Fascism versus Socialism, What is the Difference?

What the World Needs Now is Love, Sweet Love.
Just Sayin.
What are your thoughts?

 

Good song.

 

Yep, Sure is. RIP BB.

 

Fascism tends to be more nationalistic than generic socialism; it can be thought of as 'patriotic socialism".

 

There is no difference - usually I call people fascist or socialist when I don’t win an argument with them. And if you know, I have no idea what they are, but using these worlds, I usually make a point that I am better then them!

 

Fascism's domestic imperialism, a snake eating its own tale. Socialism is democracy applied to the means of production.

 

Socialism involves the idea that "the people" (most often meaning the State) should control the means of production. Fascism has nothing to do with that.

 

If its working properly, the state *is* the people. I suppose another way to look at it is Fascism is "the person" controls the means of production.

 

Bert sure had a way.

I don't find that there is much daylight between socialism and fascism. A lot of fancy wordsmiths will make extravagant statements about how they are unique or different, and all they while, they will ignore that both use the power of government to remove liberty so only the outcome required by government is allowed. No difference in that respect at all...

So love, it keeps the need for regulations away. The reason there is so much hate in the democratic party? The divisive social reengineering they engage in might initially sound like "love sweet love", but it isn't.

 

I think historian George Watson put it most concisely, the difference is between "direct" and "indirect" control.

Socialists (and communists) seek control of the economy/private sector through ownership while fascists seek government control of the economy/private sector through dictates, mandates, rules and regulations, not ownership.

Of course, there is more to both than economics. As Jean-François Revel pointed out in Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era:

There are two sorts of totalitarian systems. There is the kind whose ideology is what I would call direct, and which is readily decipherable. Hitler and Mussolini always made it plain that they despised democracy, freedom of expression and culture, political pluralism and independent unions...

Communism differs from direct totalitarianisms in that it has recourse to ideological dissimulation: it is mediatized by Utopia (to use a little Hegelian jargon). A detour by Utopia allows an ideology (and the power system that it purports to legitimize) to proclaim one success after another without interruption, while in reality its results are diametrically opposed to the vaunted agenda. Communism promises abundance and engenders misery; it promises liberty and imposes servitude; it promises equality and ends up with the most inegalitarian of societies, with a nomenklatura class that is privileged to a degree unknown even to feudal societies. It promises respect for human life and then perpetrates mass executions; it promises access to culture for all, only to lay waste to culture; it promises the creation of a "new man" but instead fossilizes him. Yet many believers will persist in accepting the contradictions because Utopia is always located in the future. The intellectual trap of totalitarian ideology "mediatized" by Utopia is therefore much more difficult to foil than that of direct ideology because, to utopian believers, actually occurring events can never prove their ideology false...

Right at the beginning, Nazism let the cat out of the bag; but Communism concealed its true nature behind Utopia. It allowed for satisfaction of the appetite for domination and for servitude alike under the mask of generosity and love of freedom; for inequality under the mask of egalitarianism; and for deception under the mask of sincerity. This most efficient form of totalitarianism, the only socially presentable kind and the longest lasting, was not the kind that worked Evil in the name of Evil, but the kind that worked Evil in the name of Good. This is what made it even less excusable, for its duplicity enabled it to ensnare millions of worthy people who were taken in by its promises. We cannot really hold it against them that they were deceived. But the same cannot be said of their deceivers: the prominent politicians and intellectuals who knowingly escorted them down the garden path - and still do today. They know what they are doing. And when they invoke good intentions, they are consciously exploiting the perennial utopian drive.

...Utopian totalitarianism's infinite capacity for self-justification, in contrast to direct totalitarianism, explains why, even at this late date, so many of its servants go about unscathed by feelings of shame or regret. Perched in their immaculate Utopia, they absolve themselves of crimes to which they were the angelic accomplices, in the name of the ideals they have shamelessly trampled underfoot.

pp. 89-90

 

Communism and Fascism are subsections of Socialism. One is global Socialism, the other is national Socialism.

 

One is the end, the other is the means to said end.

 

That makes no sense to anyone who has researched any of those terms.

 

Obviously you haven't researched either of them.

The Nazis were National Socialists . The Communist Manifesto promotes global socialism saying, "The worker has no borders".

 

Where the rubber meets the road there is no difference for where the Fascist knows he just another self serving ******* on a power trip, the Socialist, however, while in the end not doing anything markedly different than the fascist believes himself a hero.

The bloodiest totalitarian regimes in history have always referred to themselves as People's Republics. None of them were actually republics and the people had literally no in put into how the state was run.

 

The more Left you go, government has more control, people have less freedom.

The more Right you go, the less control government has and the more freedom the people have.

Fascism is as far Left as you can go.

 

Ah one of those people.

 

Honest?

 

Liberal folks like to fantasize that they are centrists.... I mean as if... but it is like their explanation of what a woman is... The fantasy obscures the reality around them....

 

Socialism is the supposed means to achieve communism - public ownership of the means of production. Trade unions as the basic unit of society, usually subservient to the state. Almost every country has adopted its economic platform to some degree.

Fascism is hard to define because of our associations of it with many different regimes. At its core it is a society where guilds and corporations are the basic unit of society, subservient to the state. A sort of corporatism. Almost every country has quietly adopted its economic platform to some degree.

They agree that the individual is not the basic unit of society. They agree that repressive state control is needed to achieve their aims.

Basically, dictatorship of the proletariat vs dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

 

Yep, my favorite is the silly meme that conservative have changed there views as though standing pat is moving. The only ones actually moving any where are the left who ran right by sanity on the way out the door to the asylum.

 

But both in reality are just dictatorships where in a handful of people at the top make all the decision

 

Thinks that right-wing can never cause problems.

 

The right doesn't specifically cause problems, problems happen because individuals make stupid decisions. The left creates problems by, among other things, trying to idiot prove the world and them empowering trial lawyers to sue anyone anywhere for anything.

 

Add you to the list.