I believe you cannot choose something between these options because one is an economic model and the other an ideoloy... meaningly that in theory you could have both at the same time... I think you should fix the question before continuing with the poll...
@Messier: hmm, as in suicide? Like hitlers generals during the final hours of WWII when they knew that national socialism would be destroyed once the war was over?
Ill never understand why someone would choose death over a different political viewpoint.
Unless your talking about becoming renegade, in which case i just have to say, thet it equally suicidal in a communist/facist country
" I believe you cannot choose something between these options because one is an economic model and the other an ideoloy... meaningly that in theory you could have both at the same time... I think you should fix the question before continuing with the poll... "
Very good point sir
But to answer your question the best I can, I would choose communism, because I believe in communism anyway.
@Gunner: I believe that you are misinformed... The leaders of each movement were enemies to death... an ideology has nothing against an economic model, they're completely different things...
Well actually, true Communism would be very good, but human nature does not allow it to work, so yeah Communism.
"
Which aspect of human nature? The critical-reasoning aspect, or the need for material sustenance aspect? I mean, sure, maybe if we were all a bunch of boulders, communism would be better for us. From the rock with the greatest ability to the rock with the greatest need, right?
Edit: To answer the question asked by the poll: NONE OF THE ABOVE.
" @Messier: hmm, as in suicide? Like hitlers generals during the final hours of WWII when they knew that national socialism would be destroyed once the war was over? Ill never understand why someone would choose death over a different political viewpoint. Unless your talking about becoming renegade, in which case i just have to say, thet it equally suicidal in a communist/facist country "
" Ugghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. EDIT: To supplement, I'm a Marxist-Leninist. So Communism. It seems pointless to have the option between Fascism and Communism. They're completely different things. Communism spans across a variety of ideologies, and can't really be compared to Fascism . The state is the core of Fascism, while elimination of the state is a core concept of Communism. "
May I ask how modern M/Ls plan on going about achieving that? I mean, we know dialectical materialism was dead in the water, so have they decided to drop the historical dialectic, and if so, what process will replace it? (You should probably answer these questions in the form of a PM.)
Fascism. I believe that one must earn one's worth, and that a individual's abilities should reflect his position in society. In a Communist society, this hierarchy is abolished. There is no motivation for hard work, innovation, or advancement. If all are equal, there is no need to go above and beyond the call of duty. Fascism isn't much better, to be fair, but it's the lesser of two evils; at least it progresses. At least in it I get the cheese at the end of the maze.
Do we mean each concept in their 'ideal' form, or in the form they take when exposed to the real world? Because that is kind of a big difference.
If we mean 'ideal', then I guess communism? I dunno?
If we mean real-world versions, I claim the right to do whatever I (would like to) do when presented with two different but equally bad choices: Choose Option 3 (this option frequently is the most violent*, but in this case I'm not too worried about that).
*not that my actual choices are violent. I mean like in movies and such. I don't think I've ever done an actual option 3.
Both are very different but Communism always suffers because "people want shit," as my philosophy professor always said when it comes to Communism. We read the Communist Manifesto in class, that document outlines something that is very different than what Communism is in practice. In actual practice Communism is pretty much already Fascist. The original idea is to have little government in a Communist society, while in actual practice, the government controls EVERYTHING.
Simply put, Democracy is the best choice. But as was said earlier, Communism is an economical policy where as Fascism is a ideology.
An effective poll would be
a) Capitalism b) Socialism c) Communism
A more effective poll would be:
a) Capitalism b) Socialism c) Communism d) Capitalism-Socialism e) Capitalism-Communism f ) Socialism-Communism g) Socialism-Capitalism h) Communism-Capitalism I) Communism-Socialism
Fascism is an economic system: nominal free enterprise with the state pulling the strings in the background. This takes many forms, from Seungman Rhee's "guided democracy" (or "crony capitalism" as his opponents called it), which forcefully focused Korean industry on telecommunications, long-haul-shipbuilding, and manufacturing; to Mussolini's North-centric economic development model, to America's system of monopolized reserve banking. All of them have the appearance of economic liberty on the surface, but none are actually capitalistic.
In a way, fascism is the original "mixed economy".
I think the OP should at least define what each of these are or else the only discussion here is people mistaking what each of these are and other people telling them they are wrong.
@Nightroad91: And the leaders hated eachother because of the different viewpoints, WWII proved this.
EDIT: In theory, a nation could have a socialist monarchy, but the viewpoints conflict with each other in the same way that republicans hate socialism and anything involving big government.
are we talking about communsism the theory? or how it usualy turns out . because they are very different things. but i guess communism either way, i cant see a bright side with facism.
" @Nightroad91: And the leaders hated eachother because of the different viewpoints, WWII proved this. EDIT: In theory, a nation could have a socialist monarchy, but the viewpoints conflict with each other in the same way that republicans hate socialism and anything involving big government. "
So wait, the United Kingdom doesn't exist? Last I checked the governing party in their parliament was the Labour Party.
I also think it's weird that you put republicans in the same category as monarchists, when they're opposites.
@Suicrat: I wasnt connecting monarchy to a republic, I was simply stating that while it is possible for the two to coexist, the ideals behind them are totally different making it almost impossible for them to.
also, England is not a socialist state, nor is it an absolute monarchy.
" @Suicrat: I wasnt connecting monarchy to a republic, I was simply stating that while it is possible for the two to coexist, the theology behind them are totally different making it almost impossible for them to. also, England is not a socialist state, nor is it an absolute monarchy. "
It's a combination of the two. I don't think any socialist would try to make the point that 'pure' or 'absolute' socialism exists anywhere. Although how something that is itself a hybrid could be referred to as 'absolute' in the first place is beyond me.
Also, there's not really any such thing as absolute monarchy either. Each monarch dissolves some of their powers to other individuals, bodies, and institutions.
@Suicrat: I was under the impression that people were talking in theory and absolutes, i was paointing out that you will never be able to shove a square brick into a circle hole unless your carve it down.
" @Suicrat: I was under the impression that people were talking in theory and absolutes, i was paointing out that you will never be able to shove a square brick into a circle hole unless your carve it down. "
I would caution against any attempt to describe government activities in such off-putting metaphors (i.e., is the government the brick, or are the people to be governed the brick?)
My initial points were just an attempt to clarify some of the apparent contradictions in one of your posts. (Including the notion that republicans are opposed to expanding the size and scope government, which I just noticed now... and can be easily disproven by an examination of any republican administration since World War II -- if not prior)
Also, the country with the largest government in the world is a self-proclaimed Republic; they refer to their government as the Chinese People's Democratic Dictatorship, and it's frickin' huge.
Communism, once we live in space ships we will all be communists anyway. Everyone will have their job and be expected to do it in order to help each other live. Although this would be a socialist version of communism. Meet you on the space ships soldier!
" @Suicrat: I was under the impression that people were talking in theory and absolutes, i was paointing out that you will never be able to shove a square brick into a circle hole unless your carve it down. "
I would caution against any attempt to describe government activities in such off-putting metaphors (i.e., is the government the brick, or are the people to be governed the brick?) My initial points were just an attempt to clarify some of the apparent contradictions in one of your posts. (Including the notion that republicans are opposed to expanding the size and scope government, which I just noticed now... and can be easily disproven by an examination of any republican administration since World War II -- if not prior) Also, the country with the largest government in the world is a self-proclaimed Republic; they refer to their government as the Chinese People's Democratic Dictatorship, and it's frickin' huge. "
Its one thing to declare yourself a republic and another to actually be a republic.
Most republicans are usually (in my experience, having grown up in the south) are against big government and are for capitalism.
Also the brick is communism and the hole is fascism. Like i said in my first post, the two are completely different and it is almost impossible for the two to work together.
@Gunner: If only they ever voted that way... (For instance, nominating Goldwater instead of Nixon...)
Also, apologies for mistakenly conceptualizing your analogy, it sounded like you were describing the need for communists to reform human nature in order to make communism work.
Log in to comment