And especially Marxism, which makes its emphasis on social classes instead of nationalism.
Zoidberg wrote:Coggins, although you have just admitted to not realizing before that Marxists-Leninists viewed socialism as a phase that will allow transition to communism, you continue to assure me I know nothing about the subject. Good luck.
If you don't realize that, you have failed to produce any evidence that "the Soviets have used both terms interchangeably". Of course Lenin said the goal of socialism is communism, duh! But show me one place where he was using the terms interchangeably.
It doesn't matter who identifies themselves as what. You, for instance, think you are a follower of Christ, but I think you are delusional in this self-identification. Now stop ranting about totalitarianism and start using your brain. And tell me what you think about the United Order.
Coggins7 wrote:And especially Marxism, which makes its emphasis on social classes instead of nationalism.
And Nazism was also socialist. This is a matter of emphasis, and little more.
And what do you make of Russification or Chinafication in these respective countries reagarding some ethnic minorities under their domination (say, the Tibetans or Georgians in the 30s)?
Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) during the late 1920s and early 1930s, which stated that social democracy was a variant of fascism. At the time, the leaders of the Comintern, such as Joseph Stalin and Rajani Palme Dutt, argued that capitalist society had entered the "Third Period" in which a working class revolution was imminent, but could be prevented by social democrats and fascist forces. The term "social fascist" was used pejoratively to describe social democratic parties, anti-Comintern socialist parties and dissenters within Comintern affiliates throughout the interwar period.
At the Sixth Congress of the Commitern in 1928, the end of capitalist stability and the beginning of the "Third Period" was proclaimed. The end of capitalism, accompanied with a working class revolution, was expected, and social democracy was identified as the main enemy of the Communists. This Commitern's theory had roots in Grigory Zinoviev's argument that international social democracy is a wing of fascism. This view was accepted by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of fascism. After it was declared at the Sixth Congress, the theory of social fascism became accepted by the world Communist movement.[1]
At the same time, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), under leadership of German chancellor Hermann Müller, agreed with anti-communist parties that "red equals brown".[2] This led to mutual hostility between social democrats and communists, which were additionally intensified in 1929 when Berlin's police, under control of the SPD government, shot down communist workers demonstrating on May Day (Berlin's Bloody May). This, and the repressive legislation against the communists that followed, served as further evidence to communists that social democrats were indeed "social fascists".[3] In 1931 in Prussia, the most significant state of Germany, Communist Party of Germany (KPD), which referred to the Nazis as "working people's comrades", united with them in unsuccessful attempt to bring down the state government of SPD.[4] German Communists continued to deny any essential difference between Nazism and Social Democracy even after elections in 1933. The KPD, under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann, coined the slogan "After Hitler, our turn!" – strongly believing that united front against Nazis wasn't needed, and that the workers would change their opinion and recognize that Nazism, unlike Communism, didn't offer a true way out of Germany's difficulties.[5]
After Adolf Hitler's Nazis came to power in Germany, the KPD was outlawed and thousands of its members, including Thälmann, were arrested. Following these events, the Comintern did a complete turn on the question of alliance with social democrats, and the theory of "social fascism" was abandoned. At the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, Georgi Dimitrov outlined the new policy of the "popular front" in his address, "For the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism." The "popular front" period ended in 1939 with the conclusion of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
the Communists and Nazis got along just fine until the Nazis came to power and turned against the Communists in order to take total power in Germany
When Hitler invaded Germany, the American Communist Party, who had been vocal in its position that the U.S. should stay out of the war in Europe, became suddenly condemnatory of the evil "fascist" Hitler and his Reich, which now stood for everything Communism had always (of course), stood against.
Coggins, although you have just admitted to not realizing before that Marxists-Leninists viewed socialism as a phase that will allow transition to communism, you continue to assure me I know nothing about the subject. Good luck.
f you don't realize that, you have failed to produce any evidence that "the Soviets have used both terms interchangeably". Of course Lenin said the goal of socialism is communism, duh! But show me one place where he was using the terms interchangeably.
“As I just passed through your hall, I observed a placard with the inscription: ‘The realm of the workers and peasants will never end!’ After I had read this remarkable placard, which did not, it is true, hang on the wall in the usual manner but stood in a corner, perhaps because it occurred to someone that the inscription had not been happily chosen and he therefore put it on the side – when I had read this remarkable placard, I was forced to think: So, there still prevail among us misunderstandings and false conceptions about those most elementary and most fundamental things! If the realm of the workers and peasants were really never to end, this would mean that there would never be socialism, for socialism is the abolition of all classes; but so long as there are workers and peasants, then there are different classes, and complete socialism would be for that reason impossible. And when I reflected that, three and a half years after the October revolution, there can be among us such remarkable placards, even if pushed somewhat to the side, it occurred to me that it is possible for the greatest misunderstandings to prevail even about the most widely disseminated and widely used watchwords.” – Lenin, Speech at the All-Russian Conference of Transport Workers, Moscow, March 1921.
Now, I thought socialism was a mid-way point between capitalism and the classless society?
The fact of the matter is that communists in power have used these terms interchangeably over a very long period of time, and even used both terms to describe similar states of society.Although I have met some people in Russia (usually very young, or uneducted, or both) who were under the impression that communism existed in the USSR.
Were just about done Zoid, head games wont' cut it...You might also be interested to know what Marx said. He said: "Democracy is the road to socialism". And I agree that your country is on a faster track to socialism than you even realize.
That's only because he understood that open, free societies have little defense against propaganda. In Communist countries, one can just censor it.The difference between Lenin and Stalin is huge. Lenin advocated the global revolution; Stalin set out to try to build communsim behind the Iron Curtain. Lenin was a very modest man who got embalmed and put in a mausoleum after his death and practicallly religiously worshipped, but few know that it was against his and his wife's wishes. Compare that to Stalin's personality cult.
We're done. I'm not lowering myself by debating you any further.
Here then is our modest revolutionary (who never did those terrible, awful things Stalin did) Vladimir Lenin, and his theory (and we know of course, that he did in fact carry his theories into practice) of governance in a Communist society:“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”
Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.
“We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”
Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906)
Of course, the massive famine precipitated by Lenin and his government after he took power, the civil war waged by his government against the Russian peasantry, the severe decline in living standards, the depopulation of urban areas, and the Checka summarily executing such peasants (petty bourgeoisie) who dared defy the government's crackpot economic policies (forced collective agriculture) all of this...nawwww, doesn't sound like Stalin at all.It doesn't matter who identifies themselves as what. You, for instance, think you are a follower of Christ, but I think you are delusional in this self-identification. Now stop ranting about totalitarianism and start using your brain. And tell me what you think about the United Order.
Zoidberg wrote:Coggins, you are insane. Perhaps even Wikipedia is too hard for you to understand.
the Communists and Nazis got along just fine until the Nazis came to power and turned against the Communists in order to take total power in GermanyWhat are you smoking? Nazism was anti-communist from the get-go. Whcih your article makes abundantly clear, but I guess you have missed that. One would think that the phrase "social democracy was identified as the main enemy of the Communists" would give you a clue.
Yes, but as many conservative and libertarian intellectuals have pointed out, this was primarily because they were all in the same room (Germany) and totalitarian systems cannot tolerate competition. You are blowing so much smoke our your %$# now you are beginning to fog my critical race theory. Have your read Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives? They admired and copied aspects of each other's systems. Much of the oil that powered Hitler's indistrial expansion was Soviet. Explain then the Hitler/Stalin pact, and the ease with which so many early Nazis, fascists, and communists moved between the various parties and philosophies during that era? How long are you going to try to wing your way through this?
You somehow didn't mention that part of the Wikipedia article mentioning of how the Nazis and communists joined forces to destroy the Social Democrats. Didn't' see that part? Here's how Roderick Long of the Von Mesis Institute describes this situation in an excellent brief overview:Fascism differs from its close cousins, Communism and aristocratic conservatism, in several important ways. To understand these differences is to see how classical liberalism offers a completely different view of social and economic organization, a perspective that departs radically from the views of both right and left, as those terms are understood in contemporary political language.
Let's begin with its difference from Communism. First, where Communism seeks to substitute the state for private ownership, fascism seeks to incorporate or co-opt private ownership into the state apparatus through public-private partnership. Thus fascism tends to be more tempting than Communism to wealthy interests who may see it as a way to insulate their economic power from competition through forced cartelization and other corporatist stratagems.
Second, where Communist ideology tends to be cosmopolitan and internationalist, fascist ideology tends to be chauvinistically nationalist, stressing a particularist allegiance to one's country, culture, or ethnicity; along with this goes a suspicion of rationalism, a preference for economic autarky, and a view of life as one of inevitable but glorious struggle. Fascism also tends to cultivate a "folksy" or völkisch "man of the people," "pragmatism over principles," "heart over head," "pay no attention to those pointy-headed intellectuals" rhetorical style.
These contrasts with Communism should not be overstated, of course. Communist governments cannot afford to suppress private ownership entirely, since doing so leads swiftly to economic collapse. Moreover, however internationalist and cosmopolitan Communist regimes may be in theory, they tend to be just as chauvinistically nationalist in practice as their fascist cousins; while on the other hand fascist regimes are sometimes perfectly willing to pay lip service to liberal universalism.
All the same, there is a difference in emphasis and in strategy between fascism and Communism here. When faced with existing institutions that threaten the power of the state—be they corporations, churches, the family, tradition—the Communist impulse is by and large to abolish them, while the fascist impulse is by and large to absorb them.
Power structures external to the state are potential rivals to the state's own power, and so states always have some reason to seek their abolition; Communism gives that tendency full rein. But power structures external to the state are also potential allies of the state, particularly if they serve to encourage habits of subordination and regimentation in the populace, and so the potential always exists for a mutually beneficial partnership; herein lies the fascist strategy.
The respects in which fascism differs from Communism might seem to align it rather more closely with the traditional aristocratic conservatism of the ancien régime, which is likewise particularist, corporatist, mercantilist, nationalist, militarist, patriarchal, and anti-rationalist. But fascism differs from old-style conservatism in embracing an ideal of industrial progress directed by managerial technocrats, as well as in adopting a populist stance of championing the "little guy" against elites—remember the folksiness. (If fascism's technocratic tendencies appear to conflict with its anti-rationalist tendencies, well, in the words of proto-fascist Moeller van den Bruck, "we must be strong enough to live in contradictions.")When Hitler invaded Germany, the American Communist Party, who had been vocal in its position that the U.S. should stay out of the war in Europe, became suddenly condemnatory of the evil "fascist" Hitler and his Reich, which now stood for everything Communism had always (of course), stood against.Please tell me more about Hitler's invasion of Russia. My knowledge of history must indeed be very poor since I have always thought that he rose into power legitimately, albeit as a result of rigorous intrigue.
I changed that mistake, and you knew very well it was a typo, to avoid any further smarm. Now, deal with the evidence. Tell us about the Popular Front, what it was, why it bagan in the Soviet Union, and why, if Communism and National Socialism are so far apart and hostile to each other, both openly collaborated to carve up an empire in Europe and only ended when Hitler invaded Russia, at which time, Nazism suddenly became "fascist" (as opposed to National Socialist, which is what it actually is).Coggins, I've said it before and I'll say it again: you're an idiot. It's already painfully obvious, but you just keep making it more and more so.