Everything is for the good of the state and state owned in the fascist model.
Fascism = state owned = good for the state
Communism = stateless = good for all
Come on guys!
Good heavens! If this is the kind of pap they feed you in the Liberation Party its no wonder the entire membership numbers in the few hundreds of thousands. Both points you made above are precisely and exactly definitive of communism in practice, and there is no historical precedent to the contrary. You have clearly never read the Communist Manifesto, in which each and every point you deny to communism is made in explicit detail.
Or, do you mean
socialism? The terms socialism and communism were used interchangeably by communists themselves for generations. Of course, the communism you are speaking of, the pure communism of Marx's final utopia, is a fantastic juvenile fantasy that can never be realized by actual human beings, and the road toward that utopia is littered with well over 1oo,ooo,ooo bodies.
No they're not! Authority in fascism is the state. Authority in communism is the many and there is NO state. You guys are confusing the ideology with the parties.
Huh????? All communist societies that have ever existed in the history of this planet are Hegelian totalitarian police states. The state is all and all is the state. The world soul; the full potential and meaning of the individual is only realized by absorption into the state and into the cause of the glorious "revolution". Good heavens you've drunk the Kool Aid shaken, not stirred.
haha. Communism during the revolution is forced and then does away with the state and all forms of force.
Should we put our great ole USA into this same category since our forefathers had a revolution and 'forced' a Republic?
More humor (I hope). The "communism" to which you are referring is a hubristic utopian fantasy that can never exist in any real mortal world. The Communism to which I refer, as well as the Fascism, are the historical, actually existing varieties.
It is not a self definition! You find a definition that explains what the communist ideology is and fascist ideology is that can refute this!
Do you want me to copy and paste the entire internet that relates to this? It IS the definition of fascism and communism in its simplest form.
All the wealth DOES end up in the hands of the few in the political ideology of fascism this is not so in the ideology of communism. Polar opposites.
You have a long, long way to go Barrel. Sorry to have to say this. Communism and Fascism only became polar opposites after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and violated the Hitler/Stalin pact, in which both dictators carved up Europe within their countries' sphere on influence. While the Popular Front was all the rage, Communism and Fascism were good buddies. After Hitler tore into Russia, suddenly Fascism was moved to the right and Communism became its foil. You're entire understanding of this, Barrel, comes from the WWII era Kremlin.
Wealth in the hands of the few? WHAT? Are you watching what your fingers are typing?
Communism redistributes wealth to the MANY! Fascism takes from the MANY and gives to the few in the state. Geddit?
1. Communism in practice redistributes wealth to the ruling Nomenklatura, its dependents and cronies, and no one else.
2. The entire concept of redistribution of wealth implies, at the very least, severe restraints on individual liberty (not to mention the institutionalization of poverty and the end of economic growth), and at worst, catastrophic human carnage.
You have been grossly miseducated, if not bamboozled Barrel. This is the aspect of Libertarianism that makes one raise one's eyebrows. You should probably, since you mentioned the Von Mises Institute, go back over there and find its
The Economics of Fascism series. They have it on video and audio. There are several lectures there elucidating the numerous similarities between Nazi and Socialist economic systems.
Bcspace, you do a quicksie looksie at the ideologies and you tell me if one is authoritarian and one is not. I've told you that ONE is authoritarian and the other is not.
This discussion is probably at an end because bc and myself are discussing actually exsisting communism as practiced while Barrel is discussing a social and economic system that has never existed anywhere except as little black marks on white paper, and never can. Nor should it ever be allowed to.
by the way, I'm not endorsing any of these political ideologies. I'm just trying to clear up a misconception that Coggins stated - and apparently one you hold as well.