Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2024, 04:57:17 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: In search of Fascism  (Read 317 times)
coins4commies
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 175

@cryptocommies


View Profile
November 03, 2018, 03:14:53 AM
 #21

By "economic cooperation", you mean "you work I eat and we call it cooperation"...  Roll Eyes
I know you were being facetious but cooperation means you work together and does not mean you get the same pay.  Look at any worker cooperative or commune if you want to see what cooperation looks like.  

"you work, I eat" is literally what happens on the opposite end of the spectrum (the right)


Quote
The so-called socialist countries you see now, such as China, Vietnam and other countries, are a combination of political totalitarianism + economic capitalism, not pure socialism.
I don't know how to name their current system. If you look at the definition of socialism, you will find that their current system is different from socialism, maybe they can be named by semi-socialist semi-capitalistism.
State socialism, or state communism.

I don't like these names because they are contradictory.  Communism requires statelessness (bottom of the political compass) so "state communism" is not communism, its just tyranny. 
SirArthur (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 43


View Profile
November 11, 2018, 09:47:26 AM
 #22

Competition and cooperation are complementary and needed; you cooperate with your team and compete with the other teams, by competition your team have a reason to achieve more and better.
In sum, cooperation is needed, but competition is the fuel of invention and effort. Don't fall into snowflake ideologies.

All derivatives of communism are flawed, just by reading common people comments on Facebook... I really don't think that direct democracy or stateless communism are good ideas, probably you would end up with death penalty for nothing and everything down that road...

@coin8coin8 ; I'm not looking for fascism to implement it, but to give it a strict definition.
Lousy definitions provides a lot of misunderstanding. Currently the "trend keyword" is populism, because most people doesn't know what this word means, all you see is a lot of populist politicians talking against populism.
Coinifyx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 10

Personal Text


View Profile
November 11, 2018, 03:00:35 PM
Last edit: November 13, 2018, 05:20:26 PM by Coinifyx
 #23

For ages "Fascism" has been used as pure insult, this attitude deprived it from meaning as calling one Fascist or SoB resumes to the same, doesn't exactly means he is indeed a fascist or his mother is a prostitute. Madeleine Albright lately wrote on this subject over the very same concern.

What IS Fascism on strict sense?

From the little Mussolini left behind him, we can establish that any ideology who wants to centralize full power at the State is a Fascist ideology, but little more can be establish beyond the burden of doubt to be or not fascist behavior or ideology, as we start to collide with other ideologies, such as communism, which, by such narrow definition, are fascists, or even worse extreme fascists, as the state controls absolutely everything on society.

So... how can we define and give it a meaning?

I define the research of fascism as the lacking of self-responsibility, people want someone in charge to think and act for themselves. Politics are the reflection of the family environment, societies where fathers play a huge authority tend to be more fascist than others.

Then there are those countries where the majority of the people would like to rebel to the authority but fear the power of the hegemony, this is not fascism in the strict sense but an enabled oligarchy, one example I could make is China. Chinese government makes a different class from the rest of its citizens, despite having one ruler the power is held by the commisarians and the generals, Russia is a mixture of both things.

I look towards direct democracy but I know for a fact that it will never happen in my country, every town should decide for its own affairs.
May suggest you to read O’Donnell’s research about this: Democracy, Agency, and the State (2010) most of the times a flawed democracy is still better than no democracy at all as practical tolerance is still better than theological tolerance.

Nothing to say
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!