14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Wayne_Zitkus

In other words, liberalism values people, conservatism values institutions, socialism vest ownership of everything in the people, and communism vests ownsrship of everything in the state.

I didn't ask for definitions of the terms. I asked you to explain the differences in economic systems, which wasn't covered in what you wrote about liberalism and conservatism. And you left out the economic plans of the Democratic Party.

Are American liberals capitalist? Are Democrats? If not, what are they?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Divals

I'm all about individual rights, thank you very much. That's one of the reasons I am pro-socialist. I believe in the right of everyone to have an equal chance, and not get trodden on by the 'big guys'.

=Divals

How does socialism protect individual rights?

[Alicia Rose]

Originally Posted by Ryan

How does socialism protect individual rights?

By giving them a chance to succeed that a capitalist society does not.

=Divals

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Divals

By giving them a chance to succeed that a capitalist society does not.

=Divals

How are people given this alleged chance?

[Alicia Rose]

Originally Posted by Ryan

How are people given this alleged chance?

Generally, in a socialist society, economic barriers are taken down - exorbitant prices of education, health care, housing, and so on are either lessened or subsidized. This grants people more freedom from the 'rat race' and from worry, stress, etc. etc... so that in the end, people are, while perhaps over-taxed [this being one of my few beefs with socialism], happier.

=Divals

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Divals

Generally, in a socialist society, economic barriers are taken down - exorbitant prices of education, health care, housing, and so on are either lessened or subsidized. This grants people more freedom from the 'rat race' and from worry, stress, etc. etc... so that in the end, people are, while perhaps over-taxed [this being one of my few beefs with socialism], happier.

=Divals

Subsidies are generally paid for with money confiscated from taxpayers. So how is this protecting individual rights? You don't protect rights by violating rights, after all. And how do you know that people will be happier? I think a lot of people would be unhappy at the thought of being more over-taxed than they already are.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Originally Posted by Wagimawr

Also from www.dictionary.com



So they're more similar, it seems. Depends on how you structure your socialist society.

A benevolent socialist society would be a benefit to humanity - similar to Gene Roddenberry's vision of a future unified Earth (of course, as established in one of the films, first money had to go, and second, WWIII had to happen as a sort of wakeup call to humanity). But if the wrong person steps up and asserts "the will of the people" (think Hitler - he roused Germany to his cause by using their economic status as a party platform), then you have a problem.

It's all a matter of scale. The only true examples of socialism are the kibbutzes in Israel, where property ownership and proceeds are shared. And none of the communist regimes have truly followed Marx's theory - they were communist in name only.

And right now, we have the wrong person in George W. Bush. Who along with his minions is turning this country toward fascism, IMHO.

BTW, to complete the definitions, here's one more:

Fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Bush has been trying to consolidate more power in the Executive Branch, it's considered unpatriotic/anti-American to criticize him or his administration, and I believe the ultimate goal is to use the umbrella of "Homeland Security" to secure more of the output of industry for his fat-cat friends. And the anti-immigration crap going on in the past year or so smacks of nationalism and racism.

Nationalism - the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

Racism -

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

[/quote]

[Wagimawr]

Divals, I just want to step in here and thank you for actually bothering to answer the questions Ryan poses - that puts you miles ahead of the "more like, YOU explain the differences between socialism and communism, NERD!" crowd.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Wagimawr

Divals, I just want to step in here and thank you for actually bothering to answer the questions Ryan poses - that puts you miles ahead of the "more like, YOU explain the differences between socialism and communism, NERD!" crowd.

You're right. I've decided to rep Divals for that, even though I don't agree with her views.

[Alicia Rose]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Subsidies are generally paid for with money confiscated from taxpayers. So how is this protecting individual rights? You don't protect rights by violating rights, after all. And how do you know that people will be happier? I think a lot of people would be unhappy at the thought of being more over-taxed than they already are.

Yes, there are taxes, as I said. In an ideal world, the government would earn money honestly instead of robbing people... but if they *are* going to rob people, they ought to at least give them something back instead of throwing it all into the military or whatever.

You seem so set against helping people, why is that? Would you prefer a laissez-faire capitalist system? I'll admit that part of my opposition to such is because of my own circumstances - were it not for socialist constructs such as student aid, none of my family would have been able to go to college, myself included - but I can't imagine not wanting to help people who need it.

=Divals

[Wagimawr]

Originally Posted by Wayne_Zitkus

Bush has been trying to consolidate more power in the Executive Branch,

Which will only work to a point - our government is designed in such a way that such a plan isn't fully possible.

Originally Posted by Wayne_Zitkus

it's considered unpatriotic/anti-American to criticize him or his administration,

Not by rationally-thinking Americans, unswayed by party line.

Originally Posted by Wayne_Zitkus

and I believe the ultimate goal is to use the umbrella of "Homeland Security" to secure more of the output of industry for his fat-cat friends.

An interesting theory - what does homeland security have to do with industry, and how is Bush planning to exploit that?

Originally Posted by Wayne_Zitkus

And the anti-immigration crap going on in the past year or so smacks of nationalism and racism.

So you have no problem with immigrants entering the country without going through the proper channels? Forget what they do after they get here, cause nobody can ever agree on just how much (if any) damage illegal immigrants do. You see no issue with undocumented, illegal immigrants crossing the border without any sort of process? (And no, Gray Davis's plan of giving them drivers licenses AFTER THE FACT doesn't count as documentation - I'm talking your standard issue, handed-out-at-Ellis-Island forms that say "You are now entering the United States".)

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Divals

Yes, there are taxes, as I said. In an ideal world, the government would earn money honestly instead of robbing people... but if they *are* going to rob people, they ought to at least give them something back instead of throwing it all into the military or whatever.

Why not just work to prevent the government from taking the excessive money in the first place?

Besides; I'm actually in favor of some amount of taxation. The government has a responsibility: protect the rights of the citizens. That means the citizens have a responsibility: pay taxes, which allows the government to build and maintain the institutions necessary to protect the rights of the citizens (military, police, court systems, jails, fire departments, etc.).

Originally Posted by Divals

You seem so set against helping people, why is that? Would you prefer a laissez-faire capitalist system? I'll admit that part of my opposition to such is because of my own circumstances - were it not for socialist constructs such as student aid, none of my family would have been able to go to college, myself included - but I can't imagine not wanting to help people who need it.

I'm not opposed to helping people. Actually, I'm a pretty generous person considering that I don't make a ton of money. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of the government forcing one person to help another - especially on a scale as massive as socialized healthcare, foreign aid, etc.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Wagimawr

So you have no problem with immigrants entering the country without going through the proper channels? Forget what they do after they get here, cause nobody can ever agree on just how much (if any) damage illegal immigrants do. You see no issue with undocumented, illegal immigrants crossing the border without any sort of process? (And no, Gray Davis's plan of giving them drivers licenses AFTER THE FACT doesn't count as documentation - I'm talking your standard issue, handed-out-at-Ellis-Island forms that say "You are now entering the United States".)

You mean it doesn't smack "of nationalism and racism" to expect people from other countries to obey our laws and respect our national borders?

[Wagimawr]

Borders? Who needs borders? Everything for everybody!

[Alicia Rose]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Why not just work to prevent the government from taking the excessive money in the first place?

Besides; I'm actually in favor of some amount of taxation. The government has a responsibility: protect the rights of the citizens. That means the citizens have a responsibility: pay taxes, which allows the government to build and maintain the institutions necessary to protect the rights of the citizens (military, police, court systems, jails, fire departments, etc.).

Right, I agree with that... that is basically what government is supposed to be for.

Originally Posted by Ryan

I'm not opposed to helping people. Actually, I'm a pretty generous person considering that I don't make a ton of money. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of the government forcing one person to help another - especially on a scale as massive as socialized healthcare, foreign aid, etc.

You have a good point, and it really isn't the government's place to decide what people are going to do with what's theirs... but on the other hand, as a protective agency, it definitely isn't their place to stand by while the lower classes are trampled either. And the sad truth is that if the government doesn't do something, few people will. There are nice people out there, but not nearly enough to take care of all of this nation's poor... and we don't really think the corporations will do anything, do we? Hahahahaha... it is to laugh.

And of course, the knee-jerk reaction: If people don't want to pay taxes to help each other out, nobody's *making* them live here...

=Divals