[Meistro1]

Fascism, Communism, Socialism - these isms are all just subsets of 'Collectivism' - the ideology that views people as part of groups instead of as individuals.

Agree or disagree?

[Nets]

Agree.

Not saying collectivism is a bad thing. Society looking out for its components is good. But I call it like I see it. Fascism and Communism both call for putting the State before the Individual, I don't see the major differences between them (politically).

[pikachu]

Agree. So does liberalism. And conservatism. And every other ideology which has ever been put into practice. The fact of life is: people always ARE part of groups. Divided they fail.

Fun fact: ironically enough, despite Mussolini's pompous rhetoric, fascism turns out to actually be less collectivist than communism and liberalism.

Communism both call for putting the State before the Individual, I don't see the major differences between them (politically).

The reason for that is that you don't study either of those ideologies close enough.

[Nets]

The reason for that is that you don't study either of those ideologies close enough.

What's the difference then? Both are state oriented dictatorships.

[FallenRaptor]

the ideology that views people as part of groups instead of as individuals.

If that's you definition of collectivism, then everyone is collectivist, since we all to some extent classify people & things into groups.

If you were to say that collectivism is putting the group before the individual, that would be a different story.

[Zyx]

What's the difference then? Both are state oriented dictatorships.

Very simply, they each have different economic systems and an economic system can make a very large difference. You know, I avoid some of the upper level philosophy discussions; I do not see why so many POFOites chime in on topics that they are hardly ever informed about. The thread can be on a completely fake nation and each person would cite a friend that they know who tells them about the conditions within. Good grief! Can we at least say 'I am ignorant on the subject' rather than put up a false veil of being informed?

Did anyone notice how I have never been corrected on the doings of Israel? Know why? Because I do not pretend to know about the doings of Israel and when I do it is because I know enough about it to chime in.

Over here, we have someone claiming that Fascism and Communism are the same . . . gargh, enough. Some people on pofo have really bad attitudes.

[pikachu]

What's the difference then? Both are state oriented dictatorships.

I'll prefer a marxist (or a fascist) to explain it, but suffrice to say that communism stands for abolition of states, it is not an ideology of state worship or dictatorship. Dictatorship is what happens when they try to implement the ideology.

If you see the ideologies JUST in terms of their practical implementation - it may indeed appear that Communism and Fascism share a lot in common. If you look any deaper, it becomes apparent that they are fundamentally different and opposed to each other.

[Nets]

Very simply, they each have different economic systems and an economic system can make a very large difference.

Notice, Kumatto, that in my post I qualified my statement with "(politically)", I said nothing of economics.

Also note that I said that there were all collectivist in nature, not the same thing as they are the same. Two things can be in the same set and not be equivalent.

Later, I asked someone to explain the differences as they saw them to me.

Perhaps you should read the actual posts before you condemn them.

If you see the ideologies JUST in terms of their practical implementation

I am not a philosophical man, I am a nuts-and-bolts, benchmark kind of guy. The OP said nothing of ideologies, I interpreted it as actual real-world political systems, not fantasy land. And ad you have said, the implementation of these systems have been quite similar.

[Zyx]

Notice, Kumatto, that in my post I qualified my statement with "(politically)", I said nothing of economics.

I may have misread; I cannot tell at this time. However, even though you did type 'politically' it is senseless to divorce politics from economics and so I still can say that you are wrong to compare the two.

As to politically, Communism is nearly always internationalist and progressive in terms of social policy (i.e. no racism, sexism, or classes.) Fascism can practice the same, I guess???, but I do not know if it is really safe to say that it can.

Honestly, Communism and Fascism are a far cry from one another. I usually like to just consider that Fascism allows for private ownership, but indeed they are very different politically and socially.

Also note that I said that there were all collectivist in nature, not the same thing as they are the same. Two things can be in the same set and not be equivalent.

Fascism is not really that 'collectivist' in that it is 'individualistic' with its 'private ownership' necessity.

Later, I asked someone to explain the differences as they saw them to me.

Indeed, but its too much to bare when you type with faux knowledge like Dr House is habited. It may be of no surprise that my English Professor is . . . not liking me . . . but as far as a lesson that she teaches us goes, introductions are important for these sorts of stuff. Who knows who will be repeating your words and contributing to the general ignorance therewith.

[FallenRaptor]

I'll prefer a marxist (or a fascist) to explain it, but suffrice to say that communism stands for abolition of states, it is not an ideology of state worship or dictatorship.

True communism would actually give people the freedom to develop their natural talents and fully express their creativity & individuality, since people would no longer have to worry about oppression, persecution, exploitation, satisfying their basic human needs, etc. The only ideology that the OP mentioned that puts the group before the individual is fascism.

Dictatorship is what happens when they try to implement the ideology.

Dictatorship is what happens when it is implemented in backward agrarian countries like Russia, which are too unstable to give birth to socialism. Of course, there were other factors also lead to the failure of "communist" countries.

[Manuel]

The fundamental difference between communism and fascism (and from which all other differences are then derived) is that Marxism believes in eternal class conflict which results in the destruction of the class structure, while fascism holds class to be a fundamental part of human society, and focuses on achieving class cooperation.

[Zyx]

Well I'll be! Leave it to a fascist . . . m4nu!

[Phred]

Fascism, Communism, Socialism - these isms are all just subsets of 'Collectivism' - the ideology that views people as part of groups instead of as individuals.

Agree or disagree?

While it is true that the three are indeed mere subsets of the overarching category "Collectivism", you do not accurately define Collectivism.

It is not just that Collectivists view people as parts of groups rather than as individuals, it is that they contend that group "rights" trump individual rights.



Phred

[pikachu]

The OP said nothing of ideologies, I interpreted it as actual real-world political systems, not fantasy land. And ad you have said, the implementation of these systems have been quite similar.

The political systems of fascist and communist states were similar indeed, but I really don't think this qualifies as similarity in ideologies themselves.

Just looking at them in terms of one-party dictatorships will not give you any explanation for their structure and behavior, past and present.

There were and still are a lot of single-party states throughout the world. I think it takes a rather big leap in logic to clump them all together.

[NoRapture]

it is that they contend that group "rights" trump individual rights.

Trump? No ideology I know of asserts that the group over-rides the individual as a ridgid social mandate. This is not communism. Show me Marx's words to that effect. Maybe you've been studying ant farms?

[Dan]

What's the difference then? Both are state oriented dictatorships.

The difference is that in a communism everybody's poor, while in a fascism only some are poor.

[NoRapture]

The difference is that in a communism everybody's poor, while in a fascism only some are poor.

Wow, may I copy that? It explains so much.

[Dan]

Wow, may I copy that? It explains so much.

Yes, you may.

I'm glad it met your exceedingly high standards.

[SpiderMonkey]

"Collectivist" is the name libertarians invented for people who have friends. The trouble with your black-and-white view of the world is that your idea of individualism is terribly, terribly warped.

Libertarian individualism is selfishness and isolation. But individuals cannot grow, or even define themselves, except in relation to other people. This is why libertarians become shut off from reality. They buy into their own bullshit because there are no people they trust to keep them grounded in reality.

[The Immortal Goon]

"Collectivist" is the name libertarians invented for people who have friends. The trouble with your black-and-white view of the world is that your idea of individualism is terribly, terribly warped.

This is true. Human beings are social animals. If you ever see a documentary about the rare case that someone is brought up completely isolated, you'll see they are incapable of functioning. Physically they don't even shit or piss the same way and they don't think coherently. Part of the reason that babies are born so feeble is as a means to force a bond.

Such a broad definition of "collectivist" as the OP suggests, would have Thag and Olga in their cave as "collectivists." It's just a propaganda buzzword used to make superficial similarities seem more important than they are, like "totalitarian."

Even the more narrow definition of "society before the individual" doesn't really apply as self-described libertarians would be the first to say that there should be some kind of rules to society; ie, you can't just murder whoever you want and take whatever you want - largely because society would break down.

Collectivism has no real value except as a slur.

This topic reminded me of an article I re-read recently.

A moralizing Philistine’s favorite method is the lumping of reaction’s conduct with that of revolution. He achieves success in this device through recourse to formal analogies. To him czarism and Bolshevism are twins. Twins are likewise discovered in fascism and communism. An inventory is compiled of the common features in Catholicism – or more specifically, Jesuitism – and Bolshevism. Hitler and Mussolini, utilizing from their side exactly the same method, disclose that liberalism, democracy, and Bolshevism represent merely different manifestations of one and the same evil...

The fundamental feature of these approchements and similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and classify different currents according to some external and secondary manifestation, most often according to their relation to one or another abstract principle which for the given classifier has a special professional value. Thus to the Roman pope Freemasons and Darwinists, Marxists and anarchists are twins because all of them sacrilegiously deny the immaculate conception. To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore “blood and honor”. To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage. And so forth.