RE: Pep talk to Socialists (Don't give up!)
August 4, 2013 at 2:30 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2013 at 2:32 pm by Ferraro.)
I mastered the subject well, but I have difficulties to express myself in English so I ask your patience.
Fascism is an ideology that preaches the existence of an all-powerful State to coordinate and control all aspects of social life. Such a state would be shaped in a militarized and undemocratic one-party state with a strong nationalist tendency. Society could only obey.
Fascism is totalitarianism considered right because the market economy continued to exist in the countries in which it was deployed. The market economy existed on state control in the name of social cohesion guarantee certain income distribution. Therefore fascism can be considered as Keynesianism boots, boots with the characteristic military. The name itself is something fascism of Mussolini and his party, but the term is used to name totalitarianism similar in other countries such as Franco's Spain. The socialism of the USSR is considered as a form of totalitarianism because the characteristics mentioned in my other comment. But is considered leftist totalitarianism because the economy was planned and income was socialized.
Nazism can be considered a form of fascism. But Nazism is also a distortion of it because he preaches state servitude to a race (ethnicity actually) while Fascism preaches servitude of all races to the State. The idea of ethnic cleansing is Nazism. A person can be fascist and not discriminatory.
Being nationalistic is simply exalting his State National. Be internationalist is to give less importance to their nation and to think more globally. Terms are vague and that alone does not mark a complete positioning. A person can be in favor of economic freedoms and restrictions on individual freedoms (the right-wing conservatives) and being nationalistic, not these Republicans? A person can also be in favor of individual freedoms and restrictions on economic freedoms (leftist reformers) and being nationalist or internationalist, no Democrats who are nationalists?
Only libertarians who favor complete economic freedom and personal freedom tend to be more internationalists, but even in this case can be found nationalists....
Nationalist is usually the guy who thinks it is right that their nation subjugating other people get benefits or who want to preserve an ideal of nationality usually something that is associated with a particular ethnicity. These subjects are also much more common in the central than in the peripheral due to the early imperial mentality. The U.S. is prodigious that.
We live in capitalism. He is the current mode of production. It is also the current system of social organization. Currently we are in the third or fourth industrial revolution and capitalism in today's globalized monopoly stage. There really choose between capitalism or anything else, you may not like your company, but it exists regardless of your tastes. What countries like Cuba and North Korea do is isolate themselves and lose the opportunity to develop. But even these and the former socialist countries were entered into the capitalist context.
Communism has never existed. The real socialism had said several features of capitalism, so some Marxists regard as state capitalism. Authors and revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg criticized the Bolshevik revolution as it happened. The criticism was that the model revolutionary Lenin would cause a dictatorship and not the end of class society. This model was the party's hierarchical, bureaucratic and intellectual vanguard. Socialism in the USSR and other countries would still be a class society because there would still be the leaders (bureaucrats and party cadres) and directed (the rest of society). Communist parties were called up Social-Democrats, including the Russian Lenin, but this has changed the name of his party to Communist separating it from other European parties that were becoming reformers.
The planned economy failed for obvious reasons. At one point the developed capitalist countries offered better quality of life that the socialist countries that have socialized poverty, but been unable to thrive properly.
Fascism is an ideology that preaches the existence of an all-powerful State to coordinate and control all aspects of social life. Such a state would be shaped in a militarized and undemocratic one-party state with a strong nationalist tendency. Society could only obey.
Fascism is totalitarianism considered right because the market economy continued to exist in the countries in which it was deployed. The market economy existed on state control in the name of social cohesion guarantee certain income distribution. Therefore fascism can be considered as Keynesianism boots, boots with the characteristic military. The name itself is something fascism of Mussolini and his party, but the term is used to name totalitarianism similar in other countries such as Franco's Spain. The socialism of the USSR is considered as a form of totalitarianism because the characteristics mentioned in my other comment. But is considered leftist totalitarianism because the economy was planned and income was socialized.
Nazism can be considered a form of fascism. But Nazism is also a distortion of it because he preaches state servitude to a race (ethnicity actually) while Fascism preaches servitude of all races to the State. The idea of ethnic cleansing is Nazism. A person can be fascist and not discriminatory.
Being nationalistic is simply exalting his State National. Be internationalist is to give less importance to their nation and to think more globally. Terms are vague and that alone does not mark a complete positioning. A person can be in favor of economic freedoms and restrictions on individual freedoms (the right-wing conservatives) and being nationalistic, not these Republicans? A person can also be in favor of individual freedoms and restrictions on economic freedoms (leftist reformers) and being nationalist or internationalist, no Democrats who are nationalists?
Only libertarians who favor complete economic freedom and personal freedom tend to be more internationalists, but even in this case can be found nationalists....
Nationalist is usually the guy who thinks it is right that their nation subjugating other people get benefits or who want to preserve an ideal of nationality usually something that is associated with a particular ethnicity. These subjects are also much more common in the central than in the peripheral due to the early imperial mentality. The U.S. is prodigious that.
We live in capitalism. He is the current mode of production. It is also the current system of social organization. Currently we are in the third or fourth industrial revolution and capitalism in today's globalized monopoly stage. There really choose between capitalism or anything else, you may not like your company, but it exists regardless of your tastes. What countries like Cuba and North Korea do is isolate themselves and lose the opportunity to develop. But even these and the former socialist countries were entered into the capitalist context.
Communism has never existed. The real socialism had said several features of capitalism, so some Marxists regard as state capitalism. Authors and revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg criticized the Bolshevik revolution as it happened. The criticism was that the model revolutionary Lenin would cause a dictatorship and not the end of class society. This model was the party's hierarchical, bureaucratic and intellectual vanguard. Socialism in the USSR and other countries would still be a class society because there would still be the leaders (bureaucrats and party cadres) and directed (the rest of society). Communist parties were called up Social-Democrats, including the Russian Lenin, but this has changed the name of his party to Communist separating it from other European parties that were becoming reformers.
The planned economy failed for obvious reasons. At one point the developed capitalist countries offered better quality of life that the socialist countries that have socialized poverty, but been unable to thrive properly.
