People have misconceptions what fascism, nazism, and communism is. All three of these are socialism gone mad. All three of these are leftist notions. The main difference is where the authority lies.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia--or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is, if one's motive is men's welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.From: "The Monument Builders," from The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand

Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories; socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates 'the vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.

Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.From: "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus," from Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand

The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5

Fascism/Nazism:

"Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

"The dictionary definition of fascism is: "a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism"[The American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957.]

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it--at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy--and a man's position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force.Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property--so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto.From: The Ominous Parallels, ch. 9, pb.18, by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper."

"Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning, quoted in The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff C. 1982

The Communists' chief purpose is to destroy every form of independence--independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, an independent mind, or and independent man. Conformity, alikeness, servility, submission and obedience are necessary to establish a Communist slave-state.From: Screen Guide for Americans, quoting Ayn Rand in Plain Talk

The difference is in the method of state control over the economy. Under communism, all industries are nationalized, and private ownership of the means of production is virtually eliminated, except for small, marginal enterprises that are under strict state control. Under fascism/nazism, key industries like the railroads might be nationalized, but the rest operate under a mass of state regulations. Another (non-essential) difference is that communism, in theory, is international in outlook, while fascism/nazism is nationalistic and often racist. In practice, though, communist regimes will use nationalism and racism to motivate people where it suits their purposes.

Both theories deny the right to property and condemn individualism, the key tenets of capitalism. How anyone can maintain that fascism/nazism is the same thing as capitalism is beyond me. The argument doesn't even get off the ground.

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.From: For the New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism--by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.From: Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon, by Ayn Rand, pub. in Los Angeles Times, 9/9/62 G2



Can you see how similar fascism and communism and socialism is? They are virtually the same. And the result is the same. Suppression of liberties and freedom. Taking from those that have to give to those that have not. Trying to raise everyone to the same level, which may be a noble goal, but the way they go about in doing that is morally corrupt.

The only reason the left likes to put fascism and nazism on the right is because they somehow need to justify their own beliefs. They can easily point out that the U.S.S.R's communism wasn't real communism, but fascism and nazism must be on the other side of the spectrum. All major fuckups in the past few decades were LEFT wing nuts and were due to LEFT wing notions.


Please, I take pride on the fact that I'm right-wing. I'm a libertarian. If I become a little more right I'd be an anarchist. Please don't put fascism on my side because it is CONTRARY TO ALL I BELIEVE. It is *not* part of the right-wing conspiracy to rule the world!


EDIT: Ooops, moderator, please put this in Philosophy or something? Me keeps forgetting there are more than one forum... :)

ah, Ayn Rand, it now becomes clear where your absurd ideas about right-wing anarchy and left wing facism come from.

Rand's descriptions of and distinctions between communism and facism are relatively accurate if one replaces communism with stalinism, which are in fact closely related. She fails to address the ideas of actual communism at all.

I've gotten rather sick of explaining the differences between communism and stalinism, just check one of the many other threads on the topic.

One interesting inconsistency in these ideas beyond the obvious is the notion that less government equals more respect for individual property rights.
Property rights can only exist with the protection of a government.

AMAZING! What an absolutely STUNNING reply in which you said ABSOLUTELY *nothing*. All you did was say "ah Ayn Rand blah ablha blah blah," completely and utterly ignoring everything else I've said. You make statements like "your absurd ideas" without substantiating it.

Wonderful. Truely wonderful. We are all in awe and being challenged by your unique view on the topic.

I'd be happy to respond to anything you have to say on this issue, but I'm not willing to wade through that volume of quoted Ayn Rand material and refute it point for point.
From what I read of it, it seems like the same arguments you've raised before which I have already responded to anyway.

You apparently missed the second and fourth paragraphs of my post.

but I'm not willing to wade through that volume of quoted Ayn Rand material and refute it point for point. Neither would I. I'd hate to refute the truth. It is very, very hard.

One interesting inconsistency in these ideas beyond the obvious is the notion that less government equals more respect for individual property rights.
Property rights can only exist with the protection of a government. And of course to you less government = no government right? Not minimal government, not small government, but no government right? Jump right into extreme right--anarchy.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Neither would I. I'd hate to refute the truth. It is very, very hard.
Look, If I quoted all of Marx's Kapital, and said "see, that proves communism works!" I highly doubt you'd be willing to wade through it. Granted this is much smaller, but its the same principal

Originally posted by Jerrek
And of course to you less government = no government right? Not minimal government, not small government, but no government right? Jump right into extreme right--anarchy.
My point is that you and Rand seem to be saying right-wing=more respect for personal property rights and also extreme right-wing=anarchy.

The problem here is anarchy=no respect for property rights, thereby proving yoru premise wrong.

Do the writings of Ayn Rand suffer some permanent malady of confusing political and economic systems?

I just think it's hilarious in one sense, since a bunch of Rand freaks have turned Capitalism (http://www.capitalism.org) into a political system.

I mean, it's lovely and even skillful propaganda, Jerrek, but I see these isms being treated as political systems. Communism is not. Socialism is not. Capitalism, as implied above, is not.

Of course, I don't see much mention of Capitalism for comparison in your discussion starter.

Edit: If Anarchy is the extreme right, what say you, Jerrek, to the proposition that property is robbery?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Jerrick: You are wasting your time if you think you will convert anybody. Most people think with their emotions, not their critical judgment faculties (if any).

Hardly anybody is willing to take the effort to understand what Ayn Rand wrote.

Communism/socialism have great emotional appeal. It makes good sound bites. It can pack a lot of emotional appeal into short slogans and horror stories about evil industrialists.

George Bernard Shaw who had wonderful insight into economics accepted Fabian socialism, and (I think) hoped to see it put into operation. He at least thought it was a viable system. Actually, if it could be put into operation, it would not be so bad, but it was even less practical than other socialist/communist systems because those running the system would never be willing to advocate it. If he could be fooled, what hope is there for lesser mortals? Read his insightful and humorous book titled something like Economics for the Average HouseWife.

You have more chance of getting through to people by recommending Northcote Parkinson than Ayn Rand. Disguised by humor, he gets across a picture of how a bureaucracy functions.

It is sad that so many intelligent people do not recognize how brilliant Ayn Rand was. Most do not even realize that she was a Russian immigrant for whom English was a second language.

There are so many intelligent people who use and/or accept fallacious arguments, one wonders what our schools are teaching.

BTW: How many people are aware that Ayn Rand never considered Russia a threat to the western democracies. She fully expected it to collapse due to its own internal consistencies. Too bad she did not live to see it happen.

Isaac Asimov defined a politician in one of his SciFi novels. A powerful politician says.If I attempt to pass that legislation, I will lose the next election. If I lose the next election, I do not care if the sun goes nova in ten years and destroys the Earth. Until the average person recognizes how politicians think, we will not fix the system. If they learn that, the next step is to make them reealize that there is no objective way to decide that congress or parliment is doing a good or a bad job when they pass legislation. Then, we might start fixing the system, by cutting down on the power of our governements.

The inability of the anti-communists to distinguish between stalinism and communism even when it is rubbed in their face is remarkable. Could it be because they have no arguments against real communism?

BTW: How many people are aware that Ayn Rand never considered Russia a threat to the western democracies. She fully expected it to collapse due to its own internal consistencies. Too bad she did not live to see it happen.
The Soviet Union collapsed in no small part due to its isolation by the rest of the world. Some believe that the Soviet Union might have become a real socialist state if it hadn't been attacked and isolated as soon as it became "communist" However, real communism has always been described as impossible to maintain on a national level.

Until the average person recognizes how politicians think, we will not fix the system. If they learn that, the next step is to make them reealize that there is no objective way to decide that congress or parliment is doing a good or a bad job when they pass legislation. Then, we might start fixing the system, by cutting down on the power of our governements.
Communism would eliminate these problems by making the government immediatelly responsible to the people. Politicians as we know them would no longer be tolerated.

jps: The following is naive.Communism would eliminate these problems by making the government immediatelly responsible to the people. Politicians as we know them would no longer be tolerated.You are assuming that a majority of the people can recognize a demagogue. This is obviously an incorrect assumption.

I have seen remarks like the following in many contexts.The inability of the anti-communists to distinguish between stalinism and communism even when it is rubbed in their face is remarkable. Could it be because they have no arguments against real communism?I realize that it is a waste of my time to reply, but find it difficult to let such remarks go unchallenged.

I find it remarkable that many do not seem to realize that capitalism inherited poverty and repressive methods. It did not invent them. In 200-300 years of so of the industrial revolution, the industiralists and financier types did a pretty good job of improving on the Feudal system.

The soviet system was a logical consequence of communist/socialist concepts. The basic principle behind communism is the following.From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.That is a promise to deny the best and the brightest fair treatment for their efforts, while promising the incompetent that they will be taken care of in spite of contributing little or nothing to the system. It is both impractical and evil.

The best and the brightest will try to change such a system or will try to escape from such a system. If unable to change it or escape, they will tend to not put forth their best efforts.

Unfortunately some of the brightest are unprincipled and tend to try to run the system for their own benefit. Meanwhile, those less competent than the average are willing to support the system in hopes of getting more than they deserve.

Some form of totalitarian dictatorship is required to keep the best and the brightest from leaving and to force them to contribute without fair compensation for their efforts. A vast bureaucracy is required to control all the productive resources and to dispense the products produced. The politicians and/or bureaucrats running the system tend to run it for their own benefit.

Perhaps communism/socialism need not result in something as horrible as the USSR, but it will always result in some approximation to such a system.

fascism, nazism, and communism ... all isms are the same. The only ism that matters is humanism ;)

Originally posted by Dinosaur
jps: The following is naive.You are assuming that a majority of the people can recognize a demagogue. This is obviously an incorrect assumption.
You're right, the majority will not always recognize a demagogue, however with communism this problem is minimized by putting everyone on the same playing field.


Originally posted by Dinosaur
I find it remarkable that many do not seem to realize that capitalism inherited poverty and repressive methods. It did not invent them. In 200-300 years of so of the industrial revolution, the industiralists and financier types did a pretty good job of improving on the Feudal system.
No doubt. Now its time to take the next step.

Originally posted by Dinosaur
The soviet system was a logical consequence of communist/socialist concepts. The basic principle behind communism is the following.That is a promise to deny the best and the brightest fair treatment for their efforts, while promising the incompetent that they will be taken care of in spite of contributing little or nothing to the system. It is both impractical and evil.Not at all. Capitalism prevents the best and the brightest from getting fair treatment for their efforts by concentrating all power(money) in the hands of a view where it then remains. Communism would allow for everyone to reach their potential as everyone would be granted the same chances in life. A useful job can be found for almost everyone and for the few who cannot, what harm does it do for society to support them?


Originally posted by Dinosaur
The best and the brightest will try to change such a system or will try to escape from such a system. If unable to change it or escape, they will tend to not put forth their best efforts.

Unfortunately some of the brightest are unprincipled and tend to try to run the system for their own benefit. Meanwhile, those less competent than the average are willing to support the system in hopes of getting more than they deserve.

Some form of totalitarian dictatorship is required to keep the best and the brightest from leaving and to force them to contribute without fair compensation for their efforts. A vast bureaucracy is required to control all the productive resources and to dispense the products produced. The politicians and/or bureaucrats running the system tend to run it for their own benefit.
This is only true if you assume that people are motivated solely by money. Although this may be true in our culture, it is not human nature. There are other measures of success and happiness then money.

I always forget that it is a waste of time arguing with those who advocate communism and/or socialism.

First of all, your views are warped by those who compare the conditions during the industrial revolution with modern times, rather than comparing the industrial revolution with the Feudal system it replaced. I listened to my liberal teachers talk about sweat shops, low wages, et cetera, while still remembering the serfdom and slavery of the previous system. You seem to think that labor unions and government laws corrected the abuses of the early industrial revolution, not realizing that most of our modern increased standard of living is increased productivity.

Second, you make claims about what an ideal communist system would do or not do, with no objective reasons to back up your opinions. You do not consider the government and bureaucracy required to establish and maintain a communist system, making glib remarks likeYou're right, the majority will not always recognize a demagogue, however with communism this problem is minimized by putting everyone on the same playing field.The the voters in the USA are on the same playing field, but not on the same playing field with the bureaucrats and politicians. What would be different in a communist state?

Third, you do not recognize that arguing against an Ayn Rand political system is not an argument in favor of communism. It is merely an argument against Ayn Rand philosophy in general.

Fourth, you equate Ayn Rand political philosophy to right wing American political views, which is incorrect.

Fifth, some of you imply that those who accept Ayn Rand or similar political views advocate no government at all. Or you claim that an argument for less government can be extrapolated to be an argument for no government. Actually, Ayn Rand provides some very compelling arguments indicating that government is necessary, except perhaps for extremely small groups such as our hunter gatherer ancestors.

Sixth, you misrepresent the nature and motivation of people in general and industrialists in particular. If human beings did not generally have a decent set of ethics, we would still be monkeys in the jungle. You seem to attribute the worst ethics to people as a reason to rely on the government to impose a set of welfare-related ethics on everybody, not recognizing that governments and bureaucracies are run by people. Giving them too much power is dangerous. I can fight a corporation by not buying his products. I cannot refuse to pay taxes or obey the police. The government is potentially more dangerous than the businessman, no matter what the political system.

Seventh, you have little concept of economics. For example, money cannot be eaten, worn, lived in, or enjoyed. A desire for money is a desire for food, clothing, housing, vacation/hobby activities, et cetera. Contempt for a money motivation is contempt for the ordinary desires of a human being to be comfortable and provide for those he/she cares for. You do not recognize that most functions of government are nonproductive overhead. While many of those functions are necessary, they should still be recognized as overhead to be trimmed as much as possible. You do not recognize that government mistakes and inefficiencies tend to be reacted to by spending more money on the same methods. You never seem to pay attention to the goods, services, and general increase in standard of living caused by the activities of businesses.

Eighth (and most important), your political views are based on faith rather than reason. Arguing with you is like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.

Some believe that the Soviet Union might have become a real socialist state if it hadn't been attacked and isolated as soon as it became "communist"

I don't believe I would accept that argument. The collective US, British and French troops involved in 1919-20 didn't have any real impact on the civil war. The Reds and Whites brutalized each other and the populace. And after the bolsheviks won, their treatment of the peasantry alienated many that had backed the October revolution. At any rate, by 1921 Lenin realized that the bolsheviks needed the peasantry and initiated the NEP, reintroducing free market to the farmers, and in effect killing bolshevism. Of course in 1928 Stalin, realizing the Soviet Union was light years behind the West, ended the NEP for the first of his three 5 year plans, in an attempt to industrialize his country. Certainly he had some success. By '41, he had increased industrial production some 400%, but it's hard to gauge how successful it actually was. Because of the punishment on managers often faked production numbers, and quality was very debatable, as it was estimated that roughtly 50% of all tractors produced in the '30s proved to be unusable. And the collectivisization part of the plans was certainly not successful. 5 million kulaks either murdered or starved in Siberian gulags. Lower peasants herded on to collectives. Agricultural production stayed down a minimum of 15% from '28 to '41.

Coldrake,
I'm not one of the people who thinks the Soviet Union would have been a succesfull communist state if not for the interference of the foreign forces, however I think that its collapse can not be said to be a result solely of its "internal inconsistencies" The cold war brought about the fall of the USSR. It did not just fall apart on its own.