Prime Minister Dotcom?

[oldrider]

Nothing in fact, mainly because of the people that get involved!

While the theoretical divergences are massive, what are the real life differences in communism vs. fascism?

Not too much in practice to date.

Why?

Because no socialist system in real life has ever actually resembled socialism as it exists in theory. There has never been a socialist government without either a solitary leader with total power or a small oligarchy of rulers. The social classes were never eliminated. The resources did not properly distribute. People went hungry.

The theory behind socialism does not recognize the full concept of what “need” is to the majority of human beings. One thing that many human beings need is autonomy and freedom. Whereas in theory, no social classes would mean that people could make their own choices, in real “socialistic” states, people have been educated according to what the state considered their gifts and been placed in jobs accordingly, whether or not it was what they wanted or truly excelled at.

Furthermore, the abolition of religion and property is a restriction of individual expression, in line with fascistic ideals—though in a fascist economy, the two would simply be regulated.

This is why it is impossible to distinguish a real life difference between countries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Both operated most closely in line with fascist ideals and political structures, despite the fact that the Soviet Union went under the label of socialist and bitterly opposed its competing fascist state, Nazi Germany.

[rustyrobot]

While the theoretical divergences are massive, what are the real life differences in communism vs. fascism?

The tragic irony being that the fascists are usually at least upfront about what they are doing.

[Banditbandit]

Nothing in fact, mainly because of the people that get involved!

(Massive deletion)

This is why it is impossible to distinguish a real life difference between countries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Both operated most closely in line with fascist ideals and political structures, despite the fact that the Soviet Union went under the label of socialist and bitterly opposed its competing fascist state, Nazi Germany.

You are confusing Totalitarianism with Communism and Fascism and you are confusing Socialism with Communism ..

I agree with most of what you say about the realities of so-called communist countries ... they have never lined up with the theory ...

First off all, Communism is a step in the path - which goes from a Capitalist state, to a Socialist State, to a Communist State to the withering away of the state ... and the establishment of what Marx, unfortunately, called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat - which is best seen in contemporary terms as a consensus-based Anarchy. (Historic Materialism has been proved wrong, even if the hard line Marxists do not accept that. If people thought about it, Historic Materialism was flawed at the start.)

Fascism on the other hand, is an end in itself ...

As above, Socialism is an interim form of state between Capitalism and Communism, which is itself only an interim form of state ...

Fascism aims to establish a totalitarian state ... Marx's theory aims to establish a consensus-based Anarchy ... the reality, as you suggest, has been somewhat different.

Fascism has a strong focus on nationalism and the rebuilding of the state, usually under a strong leader ... the Marxist dialectic has (or had) a strong focus on internationalism, emphasising the links between workers across the world ...

Fascism emphasises the need to subjugate the individual to the state - the Marxist Dialectic emphasises the freedom of the individual from Capitalist control, and eventually abolishes the "state" in favour of the consensus-based Anarchy .. In such a society there would be no "state" to force people to learn for jobs they did not want ...

Now, before you all hit the roof - I do not subscribe to the Marxist Dialectic - I certainly subscribe to large parts of the Marxian analysis of the social conditions we live under - But I strongly disagree with the solutions offered by the Marxist Dialectic ... and largely because. as you point out, NONE of them have succeeded - they are all abject failures .. and for all the reasons you point out .. and others ...

But mainly because Power corrupts, or Power attracts the corruptible ... and until a society arrives at the consensus-based Anarchy there are always positions of power - and corruptible people hold those positions ... or become corrupted by them ... and history does prove that people do not give up power .. they have to be forced into it ...

[MisterD]

Communist dialectic?

[mashman]

Interesting

But mainly because Power corrupts, or Power attracts the corruptible ... and until a society arrives at the consensus-based Anarchy there are always positions of power - and corruptible people hold those positions ... or become corrupted by them ... and history does prove that people do not give up power .. they have to be forced into it ...

So Prof... or is it Dr... What is the failure of the corrupt? Why does that corruption fail society?

[ellipsis]

...a Marxist govt would be just what this sad political environment we have here needs...would be worth turning on the TV for the news then...

[Banditbandit]

So Prof... or is it Dr... What is the failure of the corrupt? Why does that corruption fail society?

It's ME .. titles are elitist bullshit - especially in academia ... which is full of bullshit artists ...

Are you asking theoretical or practical questions ?

[Banditbandit]

...a Marxist govt would be just what this sad political environment we have here needs...would be worth turning on the TV for the news then...

Hey .. our system is at least amusing ... a Marxist Government would be so fucking earnest ... Have you ever met a Marxist with a sense of humour ??? I haven't ..

[mashman]

It's ME .. titles are elitist bullshit - especially in academia ... which is full of bullshit artists ...

Are you asking theoretical or practical questions ?

I meant nothing by it... wouldn't have read anything into it either, Dr, CEO, Captain, Lord, Sensei etc... meh. I do take your point though.

Dealers choice... but both would be nice. Man gotta learn n all that.

[Banditbandit]

So Prof... or is it Dr... What is the failure of the corrupt? Why does that corruption fail society?

I meant nothing by it... wouldn't have read anything into it either, Dr, CEO, Captain, Lord, Sensei etc... meh. I do take your point though.

Dealers choice... but both would be nice. Man gotta learn n all that.

OK .. from a practical point of view here's my non-sectarian view (means I believe it applies to al politicos )

I find people who want to be in charge to be pretty arrogant to start with - who do they think they are to make decisions which affect all our lives? Do they seriously think they know best ?? Are they in a privileged position to know what is the right thing for all of us? How arrogant ...

Secondly, there are major forces acting in our society, such as the capitalist lobbies (Business Round Table being one) and the perceived need to have a "thriving economy" or to "make progress". Neither of these are based on anything other than the need to selll more consumer goods, or the created needs of the business sector

These sectors are well practised at capturing politicos ... one way o do this is to convince people (voters) that those are real needs (look at how many here subscribe to those ideas, generated by the propaganda system) and then if the politics do not do what these sectorial interests want, they convince the voters to boot them out - so the politicos cave in to these power groups because they want to hang on to power and privilege.

There's another group that having got into power the politics become addicted to getting things to happen their way ... anything to stay in power ... including working with Winnie Peters, attacking the value of Key's house ... promising tax cuts ... all the shit we see them do ..

And then there's the real fuckers, like Stalin and Hitler, who are just plain nasty and enforce their will with two choices - do what I say or die

And there are the real corrupted ones, like Ferdinand Marcos, who are in it for the money ..

They're human beings .. which, in the end, is a pretty nasty bred of animal ... greedy and murderous ...

[Quasievil]

I find people who want to be in charge to be pretty arrogant to start with - who do they think they are to make decisions which affect all our lives? Do they seriously think they know best ?? Are they in a privileged position to know what is the right thing for all of us? How arrogant ...

They possibly think they are "the people" voted in by you???????

[Banditbandit]

They possibly think they are "the people" voted in by you???????

Jeez .. the only ones who ever got into power that I voted for was Roger Douglas and his mates - and I regretted it by the end of the first week ... what a fuck up that was ... (I've NEVER voted Labour since ...)

[Quasievil]

Jeez .. the only ones who ever got into power that I voted for was Roger Douglas and his mates - and I regretted it by the end of the first week ... what a fuck up that was ... (I've NEVER voted Labour since ...)

I agree, I saw an interesting perspective on TV last night, albeit a repeat about Neo Liberisim it certainly had me thinking about politics.
Trying to find a political party that works for the good of people without hidden agendas is not a simple task, especially given the choice we currently have available.
I will vote for National this year........as usual, but I am concerned about the wealth gap increasing in NZ and the issues that arise out of it.

[BoristheBiter]

I agree, I saw an interesting perspective on TV last night, albeit a repeat about Neo Liberisim it certainly had me thinking about politics.
Trying to find a political party that works for the good of people without hidden agendas is not a simple task, especially given the choice we currently have available.
I will vote for National this year........as usual, but I am concerned about the wealth gap increasing in NZ and the issues that arise out of it.

The hardest thing is who will they need to get into power and what deals will need to be done.

What we vote for is not always what you get.
Look at the first term, going in they said they will do away with the Maori seats and look at changing MMP if we wanted it.
Maori seats are still there and the wording and choices of the referendum were written so the only choice was to vote to keep it.

[Banditbandit]

Why the fuck don't the silly fuckers - who agree about more things than this disagree on - fucking sit down and form a fucking grand coalition ???

Seems to be the obvious answer really ...

Then they would not need the smaller parties ever again ...

The only question then is the PM Silent T or the Wideboy Trader ???