If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck…

The core similarity between Soviet Communism, and European Fascism is the supremacy of the State over all else. That is the core of Socialism, and modern Progressivism. Given that they share the same core, I cannot help but think that they, whether it is their intent or not, will arrive at similar ends.

The means create the ends.

Voyager on April 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM

On the left, statists, communists, socialists, Nazis

On the right, anarchists.

Our constitutional republic is in the middle as we have always been. The issue is the democrats wish us to move more left and conservatives wish us to remain where we are.

dthorny on April 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM

So what is it…not wanting to confuse American nationalism and patriotism with that of the Nazi totalitarian regime? I saw the same Glen Beck shows on this. So since American conservatives are pro-military and are for kicking the snot out of all of our enemies rather than hugging them, you’re afraid of being lumped in with the Nazis? By whom-the Libs?

And since we despise the Communists simply lump them in with the Nazis as well? Convenient to put all of our enemies in one bag (along with the “Islamofascists”).

I can see the “us against them” mentality…but it’s just not that cut and dried, even though it is an interesting perspective. Our country has engaged in many of the behaviors of these regimes (Indians, strong military with a 240 year culture, multiple wars, slavery, crony Capitalism, internment/concentration camps, legislated racism, forced military service)…so we’re de facto Communist-Nazis as well?

It comes down to different visions and different values. In fact, our Revolution, the French Revolution, and Marxism were all born out of the same melting pot of ideals known as the Enlightenment. They’re all related-but NOT the same, regardless of similarities and shared ideological roots. There would have been no French Revolution without an American Revolution-there would have been no Marx and Engels philosophies without the French Revolution.

The views I’m seeing put forth here that we would have to include those despots who existed before the phrase “Communism” or the phrase “Fascism” were even uttered…Napoleon, Charlemagne, Caesar, Alexander the Great. How on God’s green earth could they have been Communists/Fascists as well? They certainly didn’t stand for the values we do as Americans.

Makes me think of the “Greatest Generation” and how they were convinced by the Liberal press and government propaganda that Uncle Joe and the Soviets were pro-Democracy just like us. We fought with the Communists both in Europe and Asia…are we, too, therefore Communists? And if WW II were a case of the American people being forced into a fight by FDR, then does that make FDR and the Federal government, and the American industrial base all Communists as well?

And if our country has been infiltrated by Communists and that’s the road we’re headed down, then the arguments above about intentions vs. outcomes would necessarily have to apply to us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

On the left, statists, communists, socialists, Nazis

On the right, anarchists.

Our constitutional republic is in the middle as we have always been. The issue is the democrats wish us to move more left and conservatives wish us to remain where we are.

With every post you give rich people more to laugh at.
Run along now and cheer on all your government’s billions in subsidies and handouts.

Don’t forget to pop by Alaska, where wealth redistribution is particularly amazing.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM

BP, the oil spill giants, gave Obowma a million dollars during his campaign in 2007. Obowma sold millions of the Ayers ghost written, autobiography of Obowma.

You support “rich people”, you hypocrite. The two richest American’s are democrats: Buffett and Gates. The richest senators in Washington are democrats. You have Hollywood money, GE, Ex-Goldman Sachs personnel are all though Obowma’s admistration.

Similarities? Sure. Sprung from the same fountain? Sure. Shared beliefs? Sure. The same? No.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 9:50 PM

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck…

The core similarity between Soviet Communism, and European Fascism is the supremacy of the State over all else. That is the core of Socialism, and modern Progressivism. Given that they share the same core, I cannot help but think that they, whether it is their intent or not, will arrive at similar ends.

The means create the ends.

Why? Because the religious righteous managed to botch the works up to get their Planned Parenthood thing passed.

Pretty much what I’ve been saying. Focus on the fiscal stuff or we risk turning off independents and galvanizing the Dems and may lose the November gains next time around.

Biggest losers, WE THE TAXPAYERS who had to settle for less than $38b in cuts (that figure is full of accounting gimmicks) instead of $61b. Why? Because the religious righteous managed to botch the works up to get their Planned Parenthood thing passed. Congratulations, preventing us from spending a few hundred million on PP has cost us over $22b!

I just wanted add that republicans really sold the American public down the river.
Repuplicans never even tried to honor their pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget this year. They never submitted a budget that was at least $100 billion.
By the logic that Boehner and other republicans offered, They should have began with a budget that cut $200 billion to negotiate where where they needed to be to honor thier pledge.
But we can see now, they never intended to honor that pledge.
Why should we expect they are going to do anything horably?
You want one of these guys/women to be your president?
Not me.

Define what is right, not what is fascist.

You said, “fascist” and “communist”…not right and left in what I quoted and addressed.

Almost identical to communism.

The state is supreme and managed by the elites in the communist party devoted to the welfare of the workers and the virtues of the proletariat.

Only temporarily and not race-based.

As in communism state control of industry. There is very much a redistribution of wealth in fascism in exactly the same way that socialists redistribution wealth.

In place of the untermenschen, we have the Kulaks and wealthy who are liquidated in their place.

The upper classes are always done away with by the lower classes. Again, the ultimate goal is a classless society. Capitalists thrived under NSDAP. Don’t confuse Hitler’s populist blathering with what really came to pass.

The proletariat are expected to engage in eternal exporting of rebelution and overthrowing the capitalists.

“Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Not around the world for NSDAP and the Fascists…they could care less about the workers in Brazil.

The Nazi’s were not as traditional as you might think in this regard.

Name one high-ranking Nazi state official, Party leader, gauleiter, general, etc. who was female?

And communist states are not militaristic?

Only until the goal of international Communism is achieved.

Poland and Madagascar beg to differ.

I already included Poland in the Ostland. By international I meant overseas. Even their occupation of France, the Balkans, the low countries, Denmark and Norway were temporary. Madagascar was proposed to be a new state for the Jews to emigrate to and settle.

Nonsense.

Fascism was exported from Italy to Germany. What you mean is that it was nationalist in outlook rather than internationalist.

NSDAP existed as DAP since 1919. Hitler joined that party, he didn’t create it, and it predates Mussolini’s turn to National Socialism. Mussolini served as an inspiration to Hitler. At some point in time, their interests would have collided.

As for the rest, you’re casting your own personal beliefs upon Communist ideology. I provided what I thought you asked for-my take on what the differences in their ideologies are…not whether they’re good or bad, or actually work in practice the way their theorists claim.

All in all, their goals were different.

But, if you insist on saying that they’re one in the same, then more power to you, but I maintain they’re different.

I don’t know how much more clear it can be that at an NSDAP meeting if some black guy walked in, he’d be shown the door (window most likely). In a Communist Party meeting he’d be welcomed with open arms as a member of an historically exploited and abused race.

The Opinionator on April 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM

So in addition to wanting to let 90,000 children die of disease, and letting six million old folks die in the streets of starvation, and coming to town to kill women, I also hate the troops and their families?

You and Nancy need to get some new material!

The Opinionator on April 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM

+ 1..Very good post!..:)

It would have been a better POLITICAL outcome for the GOP. If Obama vetoed the military funding the Democrats would pay a heavy political price.
sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

A better political outcome for the GOP? Perhaps. On the backs of the troops. We would have eventually come up with something to pay the troops. In the meantime, they would have missed paychecks so you could say you won. Awesome. I am sure my brother and the several thousand sailors and Marines in his deployed squadron appreciate it. Who cares if they are far away from home and their spouses have no means to pay the rent? At least you got a better political outcome. If actually giving a damn about our troops and their families makes us weak, I am fine with that. At least on our side of the aisle we are decent enough to put our troops first even if Democrats and the CinC is not!

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Define what is right, not what is fascist.

You are trying to force the facts to fit what you want the conclusion to be.

There is no sane definition of right and left that doesn’t end up with fascism and communism sharing the same bench.

Nazism:

1. The State is supreme. The State is managed by a perpetual elite class made of the racially pure and those devoted entirely to traditional German virtues and the welfare of the Germanic (Aryan) volk.

Almost identical to communism.

The state is supreme and managed by the elites in the communist party devoted to the welfare of the workers and the virtues of the proletariat.

2. As per #1 above, industrialism, agriculture and all means of production and resources are subjugated to State control. There is, however, no dissolution of classes, nor redistribution of wealth. Land titles would come from the Eastern European conquests, and those displaced untermenschen would be further subjugated to the needs of the volk both in the Greater Reich and those colonizing the Ostland.

As in communism state control of industry. There is very much a redistribution of wealth in fascism in exactly the same way that socialists redistribution wealth.

In place of the untermenschen, we have the Kulaks and wealthy who are liquidated in their place.

3. “Each according to his needs” and so on does not exist. All the German volk would enjoy consumer goods and a good life. However, they would be expected to produce and to be rewarded with repayment for their labor in kind. Though there is a collective spirit amongst the volk (as they are all closely related kin), there is not actual collectivization of farmland.

Correct.
Syndicates take the place of nationalization in fascism.
The collective is supreme as reflected in the race rather than class.

4. The volk are expected to endure perpetual warfare from the enemies of the Reich. This is welcomed as it will weed out the unfit and strengthen the survivors. Also, the unending string of victories of the Reich would inform all others as to their racial superiority.

The proletariat are expected to engage in eternal exporting of rebelution and overthrowing the capitalists.

“Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.”

5. The Reich (nation) is first and foremost; the German volk are the most genetically elite race on the planet.

The rebelution is first and foremost and the proletariat are morally superior as reflected in ‘The New Soviet Man’.

6. Traditional values include the role of German women as childbearers, mothers, and homemakers, though exceptional women can enjoy a limited amount of upward mobility.

The Nazi’s were not as traditional as you might think in this regard.

7. Militarism and warfare are held in high regard. The Germanic heroes of the past are to be remembered and emulated.

And communist states are not militaristic?

8. The expansion of the Reich was limited in scope. There were no plans for international empire.

Poland and Madagascar beg to differ.

9. Nazism is not exportable. It is for the Reich and its volk exclusively. Other National Socialists countries may or may not exist, but they are made up of subhumans anyway, and may come into conflict with the Reich’s interests.

Nonsense.

Fascism was exported from Italy to Germany. What you mean is that it was nationalist in outlook rather than internationalist.

Communism:

Pretty much the opposite of above:

1. The State is only temporary and will “wither away” once the series of class struggles/warfare that have heretofore marked human history have ended (the goal of Anarchists, but they want it now and without even a temporary centralized State authority).

That was theory, not reality. There was to be the dictatorship of the proletariat until the day came when the state withered away.

2. In the final stage of human history, the Age of Communism, all means of production will be communally owned and shared. There will be no more coveting of possessions. There will be no more exploitation of one human by another. There will be perpetual peace and harmony. They don’t promise an actual Utopia, but pretty darn near.

Again theory and the Utopian imagery of the German Volk was rather similar in postulating an idyllic life once the rebelution was achieved and the lesser folks dealt with.

3. Communism is international and exportable. All mankind regardless of race or gender are equal. There is no goal of empire, but rather worldwide Communism is the goal. All states will be eventually be gone. All companies will be gone. No one person will be able to accumulate more wealth than any other.

Again theory, not reality and there was very much an underlying racist element to Marxism. What exactly is the difference between worldwide communist control and striving for empire?

Later communism adopted ‘Communism in one country’ when the workers didn’t do there bit and rise up as planned.

4. The goal of Communism is to ensure all Mankind’s survival in the best manner possible, but luxuries are a waste of resources, and create that which can be accrued leading to coveting of that property, and fracturing of the stability of the Communal Society.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Not all of mankind, just the proletariat. The extermination of certain undesirable elements was cooked into communism just as it was cooked into fascism.

Define the political beliefs in your opinion on the right and the political beliefs on the left.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Even historians I’ve read have trouble doing that, especially with Fascism. Italian Fascism and the goals of NSDAP differed in some aspects, but I’ll give it a shot.

Nazism:

1. The State is supreme. The State is managed by a perpetual elite class made of the racially pure and those devoted entirely to traditional German virtues and the welfare of the Germanic (Aryan) volk.

2. As per #1 above, industrialism, agriculture and all means of production and resources are subjugated to State control. There is, however, no dissolution of classes, nor redistribution of wealth. Land titles would come from the Eastern European conquests, and those displaced untermenschen would be further subjugated to the needs of the volk both in the Greater Reich and those colonizing the Ostland.

3. “Each according to his needs” and so on does not exist. All the German volk would enjoy consumer goods and a good life. However, they would be expected to produce and to be rewarded with repayment for their labor in kind. Though there is a collective spirit amongst the volk (as they are all closely related kin), there is not actual collectivization of farmland.

4. The volk are expected to endure perpetual warfare from the enemies of the Reich. This is welcomed as it will weed out the unfit and strengthen the survivors. Also, the unending string of victories of the Reich would inform all others as to their racial superiority.

5. The Reich (nation) is first and foremost; the German volk are the most genetically elite race on the planet.

6. Traditional values include the role of German women as childbearers, mothers, and homemakers, though exceptional women can enjoy a limited amount of upward mobility.

7. Militarism and warfare are held in high regard. The Germanic heroes of the past are to be remembered and emulated.

8. The expansion of the Reich was limited in scope. There were no plans for international empire.

9. Nazism is not exportable. It is for the Reich and its volk exclusively. Other National Socialists countries may or may not exist, but they are made up of subhumans anyway, and may come into conflict with the Reich’s interests.

Fascism: Similar to above but:

1. Reconstitution of the Roman Empire and early Republican Roman virtue would serve as a foundation for the Italian Empire.

2. The Corporate System-Workers would be in state-managed trade unions in order to give workers a say as to how better efficiency could be achieved and to prevent unfair exploitation by the companies they work for. Ultimately, the corporations are subject to control of the State in order to achieve the goals of the State.

3. Italian royalty shall endure, but have little say in the running of the State unless members of the Party.

Communism:

Pretty much the opposite of above:

1. The State is only temporary and will “wither away” once the series of class struggles/warfare that have heretofore marked human history have ended (the goal of Anarchists, but they want it now and without even a temporary centralized State authority).

2. In the final stage of human history, the Age of Communism, all means of production will be communally owned and shared. There will be no more coveting of possessions. There will be no more exploitation of one human by another. There will be perpetual peace and harmony. They don’t promise an actual Utopia, but pretty darn near.

3. Communism is international and exportable. All mankind regardless of race or gender are equal. There is no goal of empire, but rather worldwide Communism is the goal. All states will be eventually be gone. All companies will be gone. No one person will be able to accumulate more wealth than any other.

4. The goal of Communism is to ensure all Mankind’s survival in the best manner possible, but luxuries are a waste of resources, and create that which can be accrued leading to coveting of that property, and fracturing of the stability of the Communal Society.

We have a leftward drift towards Fascism/Marxism is a very real danger but leftist policies aren’t going to halt that drift because they are part and parcel of what it is. Competition is being choked off by regulations and environmental policies that favor the large corporations because only they can afford to wade through the sea of bureaucratic ink. A small business owner is basically out of luck.

Agreed, but…

Small businesses (depending upon the business) depend upon items (to run the business and to sell) manufactured by large companies. Cottage industries will only take you so far.

The good thing about large companies is that they can accumulate the capital necessary to manufacture or exploit resources that small concerns cannot do efficiently or at all. The accumulation of capital is necessary to bring about modern Capitalism.

Unless I’m mistaken, large corporations started off as small private businesses. The very nature of profit motive is that they do indeed increase in size, if they can. That is OK as long as the system is allowed to adjust according to free market principles.

Yes, extremist influences actually foment the conglomerations their propaganda claim that they are against. It is all about control of resources, power, taking care of oneself while at the same time furthering their ideologies.

These extremists are at war. They will do whatever it takes to win.

But I believe that Capitalism has diverged from our national interests. A pure international Corporate structure would be little different from what Mussolini was advocating for Italy…international Capitalism to me smacks of a New World Order, an international power elite, and oppression through collusion, monopolies and price-fixing.

Either we are loyal to the United States of America, or we are beholden to some kind of private profit endeavor involving someone somewhere, either here or abroad. We’re getting to the point where we can no longer serve two masters.

Pure Capitalism, international Capitalism, threatens to erase America (and other nations) from the map and along with them our Constitution.

On the other hand, bridled Capitalism doesn’t really help us now, does it?

So, I think that we’re headed into a new era of state Corporatism interfaced with international Corporatism. In other words, a kind of Socialism that is not what we commonly associate with Communists/Marxists. That old hippie stuff is misdirection.

Don’t like it personally, but I don’t see any alternative besides building a time machine and going back.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Well I think there is a big difference between corporatism and free enterprise. Corporations are not big on free enterprise. They prefer monopolies and in many ways are not that different than government particularly when the corporate officers do not suffer financially when they screw up. That is in fact very similar to Fascist syndicates and somewhat related Marxist Bureaucratic government.

Small business’ are much closer to what the founding fathers mean when they talked about free enterprise. Larger corporations such as the East India Company from the beginning attempted to create monopolies and to restrict any startups that might threaten them through market controls or government action. The Imperial Ostend Company is a case in point. The East India Company had them shut down through British pressure.

Large corporations are not advocates of capitalism or free enterprise. They never have been, but they do have deep pockets and can buy themselves some very willing politicians.

We have a leftward drift towards Fascism/Marxism is a very real danger but leftist policies aren’t going to halt that drift because they are part and parcel of what it is. Competition is being choked off by regulations and environmental policies that favor the large corporations because only they can afford to wade through the sea of bureaucratic ink. A small business owner is basically out of luck.

The leftist policies make larger corporation much more competitive with smaller upstarts who might challenge them by creating these sorts of hurdles.

more government programs, social responsibility, preventing business from being too large or exploitive

That is precisely what Fascism does. It organizes industry into syndicates to serve the state, it massively expands government, and has a very clear social program (even if repellent) of responsibility incumbent on every citizen.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM

That is a traditional Leftist/Liberal view of the Left. Again, your view would throw that out of whack. Liberalism wouldn’t espouse complete takeover (Socialists would) but rather regulation and taxation in order to achieve what they believe to be some kind of social equilibrium. Actual Capitalism/Free Enterprise would continue, but with limitations.

Doesn’t make any sense to me either, “Free enterprise with limitations” but I gather that’s how they think.

But I believe that Capitalism has diverged from our national interests. A pure international Corporate structure would be little different from what Mussolini was advocating for Italy…international Capitalism to me smacks of a New World Order, an international power elite, and oppression through collusion, monopolies and price-fixing.

Either we are loyal to the United States of America, or we are beholden to some kind of private profit endeavor involving someone somewhere, either here or abroad. We’re getting to the point where we can no longer serve two masters.

Pure Capitalism, international Capitalism, threatens to erase America (and other nations) from the map and along with them our Constitution.

On the other hand, bridled Capitalism doesn’t really help us now, does it?

So, I think that we’re headed into a new era of state Corporatism interfaced with international Corporatism. In other words, a kind of Socialism that is not what we commonly associate with Communists/Marxists. That old hippie stuff is misdirection.

Don’t like it personally, but I don’t see any alternative besides building a time machine and going back.

No, you’re mixing apples and oranges here.

I wasn’t talking about Fascism who is lumped in on the Left with the Communists in your view-I was talking about Conservatives within the framework of Democracy in the traditional view (on the right).

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Define the political beliefs in your opinion on the right and the political beliefs on the left.

How is Fascism ‘less government‘ in your view or a ‘laissez faire attitude towards business‘? That is I presume towards the right of the spectrum because that certainly doesn’t describe the left.

more government programs, social responsibility, preventing business from being too large or exploitive

That is precisely what Fascism does. It organizes industry into syndicates to serve the state, it massively expands government, and has a very clear social program (even if repellent) of responsibility incumbent on every citizen.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM

No, you’re mixing apples and oranges here.

I wasn’t talking about Fascism who is lumped in on the Left with the Communists in your view-I was talking about Conservatives within the framework of Democracy in the traditional view (on the right).

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM

With each post your obvious trolling becomes ever more inane and lame.

10/13/2008 – Obama tells Joe the Plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around.

4/29/2010 – Obama: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Try again, Dave. Pitiful.

kingsjester on April 10, 2011 at 3:28 PM
—-

With every post you give rich people more to laugh at.

Run along now and cheer on all your government’s billions in subsidies and handouts.

Don’t forget to pop by Alaska, where wealth redistribution is particularly amazing.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Per merriam-webster.com -
socialism – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

10/13/2008 – Obama tells Joe the Plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around.

4/29/2010 - Obama: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Try again, Dave. Pitiful.