Loading Loading
Just for optimization

Politics.comblogPerso

freecreditcheck.com |  creditreports.com |  whois.domaintools.com |  bookclub.com

Stop throwing around words like 'Socialism' and 'Fascism' Stop throwing around words like 'Socialism' and 'Fascism'

Visit Jeremy86's Blog | 10 months ago

Recently, in political...let's generously call it "discussion," I've seen a lot of people on the internet and various talking heads on the ol' video box throwing around words like "socialism" and "fascism" as if they have almost any relevance at all to current American politics. Usually, they are applied to our President, Mr. Obama.

Now, I am no blind supporter of the current administration. Keeping "rendition" is pretty questionable. Failing (so far) to pursue prosecution for criminal behavior in the last administration is pretty questionable. Giving tons of money to the banks instead of people is pretty questionable. Not that I suddenly hate the guy, and I think the administration has done a lot of good as well, but I think there is room for constructive - even harsh - criticism of the administration as long as it comes from an intellectually honest place, and it doesn't just have to center on those items I listed either (which I realize largely fall under the category of "he's not liberal enough").

But the whole socialism and fascism thing is just really stupid. Now, I'm no expert in political theory, but as I tend to understand the political spectrum, there are a few truths that bear stating:

-Socialism is on the "liberal" end; as such, the Democratic party is closer to socialism than the Republican party is.

-Fascism is on the "conservative" end; as such, the Republican party is closer to fascism than the Democratic party is.

-Both parties are far closer to EACH OTHER (and the middle of spectrum) than they are to either socialism or fascism, which are at far extreme ends; indeed, neither is remotely close to either true socialism or true fascism.

-For that matter, fascism and socialism are not the same thing at all, and certainly do not go hand in hand.

Even Fox News star Glenn Beck, for all his paranoia, stupidity, and probable diagnosable insanity, at least understood this when he "corrected" himself on his assertion that Obama is marching us towards socialism; he understood, as he asserted that Obama is in fact leading us towards fascism, that there is a clear difference between the two. He's also prone to random crying spells, believes Woodrow Wilson inserted secret symbols into the dime to make us all fascist, and once claimed to hate the families of 9/11 victims' families for being sooooo upset by the deaths of their loved ones. But I digress.

Unfortunately, a lot of people entering the political discourse recently aren't quite as knowledgeable as Glenny boy, and believe (if their signs at "teabagging" rallies are any indication) that both are in fact one in the same. Not to mention, they don't seem to understand the distinctions between recent government policies and either the socialist or fascist extremes.

Perhaps more troublingly, they also don't seem to understand a little thing called "strategy." We on the left have finally found our groove again recently, but don't you guys remember what we were like just a few years ago? Arguably, one of the reasons the left failed to convince those on the fence about the Iraq war to join our side is that just enough dumbasses decide to show up at otherwise peaceful rallies and burn flags, wave "Bush=Hitler" signs, and sport fashionable "Anarchy" symbols on their t-shirts. They were perfectly within their rights to do such things, but they didn't seem to understand how this would play on news outlets that would choose to zero in on them. Other movements have been just as troubled. Even many animal lovers like myself (I spend every Saturday caring for homeless pets at a shelter) don't care for PETA because they choose to hurl fake blood at people and generally act like morons. Religious groups that show bloody pictures of dead infants just revolt people (often out with their own children) who might otherwise be sympathetic.

And now, we have the people equating a slight increase in the taxation of the wealthy as a move towards totalitarianism (or, they would if they could actually spell "totalitarianism"). They've got all the requisite rage, but not the ability to articulate their positions in an intelligent way that would be worth discussing. And they (however unintentionally) discredit the more intelligent people out there who might otherwise side with them, not to mention alienate anyone else who might otherwise be willing to engage with them.

So rightists: get out there and speak your viewpoints. Debate, discuss, and maybe even protest to make your voices heard. Enjoy some delicious tea. But remember that not long ago we on the left looked like the loony, unorganized, and outright hateful group that some of your lesser members are making you look like now. We had to join together, form a real agenda, and improve the quality of our discourse to get where we are here in 2009.

And for god's sake, stop saying "fascist" and "socialist" every five seconds. It makes you look like morons.

Tags:

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Jeremy86 (Democratic) - 10 months ago

I didn t necessarily intend to reply to any comments to begin with on this blog (or any blog I ve written or will write). When I comment on things I engage in discussions but when I do any kind of blogging I usually just let commenters say their piece since I figure I've already said mine. I think of it as something I've "published" (the exception might be if I posted something more personal on, say, Facebook and some of the responses were from people I know in person and addressed specifically to me). This is something I wrote about a month ago largely for humor's sake and I thought I'd post it here for a lark. I didn't expect so many responses!

To the extent that I'll reply to what's been written here I'll just say this. Are the actions of the Obama administration CLOSER to socialism than what we've had in the recent past? Yes, just as the actions of the Bush administration and the Republican party are CLOSER to fascism. That's a given. However, my point was that just because the actions of the Dems are closer to socialism than the Republicans (and theirs are closer to fascism than that of their opponents) does not mean either comes anywhere close to those extremes. It's simply not a valid political argument to suggest that the Obama administration is anywhere near actual, true socialism, a system that they couldn't ever really bring us towards if they tried. True socialism - and for that matter true fascism - are very, very extreme systems that would affect all of our daily lives a lot more than the government taking up partial ownership of a couple failing corporations or making small changes in the tax system (which they do regularly). What we have between Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Prohibition Party members, whatever, is simply honest differences in philosophy about how to reach the same general point of peace, prosperity, and democracy, and throwing around words like "socialism" and "fascism" every ten seconds just dumbs down the discussion. We on the left used "fascism" a lot ourselves during the Bush years and we learned the hard way how ineffective and silly that type of rhetoric is.

Also, fascism and socialism may not automatically be mutually exclusive; however, they are nonetheless different things, a fact that (Glenn Beck aside) has been largely ignored by a lot of political pundits recently. They have been treated as if they are one in the same, which is not the case.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

D-IIIII (Independent) - 10 months ago

Jeremy has been remarkably silent on his own blog despite having been online here. Wonder why? Hmmm...Perhaps he is checking with a socialist professor on how he whould proceed. Oh wait, we're not supposed to use those terms, it insults the socialists and fascists.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

D-IIIII (Independent) - 10 months ago

Reply to ironhead
Again, look at Reagan's policies. Jimmy Carter did more to deregulate than Reagan ever did. Look a … Show full comment

Reagan at least understood the free market and the effects of lower taxes. He is the last President who "got it." He understood that the surest way to peace was defense and never waged war, or ever engaged our troops except in the protection of American lives. The GOP has been hijacked by the liberal, statist neocons who promote big government and who benefit the MIC. I want the return of a leader, who understands that if the government just gets the hell out of the way, great things happen. Whether that man, or woman, is going to be in the Republican Party, I think at this point in history it is our only hope. It is sure not going to be someone from the left and at this point, it will not be a third party candidate. My libertarian views are valid but as a rational man I must put my flag in the ground with those who I think (maybe more hope) can be effective.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Patriot Watch (Independent) - 10 months ago

Jeremy I think the clean air you breath is having an adverse effect on your brain. We are swinging so hard toward socialism/facism you will not have a chance to be great unless you suck some governmental back end. You are a liberal robot brother and need to be on your own for a few days.

Let's look at todays headlines school boy and you tell me what is happening. Are we socialist. No not yet. We will be full blown real soon. even the Euro's who do not know sheet from apple butter are now starting to come out of their socialist behavior and elect smart people/ conservatives.

Todays headlines you socialist liberal natzi:

1. Feds Order Banks to Freeze Millions in 'LEGAL' Online Poker Winnings... (they didn't take tax, natzi,
the whole thing)
2. FED WAR ON CIGS
3. IRS Weighs Tax on Work-Cellphone Use...
4. OIL $73... PREDICTION: $250... (drill you losers)
5.Obama Proposes New Executive Pay Rules... *
6. US OWNS 68% GM
7. US to Own majority of CITI
8.New GM Chairman declares: 'I don't know anything about cars'... *
9. 20 But... It's OK to borrow for health care... *
10. Dems want mental health, dental for all... *

Hey socialist you want more????????????//

let's see how your KING is doing college socialist...........................

1. UPDATE: Obama Proposes New Executive Pay Rules... *
2. Climate talks between US, China break down; Little achieved... *
3. Oil nears $72 -- 8-month high... *
4. Obama's Former Pastor Resurfaces: 'Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me'... *
5. New GM Chairman declares: 'I don't know anything about cars'... *
6. Exports Drop to Lowest Level in Three Years... *
7. Some Israelis Insulted By Obama Picture; President shows 'sole of shoe' talking on phone with Netanyahu... *
8. But... It's OK to borrow to pay for health care... *
9. Russia May Swap U.S. Treasuries for International Monetary Fund bonds... *

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Patriot Watch (Independent) - 10 months ago

Reply to ironhead
You are correct inasmuch as the the GOP and the Democrats are similar in effect and governance. How … Show full comment

Iron as usual you are spot on. However the comment you made below is lacking. You say if the terms are used too often they lose their mustard. That might have some truth to it but if something is not done soon it will be our way of life.

It is incredible to me that the people seem to be fine with our transition to socialism. Lets just look at todays headlines.

I would agree, however, that you are very correct that when one throws out these words too often they lose their meaning and power, and very much tend to discredit the user

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ironhead (Libertarian) - 10 months ago

Reply to D-IIIII
Economically, Reagan was a libertarian leaning Republican, not socially. And I did not suggest that … Show full comment

Again, look at Reagan's policies. Jimmy Carter did more to deregulate than Reagan ever did. Look at how Reagan and Volcker used the Fed to "control" inflation. Look at how Reagan cut taxes for some but then spent trillions in deficit spending. Reagan used libertarian rhetoric, but ultimately the rhetoric flattered to deceive.

BTW - I didn't mean to suggest you said the same of Clinton - I've just heard other people say that of Clinton, which is way off-target.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

D-IIIII (Independent) - 10 months ago

Reply to ironhead
Reagan liked to use libertarian rhetoric at times, and I know a lot of folks think as you do about h … Show full comment

Economically, Reagan was a libertarian leaning Republican, not socially. And I did not suggest that BJ Clinton was a libertarian democrat, but rather a conservative one, once he got past the health care nonsense(which I see is now raring it's ugly head again.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ironhead (Libertarian) - 10 months ago

Reply to D-IIIII
The answer to your first question is that there is no one besides Ron Paul. There was a time not lon … Show full comment

Reagan liked to use libertarian rhetoric at times, and I know a lot of folks think as you do about him having libertarian leanings. IMO, however, I can see nothing about his record as President or Governor of California that indicates he had any libertarian leanings. The same applies to Bill Clinton - some have suggested that he had libertarian leanings - give me a break. Frank Gonzalez is definitely a libertarian-minded Democrat, but he is a minor figure at best within the Democratic Party.

Barry Goldwater, Calvin Coolidge & Robert Taft were definitely libertarian-minded Republicans. For the Democrats, Grover Cleveland and Thomas Jefferson were obviously in the classical liberal mold (pretty much the same thing).

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

D-IIIII (Independent) - 10 months ago

Reply to ironhead
Wow, spoken like a true libertarian. The only thing that surprises me is your Republican label. As … Show full comment

The answer to your first question is that there is no one besides Ron Paul. There was a time not long ago when the Republican Party was more libertarian than they are now. I would consider Ronald Reagan to be a libertarian leaning Republican. You can be a liberal Republican and you can also be a conservative Democrat, Bill Clinton comes to mind. Neo-cons are all liberal Republicans and I would consider them to be statists(Big Government and screw the little guy). I remain a Republican because, well, I keep hoping the conservative small goverbnment part of the party comes back, and that someone will stand up and be the man that Reagan once was.

My screen name comes from my belief that peace comes through strength and the best offense is a good D-IIIII. The Republican Party has been hijacked by the neo-cons, and I want it back, dammit.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ironhead (Libertarian) - 10 months ago

Reply to D-IIIII
Jeremy, you are young and there is still a lot to learn. Particularly when you start insulting peopl … Show full comment

Wow, spoken like a true libertarian. The only thing that surprises me is your Republican label. Aside from Ron Paul, who in the GOP is there to support that provides any substantial support for the type of (excellent) analysis you just posited?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

TheyreALLliars (Libertarian) - 10 months ago

Reply to D-IIIII
Jeremy, you are young and there is still a lot to learn. Particularly when you start insulting peopl … Show full comment

Thank you for saying that. Very good point. You know, it is in my opinion that both Democrats and Republicans are not truly liberal. They are just conservative about different issues. And that is okay! There is nothing wrong with people thinking different things, just as long as they are liberal enough to allow others their opinion.
-Danielle (proud libertarian!)
www.theyreallliars.com
The mostly political blog that isn't Republican or Democrat.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 10 months ago

You use the term tea bagging, you are an anus licker. You see a few signs cherry picked by the media for people like you to make general statements about the whole movement, and use a derogetory term for them as I did you without knowing you.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

D-IIIII (Independent) - 10 months ago

Jeremy, you are young and there is still a lot to learn. Particularly when you start insulting people in your blog that you don't know. You, like many are hooked into the left vs. right arguement. Another major component is the up vs. down. The libertarians(Not to be confused with the Libertarians) vs. the Statists. You are missing 50% of the arguement, but that is what those on the left, on the right, and in the MSM want you to miss. The top vs. bottom is the real battle. Left vs. right is a mirage.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Politicar 10 months ago

Nazi: Acronym derived from NAtional SoZIalistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, or NSDAP. In English it means: National Socialist German Worker Party.

The Fascist movement was and is a Socialist movement. However, they are Centrist Socialists. To paraphrase the Fascist Proponent Benito Mussolini, Dictator of Fascist Italy, 1922 to 1943: Fascism combines the best features of Capitalism with the best features of Communism and eliminates the flaws of both. As a Centrist Doctrine, some aspects of Fascism agree with some aspects of Right Wing beliefs, while others agree with the tenets of Leftist Doctrine.
They tend to agree with the Right on nationalism positions.
They tend to agree with the Left on economic and social issues.
Some of what they agree with Right Wingers on, however, were mere pretenses for populist reasons. The Nazis, for example, pretended to belief in Virtue. One of their programs took young girls born in cities and sent them out to the countryside to work on farms. The idea was to expose these girls to what it meant to be a farmer and work in the dirt to promote virtue. However, the unintended consequence was a sky-rocketing teen-pregnancy rate. The problem was that the young girls, now removed from the influence of their parents and relations and set free began having sexual relationships with men in the area they were sent and many were getting pregnant. Oops. Now, if one really believes in virtue the program would be halted upon this observation. The Nazis covered it up and continued the program.

"The conception is therefore a spiritual one, arising from the general reaction of the century against the materialistic positivism of the XIXth century. Anti-positivistic but positive; neither skeptical nor agnostic; neither pessimistic nor supinely optimistic as are, generally speaking, the doctrines (all negative) which place the center of life outside man; whereas, by the exercise of his free will, man can and must create his own world."
"In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life (8). Outside history man is a nonentity. Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of "happiness" on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience which teaches that life is in continual flux and in process of evolution. In politics Fascism aims at realism; in practice it desires to deal only with those problems which are the spontaneous product of historic conditions and which find or suggest their own solutions (9). Only by entering in to the process of reality and taking possession of the forces at work within it, can man act on man and on nature (10).
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts."
"Reformism, revolutionism, centrism, the very echo of that terminology is dead, while in the great river of Fascism one can trace currents which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, Lagardelle of the Movement Socialists, and in the cohort of Italian syndicalist who from 1904 to 1914 brought a new note into the Italian socialist environment - previously emasculated and chloroformed by fornicating with Giolitti's party - a note sounded in Olivetti's Pagine Libere, Orano's Lupa, Enrico Leone's Divenirs Socials."
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism*, both in the political and the economic sphere. The importance of liberalism in the XIXth century should not be exaggerated for present day polemical purposes, nor should we make of one of the many doctrines which flourished in that century a religion for mankind for the present and for all time to come. Liberalism really flourished for fifteen years only. It arose in 1830 as a reaction to the Holy Alliance which tried to force Europe to recede further back than 1789; it touched its zenith in 1848 when even Pius IXth was a liberal. Its decline began immediately after that year. If 1848 was a year of light and poetry, 1849 was a year of darkness and tragedy. The Roman Republic was killed by a sister republic, that of France . In that same year Marx, in his famous Communist Manifesto, launched the gospel of socialism."
"Since 1929 economic and political development have everywhere emphasized these truths. The importance of the State is rapidly growing. The so-called crisis can only be settled by State action and within the orbit of the State. Where are the shades of the Jules Simons who, in the early days of liberalism proclaimed that the "State should endeavor to render itself useless and prepare to hand in its resignation "? Or of the MacCullochs who, in the second half of last century, urged that the State should desist from governing too much? And what of the English Bentham who considered that all industry asked of govern¬ment was to be left alone, and of the German Humbolt who expressed the opinion that the best government was a lazy "one? What would they say now to the unceasing, inevitable, and urgently requested interventions of government in business? It is true that the second generation of economists was less uncompromising in this respect than the first, and that even Adam Smith left the door ajar - however cautiously - for government intervention in business.
"If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government. The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism."
- Benito Mussolini; "Fascism Doctrine and Institutions.", 1932

You see, the thing is that Fascism is a Big Government ideology. It believes in Government Intervention and Regulated Markets. A Fascist State is an Interventionist State and a moderate socialist state.

Thus, such comments are not as unfounded as you argue.

Your Obedient Servant,
R.H.Ralls
OBSISTENS.TYRANNIS.OBOEDIENTIA.DEO
REGEM.NIHIL.HABEMVS.NISI.IESVS

Arm yourself for discussion! No ideology but Truth.
http://www.examiner.com/x-10614-Political-Theory-Examiner



*Mussolini is not speaking of liberlism as you might conceive it; he is speaking about True or Classical Liberalism, not modern Leftists often referred to as "liberals" in the US.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Good Ole Boy (Independent) - 10 months ago

Another word that fits obama according to it's definition is tyrant.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

TheyreALLliars (Libertarian) - 10 months ago

Reply to ironhead
You are correct inasmuch as the the GOP and the Democrats are similar in effect and governance. How … Show full comment

Very good comment. And a word on the Nazi thing. Nazism is a form of fascism in the political sense, AND they employed socialism in their economic sense. They spoke of their socialistic qualities many times. This is a wonderful example to how these issues can (and more often than not) coincide. Many who have survived socialism and fascism, such as Nazi Germany, Russia, and others, that now live in the US say they see a striking resemblence to how the socialism started and what our own country is going through right now. Many experts would say we are at the beginnings of socialism.
I would agree with you that the start of the socialistic/fascist movement started in early 20th century, but I would say is got worse as Bush took office and flew when Obama did. I am young and I can see a big difference in how people feel about their freedoms already.
-Danielle
www.theyreallliars.com
The mostly political blog that isn't Republican or Democrat.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

TheyreALLliars (Libertarian) - 10 months ago

Hmm, you may want to go back and read your dictionary on this one. As countryplowboy demonstrated socialism and fascism are in no way on opposite spectrums, but different ideas altogether. Socialism is more of how we deal with finances rather than how we deal with politics and fascism is more how we deal with politics and not money. When you buy up corporations, or own 60% of them, this is a socialistic move (http://theyreallliars.com/2009/06/03/obamas-comrade-says-he-is-less-liberal-than-obama.aspx). When you ban books or other media so that people cannot speak their mind or know the truth about your administration, this is a fascist move (http://theyreallliars.com/2009/05/22/got-fahrenheit-451.aspx). If you read these articles, you can see clearly that both of these actions were in fact done by the Obama administration, making them fit the bill of both socialist and fascist. Both Democrats and Republicans have suggested fascist and socialistic ideas, because socialist is not equated on one side of the spectrum with fascist on the other as you say. Are we a socialistic or fascist country? Not quite, but every move we make is taking us in that direction.
As far as the very few people that participated in protests waving inappropriate signs or otherwise acting like idiots, you are correct, some are doing that. And part of that is because they don't feel their voices heard. But that does not mean that all people that are Republican or Libertarian or anything but Democratic should not stop talking, and stating that we are headed in the socialist/ fascist direction is not crazy or stupid, but stating a fact. Hey, when Chavez says you're a socialist, you're a socialist, okay?
Now, as far as claiming that anyone that is not a Democrat is unable to spell or understand the definition of a relatively simple word, stop it. That is when your party is acting like a fool. I know a lot of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and everything in between, and I can tell you that the demographics are pretty diverse, and most people that discuss politics are intelligent, though some are more than others. You have no idea how many Democrats I have met that have just flat-out declined to educate themselves on the issues, some who are unable to have an intelligent conversation, but who want to argue and point fingers. But I would decline to call all Democrats idiots or insinuate that they were, believing they would not have the intelligence to understand that I just insulted them. This is below the belt and unfair to those Libertarians and Republicans who are intelligent and want a fair fight (and that is most of them).
Good points in your post, but I think you missed your mark a bit.
-Danielle
www.theyreallliars.com
The mostly political blog that isn't Republican or Democrat.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ironhead (Libertarian) - 10 months ago

You are correct inasmuch as the the GOP and the Democrats are similar in effect and governance. However, in terms of socialism and fascism, you are incorrect in not stating that they are similar political ideologies. Both require an expansive state with considerable control on personal and economic liberty. Fascism is a form of socialism. I would describe our current economic system as roughly fascist. I use this label because fascism, at its heart, is the wedding of the state and powerful economic interests. This has been occurring in the United States since the early 20th century.

Both major parties also champion a highly interventionist, hegemonic, nationalistic foreign policy. Neither party seems to be ever in strong opposition to any war that couldn't be sold to the American public. In this case, I would describe both of our major parties as being fascist, which essentially means that they are highly nationalistic and aggressive. I am not saying that the U.S. government is as aggressive as the government of Adolf Hitler - but Nazism is not the only form of fascism; there are many variants of fascism.

I would agree, however, that you are very correct that when one throws out these words too often they lose their meaning and power, and very much tend to discredit the user.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

countryplowboy 10 months ago

Not a bad argument. However an argument can also be made for calling the General Secretary's administration either of those. Let me list the Descriptions of each.

Socialism: The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism. This is a strategy whereby the State has control of all key resource-producing industries and manages most aspects of the market, in contrast to laissez faire capitalism.

Fascism: A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

Arguments can be made for the General Secretary falling into either one.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

1 - 19 / 19