Fascism, is Communism, Naziism & Socialism Are All Just Variations of Collectivism

a reply to: xuenchen

Because a moderate centrist individualist can't exist.

You have to be one extreme or the other?

Perhaps human beings are a collective? You can't escape it unless you are inhuman.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: toolgal462

you are wrong, communism calls for the abolishment of Government/State, classes, monetary value etc

You do this in every thread on communism. You clearly are defending it or don't understand why the "Texts" say what they do.

Of course the propaganda is made to sound flowery and utopian. Otherwise people would 't buy into it. It was and always will be propaganda designed to get people to put themselves in a state where they "Need" the government to maintain their lives.

Stop touting theoretical communism and missing the point. It s a system designed to take power. Every where it has been implemented, it resulted in millions of lives destroyed. Period.

It's evil, and the theoretical premise is nothing but a lure, and yet you keep defending it at every chance.

a reply to: xuenchen

We definitely have single party communist rule in this country. It's just that it's not the kind of communism that is in the worker's favor. We have price fixing of wages, products, and services. It's just that ALL the price fixing going on is done in the corporations favor using data analytics. What we have in this country is Corporate Communism (CC).

Public polices and laws are NEVER in the worker's favor. We are all slaves to the economic system. The economic system DOES NOT serve the worker.

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar

It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What DOES matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay. All the politic BS talk going on putting party before country is meaningless drivel. Money talks, everything Republican party sycophants post is pure BS.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: toolgal462

you are wrong, communism calls for the abolishment of Government/State, classes, monetary value etc

Is this country we are as about as far away from what is normally called communism than we can get and still have a government currency having any shred of value. As more and more money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands money becomes worthless.

Marx said laissez faire capitalism would always be followed by communism. This is because unfettered greed would result in the government's currency to collapsing to nothing in value. Once the government's currency becomes worthless people in the breadlines would demand MORE government not less. See you in the breadlines comrades!!

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: a325nt

It doesn't work with thieves.
It doesn't work with welfare cases.
It doesn't work with authoritarians.
It doesn't work with the sick.

It will never work with humanity. Humans are incompatible with communism.

What's funny is that it's the thieves and welfare cases and drug addicts that you currently look down upon who are going to come together and prove you wrong.

No... No they won't.
I didn't mention drug addicts, but more often than not they can be grouped in with welfare cases. People who chose not to work, rather than people who cannot work.
Know what happens to them when the welfare dries up?
They join the thieves.

Know what happens to thieves in a successful commune?
Their bodies get buried in the back 40.

The only path the US has to communism is the democrat battle cry- raise taxes on those left willing to work until working doesn't pay for food and housing anymore. Then all companies collapse and state control can take over.

At that point those unwilling to work won't be given a choice anymore. There's no room for dead weight in a communist nation.

green is red!
up is down!
anything can mean whatever you want it to because this is the internet and you don't need to actually study or have any knowledge about anything, all you gotta do is shout the loudest and flaunt the gifs you stole from some poor cam girl!
hooray!

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: strongfp

A system of government in which Germany controls all of Europe. But different from the EU where Germany controls all of Europe.

UK here, very well said.

Not to sound like an anti-Semite, but Judaism in theory and practicality is probably the earliest form of communism, even though communism/Marxism views religion as a drug fueling fantasy.

It’s entirely possible philosophically to believe both in some form of socialism AND voting/democracy. There’s not a rule that you need capitalism and so in to have voting. That’s ostensibly what democratic socialism means. Has it worked yet? Not really unless you count Scandinavia. But that’s not full socialist.

Fun fact, the main difference between anarchism
and socialism is that while they share a similar goal, communism/Marxism allows an Intermediary step ie what we know as socialism and the “communist” governments of the last 100 years.

Libertarians actually share a similar goal to a certain degree, and the term originates from the same left, not right wing, origins of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Also, can someone explain if fascism actually holds the same stateless, classless, governmentless goal as anarcho communism and anarchism?
a reply to: Ahabstar

No, it goes back farther. Lots of scholars consider many ancient tribes and small societies to represent “primitive communism.”

The first church of Jerusalem basically was a form of this (I know that triggers right wingers), and there are even Christian communists partly for this reason.

Going back to my post above, it’s a bit inaccurate though as this is more socialism, not communism. Communism is the final goal of no state or class. Literally anarchy.

a reply to: Specimen

That’s more like Mussolini’s definition of fascism.
a reply to: dfnj2015

i was laughing about this thread with my partner this morning when the realisation suddenly struck - you guys really do think that any scenario where people are helping each other or working for a common good instead of blind rugged selfish individualism is communism, don't you? if it's not me first, guns up, then it's brainwashed sjw fascism

this is hilarious

originally posted by: continuousThunder
i was laughing about this thread with my partner this morning when the realisation suddenly struck - you guys really do think that any scenario where people are helping each other or working for a common good instead of blind rugged selfish individualism is communism, don't you? if it's not me first, guns up, then it's brainwashed sjw fascism

this is hilarious

This is where the major misunderstanding lies, or where the dividers like to focus.

It isn't that one side doesn't want to help their fellow man. They just don't want the government telling them how, when and how much to donate and take it by force.

According to several studies Whatever You May Think of Republicans, Don't Call Them 'Stingy', conservatives donate more overall to charity, and are more likely to donate food and volunteer. So as individuals, they appear more generous. "Me first" is propaganda.

The "isms" have nothing to do with generosity and history has shown that.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: xuenchen


I don’t know. Hitler really hated commies. Hated them more than Joe McCarthy did.

False assumption. Germany hated Russia, ancient enemies and all that.

originally posted by: Specimen
Not to sound like an anti-Semite, but Judaism in theory and practicality is probably the earliest form of communism, even though communism/Marxism views religion as a drug fueling fantasy.

Earliest form of commune was pre-historic, pre-Babylon Stone Age.

a reply to: xuenchen

"Don't let yourself get *COLLECTED* by Collectivists"

No worries!
I'd rather sell myself on the free marketplace of our collective efforts, just like yourself.

That the National Socialists embraced socialism is factually accurate.

Your sauce

Idiots and nuance, funny story. Thanks for the giggles.

a reply to: xuenchen

Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, eh? This is him in a nushell:

“As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. Immovably, they insist on the very ideology which enslaves them. The misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is done to them is a greater force than the cunning of the authorities.”

Dialectics of Enlightenment

Adorno and Horkheimer didn't redefine fascism, they looked into it's roots and found positivism. You should look up that term at times.

“Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system.”

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
No, it goes back farther. Lots of scholars consider many ancient tribes and small societies to represent “primitive communism.”

The first church of Jerusalem basically was a form of this (I know that triggers right wingers), and there are even Christian communists partly for this reason.

Going back to my post above, it’s a bit inaccurate though as this is more socialism, not communism. Communism is the final goal of no state or class. Literally anarchy.

a reply to: Specimen

True, you could say that most religions today have socialist themes too it, like forsaking wealth an what not.

Any believe or idealogy that offer a utopia or promise of heaven would be parallel to what socialism/communism is today wouldn't it?

Like North Korea and how it is today. You have to dress and appear a certain way, attend social functions an services lest be an out cast. Must believe in the almighty, singular state( like Israel an/or god which could be one an the same) and believe in it representative ( a priest, prophet, or messiah) like Kims proclamations but is a communist as well.

a reply to: teapot

What about Cyrus the 2nd who defeated Babylon an his possible link to Zoroastrianism and the huge influence it had on Judaism where it originally differentiated itself from Hinduism an it caste system?

It considered the first monotheistic religion in history, and most of not all theory of the Abrahamic religion is based from.

Sure the Babylonians weren't capitalists with all the slaves and the great rich, city Babylon was said to be.

a reply to: Specimen

Collectivism has it's roots not in religion but in something more fundamental. Without it, the human race would not have survived long enough to form religions or any other slave system. Collectivism is essential for survival of any social animal and has nothing to do with abstracts.

Having said that, I support individualism and the rights of the individual to exercise free will in acting individually or in forming collectives for collective action that supports all individuals in the collective.

a reply to: teapot

Man I really gotta work on my ancient world history...

I agree about collectivism being fundamental, without it we wouldn't of survived and civilization would have never thrived.

It two side of the same coin though, without it we be basic creatures, but on the other hand it does get tribal rigid. Maybe the main issues of collectivism is the conformity an peer pressure I guess, where it becomes " ether with us or against us" in extreme situations.

Like daring to think outside the box could be harmful to the collective sort of speak.

a reply to: Halfswede

No, I am not defending communism, as I always state along with it "as an anarchist I view communism as an enemy"

But if we are going to attack it, let's not use americanised red-scare propaganda that says "communism is a totalitarian system"

if we are going to attack communism let's attack at what it actually is