• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Facebook Gold from Crazies

Frosty said:
Nope. Here's the wiki page on socialism. I think you'll be hard pressed to find anything from my post listed as a tenant of socialism. I think you're confusing it with Leninism/Stalinism or something else.
Click to expand...

What do you think Leninism and Stalinism were? That they were socialist is in the very article that you cite. The one confused here is you. The very wiki page you cite, which was obviously composed by a bunch of lefties trying to distance themselves from the worst aspects of socialism and trying to make socialism appear as acceptable as possible, is full of facts that contradict you.

Furthermore, as you demonstrate in your next post, you don't even know what a republic is.

Your intellectual underdevelopment on these subjects is beneath all criticism. What would have us do next, discuss the history of anti-Semitism without reference to the Holocaust or the National Socialist German Workers Party?
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
What do you think Leninism and Stalinism were? That they were socialist is in the very article that you cite. The one confused here is you. The very wiki page you cite, which was obviously composed by a bunch of lefties trying to distance themselves from the worst aspects of socialism and trying to make socialism appear as acceptable as possible, is full of facts that contradict you.

Furthermore, as you demonstrate in your next post, you don't even know what a republic is.

Your intellectual underdevelopment on these subjects is beneath all criticism. What would have us do next, discuss the history of anti-Semitism without reference to the Holocaust or the National Socialist German Workers Party?
Click to expand...

You still haven't named one thing about socialism that makes it inherently fascist. I listed the central tenants of fascism and asked which of those is socialist.

A republic is a state where elected officials represent the population in government. I'm saying that countries like North Korea and Turkmenistan are not republics even if republic is in the name of the country or it is their purported system of government. Are you disagreeing with this?

Thank you for gracing me with your intellectual prowess on the subject. My underdeveloped intellect sometimes needs help from on high, so thank you. A very wise professor once told me that when someone results to ad hominem attacks it's because they don't have anything better to say about the subject.

Oh, and nice straw man with the anti-Semitism thing.

I don't mind having a debate (I quite enjoy it) and I find it productive as it pushes my thinking, but what's the point if it's just going to end with you calling me intellectually underdeveloped and then throwing out ridiculous straw men to change the discussion?
 
Frosty said:
Fascism relies on extreme nationalism, a disregard for basic human rights, militarism with an emphasis placed in the importance of the military elite, tightly controlled media run by the state, strong national security typically brought on by creating some sort of common scapegoat for every problem that arises, a disdain for intellectualism (manifested through heavy censorship), and a lack of true democratic elections. Socialism does literally none of these things. Yes, a fascist government may socialize some/all industries, but only in a way that benefits the power elite and not all of the population. Socializing something doesn't necessarily make it socialist; the socialization of industry can happen in a way that is strictly fascist.
Click to expand...

Sorry Frosty, but I really do think that this post is entirely wrong. All of the characteristics you mention were typical of and persistent in the USSR. One might possibly object that extreme nationalism was not typical of the USSR, but it certainly was during WWII. When Comrade Stalin discovered that the typical Russian would not fight very effectively in defense of his version of socialism but would fight for Mother Russia, he invoked extreme nationalist themes. And that's not the only example. If you had ever listened to the Voice of Radio Moscow, which I doubt you ever did, you would realize just how nationalistic the USSR was. The USSR was portrayed as surrounded by vicious blood thirsty enemies, just waiting to break in and destroy Russia. The national identities of the subject nationalities of the USSR were systematically suppressed. Russification was promoted.

The other characteristics of fascism that you list were certainly typical of the USSR. Indeed, arguably, most of them were even more characteristic of the USSR than the fascist states themselves. I could go on, but maybe you should just go and do the basic research yourself.

If your argument is that the USSR was not a socialist state, then you are simply wrong. You may say that the brand of socialism practiced in the USSR is not your preferred version of socialism - and I think you would do well to do so - but it was still socialism. Simply denying the fact, does not make the fact go away.

You can claim that your version of socialism is the only right version and the others are wrong, or not even socialism, but the leaders of the Soviet Union made the same claims for their version of socialism. Congratulations, you have found your way into good company.
 
Frosty said:
You still haven't named one thing about socialism that makes it inherently fascist. I listed the central tenants of fascism and asked which of those is socialist.

A republic is a state where elected officials represent the population in government. I'm saying that countries like North Korea and Turkmenistan are not republics even if republic is in the name of the country or it is their purported system of government. Are you disagreeing with this?

Thank you for gracing me with your intellectual prowess on the subject. My underdeveloped intellect sometimes needs help from on high, so thank you. A very wise professor once told me that when someone results to ad hominem attacks it's because they don't have anything better to say about the subject.

Oh, and nice straw man with the anti-Semitism thing.

I don't mind having a debate (I quite enjoy it) and I find it productive as it pushes my thinking, but what's the point if it's just going to end with you calling me intellectually underdeveloped and then throwing out ridiculous straw men to change the discussion?
Click to expand...

Yes. They are not hereditary monarchies or direct democracies. Not all republics are particularly democratic. Sorry, but that's reality. Even by the definition you offer for a republic, these communities are republics, perhaps not very nice ones but republics nonetheless.

You are welcome. I am happy to help, if I can. Maybe your professor was wrong. Sometimes people need to be shaken out of their stupor.
 
sailordeac said:
Sorry Frosty, but I really do think that this post is entirely wrong. All of the characteristics you mention were typical of and persistent in the USSR. One might possibly object that extreme nationalism was not typical of the USSR, but it certainly was during WWII. When Comrade Stalin discovered that the typical Russian would not fight very effectively in defense of his version of socialism but would fight for Mother Russia, he invoked extreme nationalist themes. And that's not the only example. If you had ever listened to the Voice of Radio Moscow, which I doubt you ever did, you would realize just how nationalistic the USSR was. The USSR was portrayed as surrounded by vicious blood thirsty enemies, just waiting to break in and destroy Russia. The national identities of the subject nationalities of the USSR were systematically suppressed. Russification was promoted.

The other characteristics of fascism that you list were certainly typical of the USSR. Indeed, arguably, most of them were even more characteristic of the USSR than the fascist states themselves. I could go on, but maybe you should just go and do the basic research yourself.

If your argument is that the USSR was not a socialist state, then you are simply wrong. You may say that the brand of socialism practiced in the USSR is not your preferred version of socialism - and I think you would do well to do so - but it was still socialism. Simply denying the fact, does not make the fact go away.

You can claim that your version of socialism is the only right version and the others are wrong, or not even socialism, but the leaders of the Soviet Union made the same claims for their version of socialism. Congratulations, you have found your way into good company.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Let me try rephrasing myself, because I think we might actually agree on some of these points more than we disagree.

I'm not saying that a government like the USSR didn't do any of the things that you mentioned above. I've never initiated or advanced a position like that. They did and it is widely documented. What I am saying is that doing those things that you mentioned above (and the things I previously mentioned) is not what makes a country socialist.

When it comes to the Nazi Germany example, what I am arguing is that socialism, in a pure sense, seeks to establish a society based on social justice and equity. That is not Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany adopted some tenants of socialism, but perverted them in a way so that the socialization of industry benefited the power elite. If the means are socialist (and this is debatable in this case), but the ends are not, is it still socialism through and through? I would argue that it is not. It's fascism under the guise of socialism.

To your last point, sorry that I disagree with the Nazis on something.
 
sailordeac said:
Yes. They are not hereditary monarchies or direct democracies. Not all republics are particularly democratic. Sorry, but that's reality. Even by the definition you offer for a republic, these communities are republics, perhaps not very nice ones but republics nonetheless.

You are welcome. I am happy to help, if I can. Maybe your professor was wrong. Sometimes people need to be shaken out of their stupor.
Click to expand...

So, North Korea is functionally a republic. Got it.
 
Frosty said:
Hmm. Let me try rephrasing myself, because I think we might actually agree on some of these points more than we disagree.

I'm not saying that a government like the USSR didn't do any of the things that you mentioned above. I've never initiated or advanced a position like that. They did and it is widely documented. What I am saying is that doing those things that you mentioned above (and the things I previously mentioned) is not what makes a country socialist.

When it comes to the Nazi Germany example, what I am arguing is that socialism, in a pure sense, seeks to establish a society based on social justice and equity. That is not Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany adopted some tenants of socialism, but perverted them in a way so that the socialization of industry benefited the power elite. If the means are socialist (and this is debatable in this case), but the ends are not, is it still socialism through and through? I would argue that it is not. It's fascism under the guise of socialism.

To your last point, sorry that I disagree with the Nazis on something.
Click to expand...

There have been many different varieties of socialism. You can go back to versions that even preceded the Utopian socialisms of the first half of the 19th century, which were followed for a long time by the dominance of Marxian socialism. Modern socialisms, are mostly some form of Marxian socialism, each revised or modified in some way. You are simply going to have to accept that the USSR formed one version of these socialisms. Mussolini, who was originally a socialist - indeed the editor of Avanti the chief newspaper of Italian socialism 100 years ago - openly admitted that fascism arose from socialism. Not surprisingly, the two have much in common. Socialism and fascism were two branches of the same modern totalitarian revolutionary dictatorial system. And the arguments between fascists and socialists often appeared as some sort of bizarre family feud. Their similarities are basic; their differences reflect mostly differences in emphasis, degree, and sometimes the enemies they claimed to struggle against. They both embraced mass murder of innocent civilians on an unprecedented industrial scale as fundamental aspects of their respective policies and revolutions. It is true that some socialists have attempted to distance themselves from this sorry part of the history of socialism - and who could blame them? - nevertheless, these efforts do not mean that the Soviet Union was not socialist. At best, modern socialists can say that they prefer a different version of socialism than that practiced in the USSR, or China, or Cambodia, or Albania, or Eastern Europe (which all differ slightly from each other).

There is no socialism in "the pure sense." You might as well be talking about some silly fantasy or delusion. There is also no pure fascism. There are, however, the practices of socialism in history and the practices of fascism in history. These we can compare. If you want to compare fantasy socialism to real fascism you'll end up going nowhere and looking quite foolish.

Why are you referring to my last point and invoking Nazis? My point, if you'll read it again, is clearly referring to the Soviet Union and not to National Socialist Germany.
 
Um, socialism and communism are different. The USSR and Mao's China were not socialist states (despite the name of the USSR). They were avowedly communist. Anyone who is hung up on the inclusion of the word "socialist" in USSR can do a little basic research to discover that the Soviet constitution and laws guaranteed the Communist Party (that was its name, not "socialist") the right to single party rule. Communism, communal ownership of all property, as practiced in the 20th century looked a lot like fascism in practice because they are both extreme ideologies that no population would implement voluntarily in the absence of force. There is a big difference between a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist communist state and the democratic socialist states of Western Europe. Anybody with half a brain can see that. Trying to conflate Stalinism with, for example, French socialism doesn't even pass the laugh test. You can't say that socialism = fascism by throwing out example of how totalitarian communist states were like Nazi Germany. Come on.
 
sailordeac said:
There have been many different varieties of socialism. You can go back to versions that even preceded the Utopian socialisms of the first half of the 19th century, which were followed for a long time by the dominance of Marxian socialism. Modern socialisms, are mostly some form of Marxian socialism, each revised or modified in some way. You are simply going to have to accept that the USSR formed one version of these socialisms. Mussolini, who was originally a socialist - indeed the editor of Avanti the chief newspaper of Italian socialism 100 years ago - openly admitted that fascism arose from socialism. Not surprisingly, the two have much in common. Socialism and fascism were two branches of the same modern totalitarian revolutionary dictatorial system. And the arguments between fascists and socialists often appeared as some sort of bizarre family feud. Their similarities are basic; their differences reflect mostly differences in emphasis, degree, and sometimes the enemies they claimed to struggle against. They both embraced mass murder of innocent civilians on an unprecedented industrial scale as fundamental aspects of their respective policies and revolutions. It is true that some socialists have attempted to distance themselves from this sorry part of the history of socialism - and who could blame them? - nevertheless, these efforts do not mean that the Soviet Union was not socialist. At best, modern socialists can say that they prefer a different version of socialism than that practiced in the USSR, or China, or Cambodia, or Albania, or Eastern Europe (which all differ slightly from each other).

There is no socialism in "the pure sense." You might as well be talking about some silly fantasy or delusion. There is also no pure fascism. There are, however, the practices of socialism in history and the practices of fascism in history. These we can compare. If you want to compare fantasy socialism to real fascism you'll end up going nowhere and looking quite foolish.

Why are you referring to my last point and invoking Nazis? My point, if you'll read it again, is clearly referring to the Soviet Union and not to National Socialist Germany.
Click to expand...

So, to get this straight, you are saying that the following are hallmarks of a socialist system:

extreme nationalism
disregard for basic human rights
militarism
the dominance of state run media
strong government censorship
strong national security
anti-intellectualism

I'm saying that this is fascism, not socialism.

You said that I was claiming that my definition of socialism is the only right one and that "others are wrong, or not even socialism." You're first point is wrong. I never claimed that my definition is the only right one. I'm arguing that socialism isn't inherently fascist. You're second point is right. The National Socialist German Workers' Party called itself socialist, but it wasn't really. I'm saying that it was fascism that operated certain parts of its machinations under the guise of socialism.
 
Deacon923 said:
Um, socialism and communism are different. The USSR and Mao's China were not socialist states (despite the name of the USSR). They were avowedly communist. Anyone who is hung up on the inclusion of the word "socialist" in USSR can do a little basic research to discover that the Soviet constitution and laws guaranteed the Communist Party (that was its name, not "socialist") the right to single party rule. Communism, communal ownership of all property, as practiced in the 20th century looked a lot like fascism in practice because they are both extreme ideologies that no population would implement voluntarily in the absence of force. There is a big difference between a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist communist state and the democratic socialist states of Western Europe. Anybody with half a brain can see that. Trying to conflate Stalinism with, for example, French socialism doesn't even pass the laugh test. You can't say that socialism = fascism by throwing out example of how totalitarian communist states were like Nazi Germany. Come on.
Click to expand...

You are good at knocking down the strawmen you set up in this post. Come on man, address the arguments that are made and not some imaginary ones.

In the first place, the official ideology of the Soviet Union, IIRC, was that they were a socialist country building towards communism, which would eventually be achieved. They did not call themselves Socialist Republics by mistake.

No one has claimed that the democratic socialist parties of western Europe were the same as the Stalinists. They did both, however, claim to be socialists, although they clearly represented different branches of the movement.

No one said socialism = fascism. However, the socialism as practiced in the USSR, and in many other countries, had more in common with fascism than it had differences with fascism.

923, you are usually a better poster than this. Really!
 
Frosty said:
So, to get this straight, you are saying that the following are hallmarks of a socialist system:

extreme nationalism
disregard for basic human rights
militarism
the dominance of state run media
strong government censorship
strong national security
anti-intellectualism

I'm saying that this is fascism, not socialism.

You said that I was claiming that my definition of socialism is the only right one and that "others are wrong, or not even socialism." You're first point is wrong. I never claimed that my definition is the only right one. I'm arguing that socialism isn't inherently fascist. You're second point is right. The National Socialist German Workers' Party called itself socialist, but it wasn't really. I'm saying that it was fascism that operated certain parts of its machinations under the guise of socialism.
Click to expand...

They are certainly typical of the practice of socialism in much of the world. If they are similar to fascism, then the socialists are going have to learn to accept that a considerable part of socialism in practice has yielded results similar to fascism. Deal with. I still think that part of the problem is that you are mostly trying to compare the theory of some socialists with the practice of fascism. And that's just a false comparison that will yield incoherent results.

I never claimed that you stated that your definition of socialism was the right one, only that you could.

The guests have arrived and I must go. Later.
 
The tenets of fascism and socialism are completely different, that's indisputable.
 
Mr. sailordeac, the posts you've just made over these last few pages are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
deacvision7 said:
Mr. sailordeac, the posts you've just made over these last few pages are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Click to expand...

When one sees such "reasoning," one can only say: "dv7!"
 
It would be very weird to say some random online handle nickname when playing word association with any word.
 
sailordeac said:
They are certainly typical of the practice of socialism in much of the world. If they are similar to fascism, then the socialists are going have to learn to accept that a considerable part of socialism in practice has yielded results similar to fascism. Deal with. I still think that part of the problem is that you are mostly trying to compare the theory of some socialists with the practice of fascism. And that's just a false comparison that will yield incoherent results.

I never claimed that you stated that your definition of socialism was the right one, only that you could.

The guests have arrived and I must go. Later.
Click to expand...

sailordeac, I'm curious: as a teacher or professor in Hungary, in what subjects/specialties are you trained?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top