War With Communists

[SuburbanFarmer]

But democrats are the real fascists. I think people put too much emphasis on the collectivist part personally. It's more an absence of democracy and anti-liberal position than some kind of communist lite like people make it out to be.

The collectivist part is HIGHLY significant for 2 reasons.

1. Correctly indicates Fascism is a Socialist movement.
2. All Collectivist Ideologies place the Political goals of the State ahead of Individual Liberties, Freedom and Welfare.

Not understanding this is why even bright people like Dan Carlin can see all the similarities between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia but inaccurately call one Right and the other Left. They are both neither, they are Collectivist. When you are a Collectivist, because the State comes first, you are free to Kill, Jail, or move any human you want. They are merely a tool for the State.

I believe the term you're looking for is "totalitarian".

Nazi Germany still had private businesses, unless I'm quite mistaken.

[Speaker to Animals]

Nah. America is technically becoming a totalitarian state due to the left's anti-free speech attitudes and attempts to shame/punish dissent. Collectivism just puts the group over the individual.

Collectivism is wrong, in my opinion, for the flipside of why libertarianism is wrong. Both the individual and community matter. It's not one over the other.

[ssu]

IMO, we see glimpses of the same thing in the US with our 100 years of Progressive policies combined with crony capitalism. People have been voting for a serious change to the system since at least the mid-90s, and we are not getting reforms, just deeper entrenchment by swamp dwellers. Those in power in any empire are not about to give up their status quo easily, their arrogant, they feel entitled, and superior to the average folks.

I think the real difference is that even if the US political system is totally uncapable of reforming itself and does have corruption, the ordinary economy works somehow, at least for those that do have jobs. The corruption hasn't yet halted the economy. And the people still in Washington aren't as clueless as Czar Nicholai II was. (And I do undesrtand that they are clueless...) He had advisors that told him that the best thing was to rule as autocrat and not give any power away as he had been given power from God. A lot of other people could have understood that at least some reform was needed.

Imperial Russia was kind of a basket case as an economy, even if it had a lot of potential (that the German generals were so worried about).

A good example is that when it was a Grand Dutchy of Russia, my puny little country enjoyed a monopoly position in paper production in the end of the 19th Century in Russia. Now have you ever heard about a Great Power that has a one of it's colonies dominating with a monopoly the markets of the main country? Russia has a lot more wood than this country, you know.

And anyway, if you've anytime seen the Russian hinterland, you will notice that many of the ordinary countryside buildings and homes still in use are from the time of Imperial Russia, not so much from Soviet Union. Back in the 19th Century they built buildings to last. Soviet housing didn't last and the countryside wasn't the focus of Soviet building programs. This really shows the utter stagnation that the Russian countryside is in. (That the houses are old, from the times of Imperial Russia, can easily be seen from the whole logs they have been made of.)

[ssu]

BUT COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED CORRECTLY

I wonder why neonazis don't use the same line. Perhaps they are more honest?

Do you mean fascism or specifically the NDSAP? Because if the former, it has a long and storied history if you are willing to frame the Ceasars as fascist. I am. Also, it survived Hitler under Franco and some argue Pinochet but I'm not sure about the later.

Nationalsocialism in particular. Heck, fascism has been quite popular around the World, even if it usually isn't called by it's true name.

[C-Mag]

But democrats are the real fascists. I think people put too much emphasis on the collectivist part personally. It's more an absence of democracy and anti-liberal position than some kind of communist lite like people make it out to be.

The collectivist part is HIGHLY significant for 2 reasons.

1. Correctly indicates Fascism is a Socialist movement.
2. All Collectivist Ideologies place the Political goals of the State ahead of Individual Liberties, Freedom and Welfare.

Not understanding this is why even bright people like Dan Carlin can see all the similarities between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia but inaccurately call one Right and the other Left. They are both neither, they are Collectivist. When you are a Collectivist, because the State comes first, you are free to Kill, Jail, or move any human you want. They are merely a tool for the State.

I believe the term you're looking for is "totalitarian".

Nazi Germany still had private businesses, unless I'm quite mistaken.

While they are Totalitarian, it's not specific enough. Just about any form of government can be Totalitarian, Monarchies are the easy example. Totalitarianism is an element of Collectivism.

Nazi Germany did have private business, BUT. And this is where I really got into it Dan Carlin and he couldn't defend his point. But, to rise in business you had to be a Party member, you had to support all political policies of the party, etc. When you get into their documents you see business was linked directly to the party.

Take in the US today, we have all this News media(business) actively working against the Administration as an example.

[C-Mag]

Nah. America is technically becoming a totalitarian state due to the left's anti-free speech attitudes and attempts to shame/punish dissent. Collectivism just puts the group over the individual.

Collectivism is wrong, in my opinion, for the flipside of why libertarianism is wrong. Both the individual and community matter. It's not one over the other.

That's not how Fascists and Communists view it. It's all about the 'Fatherland', the 'Motherland'. This is why I hate the term Homeland and having an agency named that.

In Collectivism the Community is Engineered to push political goals. Food is limited, with those higher up the chain getting more as they are more important to the State. Economically, Labor for the State is pushed as more important than being paid a fair wage for work. In each Individualism is swept away.

[C-Mag]

For a better understanding of Fascism, listen to at least the first 5 minutes of Prof CJs Dangerous History, Fun with Fascism. He has a great quote of how the Father of Fascism described the movement.

Episode 056
Fun with Fascism

http://profcj.org/fun-fascism/

Note:
I missed a couple key elements.
1. Fascism embraces the idea that War is inevitable
2. Both Fascism and Communism essentially engineer ones life in service to the State.

[C-Mag]

IMO, we see glimpses of the same thing in the US with our 100 years of Progressive policies combined with crony capitalism. People have been voting for a serious change to the system since at least the mid-90s, and we are not getting reforms, just deeper entrenchment by swamp dwellers. Those in power in any empire are not about to give up their status quo easily, they are arrogant, they feel entitled, and superior to the average folks.

I think the real difference is that even if the US political system is totally uncapable of reforming itself and does have corruption, the ordinary economy works somehow, at least for those that do have jobs. The corruption hasn't yet halted the economy. And the people still in Washington aren't as clueless as Czar Nicholai II was. (And I do undesrtand that they are clueless...) He had advisors that told him that the best thing was to rule as autocrat and not give any power away as he had been given power from God. A lot of other people could have understood that at least some reform was needed.

Imperial Russia was kind of a basket case as an economy, even if it had a lot of potential (that the German generals were so worried about).

A good example is that when it was a Grand Dutchy of Russia, my puny little country enjoyed a monopoly position in paper production in the end of the 19th Century in Russia. Now have you ever heard about a Great Power that has a one of it's colonies dominating with a monopoly the markets of the main country? Russia has a lot more wood than this country, you know.

And anyway, if you've anytime seen the Russian hinterland, you will notice that many of the ordinary countryside buildings and homes still in use are from the time of Imperial Russia, not so much from Soviet Union. Back in the 19th Century they built buildings to last. Soviet housing didn't last and the countryside wasn't the focus of Soviet building programs. This really shows the utter stagnation that the Russian countryside is in. (That the houses are old, from the times of Imperial Russia, can easily be seen from the whole logs they have been made of.)

I see it a little differently, for both Imperial Russia and the US. I see it as a symptom of an Aging Empire. I think if you look at any empire about 250 years in you see a lot of institutional corruption, you see advisors and lackeys who are detached from the reality of the bulk of the population. Empires at this age have to reform or revolutionize or whither and die.

I see the election of Trump and Obama as the people saying we want reforms, but the state within the State, the advisors are stopping reform.

[TheReal_ND]

Or you could listen to someone more amicable to fascism instead of a liberal.

[GloryofGreece]

Didn't Mussolini say Fascism = Corporatism.