i am from a communist country though it has already changed lot.when i was a student,our history text books tell us that fascist is a style of capitalism.
I don’t believe that buttigliose is that much of a decent man. He called homosexuals sinners, which by the way is incorect even for a catholic, exposing a political position and not, as he would later say, simply a personal belief. How do I know this? Because he has tried unsuccessfully to eliminate homosexuality from the chart of non-descrimination.
As far as I see it what Buttiglione did is offending a minority, an act of intollerance that no politician can allow himself to do.
Speaking of zapatero I’m glad that there is finally a leader capable of incarnating the europe I always loved. The Europe which refutes violence,the europe of the universities, which tries to accept everyone for what they are in their fulness, which cares for democracy because it is indispensable if we want to be capable of dialoguing, and cares about dialoguing because critical thought is the fundament above which democracy is funded. I believe that if there is any hope for the west those are in the ideals which he incarnates not in the pharisaic christianity which Buttiglione and the italian political right (see Pera and Cardinal Ratzinger) wants to put forward in order to impose it on everyone.
Fascism is the exact oppisite of everything I believe in, and the fact you joined a fascist party makes me sick to my stomach “My Real Name”.
Good to meet you too, Username. Keep in mind, though that as a member of a comfortable capitalist republic, i can dream of many other political philosophies without having to account for their historical effects.
Iroel: “I don’t believe that buttigliose is that much of a decent man. He called homosexuals sinners, which by the way is incorect even for a catholic, exposing a political position and not, as he would later say, simply a personal belief. How do I know this? Because he has tried unsuccessfully to eliminate homosexuality from the chart of non-descrimination.”
I don’t know how you can say that loving the sinner and hating the sin is not Catholic teaching. From what I’ve heard of the politician in question, he wants equal rights for homosexuals, but not preferential treatment. Further, if you think Ratzinger and the Holy Office don’t know Catholic doctrine – I would say you don’t know Catholic doctrine.
Regards from across the pond,
my real name
Well I think you have misunderstood many points of my post, which is probably my fault.
First of all, by the catholic doctrine being a homosexual is not a sin, homosexual acts are.
Secondly, probably what buttiglione calls “preferential treatment” is what I would call giving equal
rights to homosexuals. And besides that I don’t know how he would have given them equal rights
by not including them in the chart of non-descrimination of the UE.
I don’t question Cardinal Ratzinger’s, or the Holy Office, knoweledge of the doctrine, what I question is his (Ratzinger’s)
use of it once they try to apply it to question. I’m appalled by the fact that he sustains Pera’s conviction of a war
of the civilties, his desire of a secular state which somehow will disclose the possibility for a return of the christ
in politics. A political agenda that moves toward the exclusion of the other rather than inclusion, a politics of isolation
and fear consolidated in the dogmas of a doctrine which in his opinion should be the root of our civilization even if
neither our culture nor the totality of its members accept.
Fascism is an extremely Authoritarian Capitalistic government and Communism is an extremely Authoritarian Socialist government.
That’s the big difference.
Don’t be fooled by the sterotypes, Fascism can be very socialist, it’s just a different blend of socialism. The word Nazi comes from the National Socialist German Workers’ party. Both Fascism and Communism value the collective over the individual, but Fascism tends to value the glory and greatest of the collective as Communism values the well-being of the collective.
It doesn’t matter what Hitler proclaimed to be. He wasn’t a socialist. He was a capitalist.
My defintion fo each still stands.
Bullshit.
There is no ‘government’ in communism! All countries that have called themselves communist were not, according to Marx’s theories anyhow.
Negatory, Hitler didn’t just claim to be socialist, he WAS socialist.
-Little men’s Nazi club.
-Young german women’s club.
-Nazi Union groups.
-Just about every other law Hitler passed.
You seem to think that there can be no blend between socialism and capitalism, that the two are mutally exclusive. Thats quite untrue, Hitler hated Marxism, but he didn’t hate nationistic socialism that served his purposes and but the economy in his hands
Face it, just about every fascist country had social programs. Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain and Peron’s Argentina all had welfare and other socialist programs. Oftentimes, they erected them where none had existed before.
In their denotations, they are absolutely different.
Fascism is a right-wing authoritarian political system of government which is mostly ran by a militia, from fasces (bundled around some sort of axe). It places the nation over the individual, extreme censorship, severe economic regimentation, and espouses racial superiority.
Whilst, Communism is a left-wing authoritarian political system of government which basically has “no state”, no private property, and no social classes. All property is owned by the COMMunity. The idea behind Communism was that for everyone to enjoy equally the economical and social benefits of…well…equality.
Even then, the term “Communism” is different from Fascism, for Communism has different ideas. According to Marx, communism is a “stage” that would be eventually reached once we pass the “stage” of capitalism and socialism.
Then again, they are basically the same in dicatorialness. I would like to make the analogy that when an object is extremely cold, and you touch it, it is hot. Basically, extreme ends always meet. Either it be something too cold, or too hot.
Good Post.
I guess you could say that both extremes meet, if you go by a purely a “left to right” line. But I would argue that if you go by a 2d scale (Includes up and down along with left and right) then the extremes tend to be quite different.
Fascism and Communism are almost the same thing, even though one is touted as “right-wing” and one “left-wing”. Both subordinate the individual’s welfare and liberty to the welfare and liberty of something else. One being called the “greater good of society” and the other being called the “glory and strength of the nation”, both actually meaning the good of a heavily armed aristocracy that generally rapes and pillages the productive classes.
Neither have much to do with Capitalism, because neither is particularly keen on the voluntary exchange of goods and services and private industry. Both want to order the economy around, and by extension that means ordering people around, which means that people are far from free or classless.
I was talking about governments that have actually existed. I know Marx’s form of communism has never been truly implemented, but that doesn’t matter.
All states that have considered themselves Communist have had governments.
And Username, Hitler’s form of fascism was not socialist. You accuse me of thinking in black and white but it is you who is doing so. I know Hitler had certain left-leaning policies, but that doesn’t make him a socialist. I never said he was a pure capitalist. he wasn’t a pure capitalist. But his policies were more capitalist than socialist.
All forms of Fascism have been on the “right” side of the political spectrum. Just as all forms of communism have been on the “left” side of the political spectrum.
Most (if not all) of those states don’t even consider themselves a Communist country, they call themselves a Marxist state or Socialist state. It’s us that brand them Communist because they are ran by the communist parties that originally had intentions to release power to the people in and create a Communist state.
Matters on what you consider socialist. I’m going by the widely accepted definition that socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Going by the above definition, Hitler’s Germany was almost nothing but socialist. Of course he wasn’t purely socialist or purely capitalist, both of those systems haven’t been seen in their purest form. Hitler liked to have nationalized factories (along with everything else nationalized, but he allowed them to operate free from central planning and other economic restrains.
Unless you have any proof or examples to provide along with your claims, we are going nowhere.
Fascism doesn’t fit on either side of a “left to right” spectrum, as it can swing both ways. The best way to classify Fascism would be to have a 2d scale where up, down, left, and right were shown, where Fascism would fit into the “authortarian” category (I forget if it’s up or down).
I think a lot of people here are under a very common misapprehension - namely, that the “left-right” distinction in politics is useful.
http://www.politicalcompass.org
Have a look at this - the basic premise is that left-right works pretty well as an economic measurement (where you have Hitler pretty well in the center) but to measure someone’s politics really well we must add another axis to make a graph or a map rather than a simple line - then you measure the libertarian-authoritarian score and you find that there are no important differences between Hitler and Stalin*, but it’s not because “the ends meet.”
My score:
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54
*…and between Arafat and Sharon…
Thanks zen, you expressed my point perfectly.
My score:
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
I would like to chime in and argue that economic freedom is a precondition for any other type of freedom.
Economic freedom means that you own the products of your labor. You own the results of your efforts and therefore you own your time. Whatever portion of your wealth is owned by someone else is the same as a portion of your time and effort being owned by someone else, in short a portion of your life being owned by someone else. People who own themselves are free. People who do not own themselves are slaves. People who only own part of their productivity only own part of their lives.
Therefore, while it is possible to have governments who are authoritarian in many matters but allow you to keep your time and effort, it is impossible to have a government that is libertarian but doesn’t allow you to own your time and effort. In socialism you are owned by the state.
The authoritarian capitalist/socialist quadrants of the graph make sense. The libertarian socialist quadrant of the graph does not. A more accurate graph should be a triangle extending from libertarian capitalist to authoritarian capitalist to authoritarian socialist and back again.
Free Socialism my friend.
It is sufficient marx’s alienation theory to dismantle your semplicistic neo-liberal analysis of economy…
www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Marx/MARXW3.HTML
Anyway fun fact about me:
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79