- =SB= Sonic Blast Community Forum
-
- ~Community Night Zone~
-
- Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout
-
- Fascism or Communism
| ~Welcome to the Sonic Blast Community Forum~ Greetings stranger, it is an honor to have you as a visitor. Since we opened in 2006 our goal has been to offer the most authentic Sonic-themed community on the web for Sonic enthusiasts new and old. We do our best to provide the most unique features, best Sonic-themed designs, and have the latest news; always improving to cover all of your Sonic needs. Our community is full of friendly people and we hope you enjoy your brief stay but would be thrilled if you decided to join in on the fun. Being a part of our community is easy, quick, and absolutely free. Click here to join our community and enter the land of Mobius as a =SB= citizen! Citizens may log in to their account to participate in our land's conversations and access all of our features: |
| Fascism or Communism; Which would you choose? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2012, 01:52 AM (876 Views) | |
| VlaDDrakkeN | Jun 28 2012, 01:52 AM Post #1 |
The Jester
|
COMMUNISM OR FASCISM? While I was on another forum, I saw a interesting topic. The topic was basically about choosing either Communism or Fascism. It was an interesting topic to say the least. Its been years now and now I'm curious of the political standings of the people here on this forum. This was inspired from quite a few comments Ive seen on other places based on the current situation of the world, how the West views the East and so forth. The two extremes of the Political scale. Communism and Fascism. While some tend to make the mistake of grouping them both together, they are two opposite sides of the spectrum. Whatever the scenario, situation or what not maybe that would provoke you to choose one or the other does not matter. What I ask is to make a choice and describe and write down why. This isn't a vote nor is a debate of which is better. This is a hot button topic so I wouldn't be surprised if people may get annoyed but I have confidence people commenting here can keep their cool. I also ask that we do not judge the people who make whatever choice and why afterward(As I will, since this is more of a question of interest than anything). For those who want to put their two cents in but don't know of the two political ideologies a lot, heres these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism I'll add my two cents into this if people comment. Edited by VlaDDrakkeN, Jun 28 2012, 01:53 AM.
|
     ===================================================================================     
| |
 |
 
|
| Pedruben | Jun 28 2012, 08:58 AM Post #2 |
Currently attempting to return.
|
I really hope I wasn't the first posting here because I usually don't care about politics. And yet I really like psychology with includes political system and regimes. Now that's a hard one. Personally if I could choose from anyone I would ask for a democracy with regulations. But lets see if I can remain on topic. Now one thing I always though about communism was that it looks like a good idea on paper but a terrible one on real life, because it doesn't take into account that every human is different and it tries to turn everyone into one single class. Now I know little about Communist, mostly what I studied in school about Karl Max, and even less about fascism. But from what I've gathered it sounds like the an attempt to join everyone in one country together in the sense of making a difference between them and the rest of the world. Full of patriotism and stuff. Well, that's a terrible resume of what I gathered. Really terrible. What I do know is what they have in common. Funny how opposite stuff always have things in common. They both use strategies that involve the "masses" and they both rely a lot on propaganda. Now for which one I would I choose to be in? Well, its a though choice. Communist sounds better of the two but my idea is that its actually unstable because of all the bureaucratic it has in other to keep people in one class. On the other hand fascism sounds like a good idea if your part of the country, because it aims to bring the people in that country together. ... I don't know, both sound terrible to live in, since I'm not really the kind of person that follows the crowd, even if they can be good for the country in specific cases. Well, since I have to choose I'll go with communism. No big reason, it just sounds better at some points. I guess I was kind of off topic since that was more like a rant and less like a choice. Edited by Pedruben, Jun 28 2012, 09:02 AM.
|
|
Tumblr The Shack Family Chart in a nutshell. | |
|
|
|
| Katsuko | Jun 28 2012, 09:26 AM Post #3 |
Sandopolis Act 1
|
They're two words for the same thing, although Fascism sounds better on paper and commands superior propaganda.
Edited by Katsuko, Jun 28 2012, 09:27 AM.
|
 <3 All you need is love <3 | |
|
|
|
| Wallace | Jun 28 2012, 09:36 AM Post #4 |
Break out the L-word. The other L-word.
|
This, but I'll throw in my two cents according to the definitions of the topic: Both communism and fascism are TERRIBLE political philosophies. Like Ped says, they may sound good on paper, especially communism, but in practice can never be truly implemented and last. If I had a third option, I'd go with a capitalist republic in which the government has as little say as possible, can only enforce laws that do not prohibit citizens from practicing their rights, and only laws that protect the rights of citizens, both from other citizens, and from the government itself. If I had no third option, and it was strictly communism or fascism, I'd randomly pick one, and then wait for the whole thing to collapse so we could rebuild the nation in question as a capitalist republic. It likely wouldn't be a long wait. |
Join Scott Pilgrim Month!  Character Code: | |
|
|
|
| Katsuko | Jun 28 2012, 09:50 AM Post #5 |
|
Sandopolis Act 1
|
 I must say, in my thoroughly Austrian accent, zat I approve most forcefully <33 |
|
<3 All you need is love <3 | |
|
|
|
| Wallace | Jun 28 2012, 10:49 AM Post #6 |
|
Break out the L-word. The other L-word.
|
 I must say, in my thoroughly Russian accent, that you are awesome. Communism and fascism both suck, we'd be better off randomly selecting one and waiting for it to inescapably collapse, and then, having an actual choice in the matter seeing as these options offer no good outcome, setting up a system similar to the one I outlined before. /topic |
|
Join Scott Pilgrim Month! Character Code: | |
|
|
|
| VlaDDrakkeN | Jun 28 2012, 12:46 PM Post #7 |
|
The Jester
|
Hmmm, this didn't go as I had hoped. Well, I said I would comment so I shall. Seeing as were picking third choices, I personally say that all governments work on paper, but often fails when implemented. So I pick no government and sorta lean more to anarchy. Sure, not exactly something most people like or the best if you want , but its better to have total freedom, than the illusion of freedom offered by Libertarians or Authoritarians. You guys think I should wait a bit to see if anymore people comment or just go ahead and ask to close the topic? |
|
===================================================================================
| |
|
|
|
| Katsuko | Jun 28 2012, 12:55 PM Post #8 |
|
Sandopolis Act 1
|
We should keep going D:
In theory, I agree. Ideologically, anarchy is the only system of government that can allow the individual the fullest freedom to pursue whatever end represents the good to that person. In reality, however, force is inevitably part of the world, and when people implement force, de-facto government arises. Because I lack faith in people's ability to refrain from force, because I live in a world where violence is an overwhelming and near universal reality, I can't bring myself to believe in anarchy as a practical solution. Liberal government, a violence-monopoly that limits itself to a small public sphere, is the next best thing. -- A lot of people seem to say communism "looks good on paper." Why is this? To me, communism looks awful on paper. Edited by Katsuko, Jun 28 2012, 12:57 PM.
|
|
<3 All you need is love <3 | |
|
|
|
| Wallace | Jun 28 2012, 01:00 PM Post #9 |
|
Break out the L-word. The other L-word.
|
Anarchy would turn into mindless violence and riots. If there is absolutely no system prohibiting immoral actions such as violence, murder, rape, theft, etcetera, then the most you can hope for is absolute chaos. Ultimate freedom? Perhaps, but consider that by having your ultimate freedom, so does everyone else. You would live under the ultimate fear of your neighbors' arbitrary whims. What's to stop them from killing you because they like your house? Or because once, long ago, you insulted them? Or maybe they just decide they don't like the look on your face. Government serves a purpose, but very few political systems have governments that serve that purpose and do not go beyond their power. A government is instituted, as described in the American Declaration of Independence as such: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Governments are allowed by the consent of the governed, and the powers are granted to the government by the consent of the governed. The purpose of the government is to protect the individual rights--life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and private property--of its citizens, both from itself and from everyone's fellow citizens. Without a government that fulfills this purpose, or a government at all, the best you can hope for is tribal warfare. |
|
Join Scott Pilgrim Month! Character Code: | |
|
|
|
| Pedruben | Jun 28 2012, 01:08 PM Post #10 |
|
Currently attempting to return.
|
The only way that would work is like this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySuetopia And people just don't work this way. Because communist sounds fair. It really does, if you look at it in its simplest for its about sharing all the wealth of the country in equal terms to everyone. The problem is that its impossible to keep tabs on everyone to make sure that they all have the same and different people have different skills that leads to people easily getting more wealth that others. So communism sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't realize the difference between human and can't maintain itself for long. |
|
Tumblr The Shack Family Chart in a nutshell. | |
|
|
|
| Wallace | Jun 28 2012, 01:09 PM Post #11 |
|
Break out the L-word. The other L-word.
|
A lot of people will look at the simplest definition of communism that is on paper--that it is a system in which all citizens are equal--and conclude that it is a fine idea, that it is the perfect political system. But when you take into account the logical steps a society must make in order to implement it, and you realize what it truly means to force everyone to be equal, you realize how truly terrible it is. "From each according to their ability, and to each according to their need." It is the stock phrase of the communist, the summation of his philosophy. But it breeds the lazy, because one could easily set their standard of "ability" very low, and claim their standard for "need" to be excessive, and there is nothing to deny him that. He can not work at all; be given not only his necessities but what he claims are his necessities, such as a free car, or house, or television, or computer; and get away with it, because the system allows for it. It condemns the productive as foolish and the lazy as ideal. It promotes stagnation and criminalizes growth. Citizens who work to the best of their ability are given nothing to show for it, and are burdened by the "need" of his neighbor and coworker, and work and work and work but for what? He is working beyond that which his coworkers work, and to be different, or make others seem inferior, is a sin, because all are equal and some refuse to work for their living. But I'm certain you already know this, so I'll shut up now. |
|
Join Scott Pilgrim Month! Character Code: | |
|
|
|
| Katsuko | Jun 28 2012, 01:57 PM Post #12 |
|
Sandopolis Act 1
|
I guess, but to me "mobilize force and destroy anyone who does not willingly give all their wealth away until everyone is in the same equality of agricultural toil" looks bad on paper :| You don't have to put it into practice to realize the economics, the politics, and the morality just isn't there.
Firstly, that's a very simplistic notion of Marxism, which is more concerned with attaching pay to labor rather than contractual agreement. IOW, you get paid according to the "value" of your physical production rather than according to a contract with your boss or consumers. Secondly, even if we take this simple egalitarian model, why is it particularly fair for everyone to have the same stake in value when not everyone contributes the same product to the system? Further, how are you going to determine the distribution of product when people's evaluations of goods and services vary widely? You might commit all your resources to making pianos, and give pianos to everyone in the country and call it "equal." In fact, however, pianists are much better off than the non-pianists. Calculating how to actually equalize people's value is an impossible feat. I understand people like the idea "people should be equal," but that doesn't mean the complex political system associated with that ideal looks good on paper (i.e. in theory). In my opinion, fascism looks much better in theory: "Let's develop a closed capitalist system headed by a charismatic and competent strong-man who will see to filling in all the cracks capitalism creates with tradition and national fervor. It will unite us to a common cause, driving us to act collectively for the good of the nation even as markets make us wealthy in the realm where they work." Edited by Katsuko, Jul 24 2012, 08:26 PM.
|
|
<3 All you need is love <3 | |
|
|
|
| Wallace | Jun 28 2012, 02:09 PM Post #13 |
|
Break out the L-word. The other L-word.
|
But as I said, you don't have to actually put it into practice to realize its folly. You look at the core of it, that it makes everyone equal, and you think, "gee, wouldn't that be nice?" And if you can manage to brainwash a people to think it is ultimately moral and right, then the immoral ways in which it is implemented are overlooked. You gave a more truthful definition of communism, yes, but the one I gave is the simplest, the one that if someone saw it on paper and put no thought into its realization, they might think it would be a great idea. The primary reason I dislike fascism is the zealously nationalist part of it. To love a country for the ideas it stands for is great, but to blindly love a country simply because it demands your loyalty, or because of a silly reason such as race and lineage, is ignorant. Add on top of that the fact that it features a politically omnipotent executive power, and you've got a terrible way to run a country. A lot of political ideas sound great on paper, when its proponents have simplified it as much as possible, poured as much sugar on it as they could. But when you think rationally about the implications and outcomes of these systems, you realize that it is irrational and immoral, allowing the individual no rights, and foisting upon his shoulders the weight of everyone else's burdens for the "greater good" of the nation, or for the "social welfare," both terms remaining completely abstract and undefined. |
|
Join Scott Pilgrim Month! Character Code: | |
|
|
|
| Pedruben | Jun 28 2012, 02:36 PM Post #14 |
|
Currently attempting to return.
|
Its those kind of question that make the translation between paper and reality really hard and at some points right down impossible. Again, I only used the most basic, simplest idea of communism. |
|
Tumblr The Shack Family Chart in a nutshell. | |
|
|
|
| Katsuko | Jun 28 2012, 02:40 PM Post #15 |
|
Sandopolis Act 1
|
I guess I'm just using the term "on paper" wrongly. By "on paper" I mean that I'm referring to the abstract theory independent of practical experience. By that measure, problems like the ones I've cited are "on paper." You all, however, seem to mean simply "it makes good propaganda" which, yes, es true.
I'm more conservative, I guess, and I value traditions of loyalty and the like beyond their apparent, rational value. But I agree that fascism utlimately decays to the same totalitarian mess because of the unlimited executive, who inevitably becomes entangled in arbitrary oppression and economic interference.
You sound so Randian there :'D Es beautiful. Just how far do you follow her? Edited by Katsuko, Jun 28 2012, 02:42 PM.
|
|
<3 All you need is love <3 | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 3:41 AM Jul 25
|
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards