, Ned. They just don't. Fascists are economic pragmatists who will happily enter into cosy relationships with private companies, as Che pointed out. They're also quite prepared to use certain socialist policies.

Fascists don't think that people are defined by their economic circumstances, unlike communists and capitalists. For fascists, nation and/or race is the all-important factor. You, as a capitalist, have difficulty understanding such a view, which is why you're making such a big deal over this, and acting as if nationalism is some insignificant detail. To you, if their economies are the same, then the two countries are, for all intents and purposes, the same. To a fascist, this is simply not the case. They would view the economic arrangements as irrelevent and concentrate purely on nationality and race.

So, yes, a fascist state and a communist state can have the similar economic arrangements, although it is exceedingly unlikely. But they have completely different reasons for having them.

We are reduced then to what Imran said: fascism is about nationalism and is not about specifics of economic or social structures.

Accepting this principle, then, most, if not all, prior communist regimes are fascist because they all have been nationalist to one extent or another. Think of Ho Chi Minh, for example. He was a nationalist. Everyone says so.

Surely Stalin was a nationalist. He transformed WWII into the great patriotic war.

Ditto Mao. Look at China today. They are united in their hatred of the Japanese. They are very aware of being Chinese, and not just commies.

I just don't buy it.

I think Kid and I are both more right in that when you begin restraining capitilism for the benefit of the common man, you are moving LEFT. The fascist states we knew did almost the same thing as the modern European socialist states in terms of their control of the economy for the common good -- I say almost, because fascism eliminated union power just as do communist states, by directly controling wages.

Now Spiffor wants to focus on individual liberty and ignore economic liberty. These are somewhat independent, in my view. One can have very conservative social values, for example, in communist states. Look at China, for example.

Mr. Fun wants to focus on the relationship of the common man to business. I do too. As one regulates business, and provides a safety net, one moves to the left because he is enhancing the economic liberty of the common man. But Nazi Germany certainly did this and thus was a leftist goverment, not a rightist government.