[Dr House]

Libertarian individualism is selfishness and isolation.

Wrong, libertarian individualism is strict voluntarism. You do what you want, you associate with who you wanna associate, and you don't associate with who you don't wanna associate. We believe in social interaction, but we don't believe in managed social interaction, we don't believe it should have set rules, save for the all-encompassing prohibition of violence, theft and fraud.

[Ash Faulkner]

Yes, I totally agree. More insightful than the authoritarian-libertarian divide is, in my view, the collectivist-individualist one.

The vague political chart I came up with is like this:

---Socialism-------------------------------------------Fascism---
-----------Progressivism--------------Conservatism-----------
---Anarchism----------------------------------Libertarianism---

Collectivists on the top, individualists on the bottom; private property on the right, communal property on the left (though the top don't really care either way); the centre tend to be more communitarian, but the obvious left-right divide makes conservatism slightly less so than progressivism (by which I mean social democracy/modern liberalism, which is in my view the same thing).

[Nattering Nabob]

I honestly believe that collectivism is a biological urge. Of course individualism is also a biological urge as evidenced by the "survival of the fittest" paradigm...

Individualism and collectivism seem to both be biological survival strategies...

At one stage of evolution it behooves the individual to cooperate and then the individual merges into the collective which then becomes the "individual" unit such as a family, nation, etc.

A hive of bees for example is only a few evolutionary steps from becoming a single biological entity, which will compete against other like entities.


Psychologically, I believe that overcoming our own selfishness and cooperating with others, even to our own detriment, is an evolutionary step.

This cooperation is also the main componant of all religions which is why I believe that religion is an expression of a biological urge.

That said, the conversion from an individual to a collective participant MUST be voluntary as forced change from an individual identity to a collective identity leads to not only great fear and distress, but also to insanity as our identity is a construct in the first place and it's unnatural loss is devastating.

However when that individual identity (ego) is replaced via a natural process of evolution (altruism, etc.) it is normal, healthy, and so different a perspective that it is the enlightenment and salvation that religious texts describe.

Anyway, that's what I believe collectivism is.

[jaakko]

'Collectivism' is not an ideology. At best it's a superficial feature of various fundamentally different ideologies. There's some collectivism to all political ideologies, but its content varies. In the extreme opposite cases like fascism and communism, the contents are not only qualitatively different but fundamentally antagonistic.

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

Please name two things that don't have anything in common. Can you?

So you find one characteristic that you think two things share in common, and the next "logical" thing you do is to resort to your original prejudice that they're "similar".

Well let me tell you what's the most fundamental characteristic they share. It's not their "statism" or anything they objectively share. The fundamental common characteristic they share and which make you lump them together, is that you're fundamentally opposed to both.

Now back to the problems of 'collectivism':

collectivism is putting the group before the individual

I agree and this goes to show the analytical uselessness of this concept. "The group", "the individual" and so on. What group? Which individual? This is completely abstract and metaphysical.

That the state is above the individual is not an ideal invented by communists - it's a historical fact. Either the political organisation of society is above "civil society" or it's not a state to begin with.

And ad you have said, the implementation of these systems have been quite similar.

This is how it may appear to the liberals, at least if they conduct their "analysis" with an intuitive method. You choose the perceived "similarities" which your emotions register most strongly.

The political systems of fascist and communist states were similar indeed

Again, a) on the surface and b) from a liberal perspective.

I would like to urge everyone to pay more attention to the content of various political systems i.e. how they relate to the economic base of society and everything in between.

[Nets]

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.

I disagree, political and economic freedom are different things. Chile was a brutal political dictatorship, but was economically free. I have no problem comparing this regime to any other left-wing political dictatorship, politically.

Please name two things that don't have anything in common. Can you?

I don't understand the question; in general or particular to this discussion.

So you find one characteristic that you think two things share in common, and the next "logical" thing you do is to resort to your original prejudice that they're "similar".

Politically, I do think Communism and Fascism have been similar. While yes, economically they have differed, but I don't see any different between getting sent to a Fascist death camp or a communist gulag. As I have said, I don't care about philosophy or ideology, only results and thr track records of both. This is what I am evaluating, not Marxist vs. Fascist literature.

Yes, the political model is one similarity, but it is such an overarching similarity that it is hard to ignore.

Well let me tell you what's the most fundamental characteristic they share. It's not their "statism" or anything they objectively share. The fundamental common characteristic they share and which make you lump them together, is that you're fundamentally opposed to both.

You really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?

But I may be wrong; educate me.

[ingliz]

The strange thing is how can an individualistic society ever transform itself into a collectivist society. If individualism is such a better way to live why do all these atoms of individual freedom coalesce into this pudding of tyranny? There must be some basic psychological something lacking in the self interested 'aloneness' of individualism.

[pikachu]

You really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?

As states, they were sure as hell different. They were not any more like each other than they were like liberal states.

How about you actually investigate the structure and actions of those countries, as opposed to just swallowing the liberal propaganda about them? Start with Wikipedia at least.

[Manuel]

ou really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?

What about Cuba's Castro and Brazil's Vargas?

Or Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh and Portugal's Salazar?

Or China's Mao to Spain's Franco?

Kim Jong Il to Putin?

[Nets]

M4NU, I think some of the examples you posted contrast Authoritarian with Totalitarian regimes. Hitler and Stalin were both Totalitarian, not Authoritarian, so I don't see the relevance.

[pikachu]

Hitler and Stalin were both Totalitarian, not Authoritarian, so I don't see the relevance.

Really? How does that work? I'm pretty sure Germany and USSR were no less authoritarian as they were totalitarian.

I see you are probably trying to distinguish the term totalitarianism as a "higher degree" of authoritatianism, or something, which I think is stupid, because there is no such distinction.

Totalitarinism, as in, unconditional subordination of individual to the state, is a key feature of every stable state: fascist, liberal, socialist, or whatever. A state which is not totalitarian is a failed state.

[Manuel]

But you were claiming the track record between communism and fascism showed that they were basically the same thing - and brought up Stalin and Hitler as proof of that.

I merely tried to show that not all fascist and communist regimes, in fact most do not, share similarities.

[Quercus Robur]

hm meb not socialism which I think can be justified by expanded notions of what is good for individuals thereby diluting its groupishness. Not so sure about fascism either since it isn't an ideology as far as I can see, but I suppose it distrusts individual rights as nambi-pambi liberal ideas a bit like socialists and commies.

Communism is just another word for collectivism really that is definitely aiming at a community good and knocks down individualism with its radicalness and reduced notions of free will.

[Manuel]

Why don't you consider fascism an ideology?

[jaakko]

I disagree, political and economic freedom are different things. Chile was a brutal political dictatorship, but was economically free.

This separation of politics from economy is really something fantastic. It was the state apparatus itself that effectively carried out the coup on behalf of those in control of the economy. It was a political expression of the same class dictatorship that already existed with economy as its foundation. They already had both economic and political power, which can't be separated anyway. What changed was that the political power tore down its own parliamentarian facade and temporarily adopted an openly terroristic and openly dictatorial form. This would not have happened without the Allende government that threatened the economic foundation of the class dictatorship of the Chilean bourgeoisie and US imperialism. Had there not been such an alien democratic government (that is alien to state apparatus protecting the economic interests of the rich and democratic from the perspective of the economic interests of the poor), then that state power could've retained its "pluralistic" parliamentarian facade.

However the point I'm trying to get across is that political power can't exist without an economic foundation, and that dictatorship requires both.

I don't understand the question; in general or particular to this discussion.

You seemed to conclude "collectivist indifference" from a feature you find similar between fascism and communism - "state oriented dictatorship". Even if this was a common feature (which I don't accept), lumping them together (with the nominal "exception" of economics) on the basis of a shared feature is just arbitrary. To put it simple, there are no two things that don't have anything in common. You may list perceived or real common features between fascism and communism and I can do the same with fascism and, say, social-democracy or conservatism. At best this may accumulate data to be analysed and to be put into a context, but such doesn't constitute an analysis by itself.

Politically, I do think Communism and Fascism have been similar. While yes, economically they have differed, but I don't see any different between getting sent to a Fascist death camp or a communist gulag.

What do you think politics is? I think it's about the ways how people organise themselves in a society, and it's a high time for me to know if it's here where our disagreement boils down to. But if there's no fundamental disagreement here, then how do you exclude economy from the sphere of politics? Economy is definitely a component (I'd say the foundation or base) of society, not something "outside" or independent of it.

I think you're making a moralistic argument with the "death camp or gulag" thing, rather than proving a political similarity. It was not some abstract individual who was sent to the death camps or "gulags" but real people of very real groups. What was the difference in these two cases, if not political?

Besides, honestly I don't believe you wouldn't choose going to prison labour camp instead of a nazi death camp if those really were the only options available to you.

This is what I am evaluating, not Marxist vs. Fascist literature.

Yes I know that. What I'm asking you to do is to compare communist and fascist regimes by looking at how they function vis a vis the economic base of the society, because that's what determines the political content of the two.

You really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?

Again you include moral judgements like "paranoid". Yes the two were completely different and I bet you're not as ignorant about history as your question would imply. One was a capitalist state (without parliamentarianism) and the other a socialist state. The social conditions on which both regimes were formed were completely different, almost from "another era".

[Quercus Robur]

Why don't you consider fascism an deology?

I have to say I don't know very much about it, but it strikes me as a lable of convenience for illiberalism.

[Gletkin]

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?

Businesses aren't groups?

People can cut the political cake in all sorts of ways to cast dispersion on certain ideologies by making hackneyed comparisons based on just one or two aspects.

Now turning the knife:

Fascism, National Socialism, and capitalism have more in common with each other than socialism or communism based on their disbelief in egalitarianism and belief in competition in one form or another between people.

Up until the 1960s the western capitalist democracies also believed in White supremacy as the Fascists and Nazis did. They weren't as extreme but their views were essentially the same.

You really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?

But I may be wrong; educate me.

Well for one thing Hitler was committed to the utter extermination of all Jews and Stalin wasn't.

It never ceases to amaze me how some Jews could belittle the differences between Stalin and Hitler. Under Stalin you have a chance at life. Under Hitler, you don't. Period.

[pikachu]

Fascism, National Socialism, and capitalism have more in common with each other than socialism or communism based on their disbelief in egalitarianism and belief in competition in one form or another between people.

Liberals tend to believe in some weird sort of egalitarianism which only they understand. It's called "equality before the law" and sometimes also "equality of opportunity" or some bulshit like that.

Fascists and NS also pretend to believe in egalitrianism, y'know national unity and cooperation and all that stuff. Guess why it's called national socialism anyway? Again, it's the kind of egalitarianism which no one really understands except themselves, but I'm just pointing out that it's not that simple.

Although I do agree that liberals and fascists are closer to each other than communists and fascists, which is why liberals are typically placed in the middle.

Under Stalin you have a chance at life. Under Hitler, you don't. Period.

When your life is full of hardship, sometimes death is a better option. Just sayin...

BTW, Nets is a J oo? Jew alert!

[Gletkin]

Fascists and NS also pretend to believe in egalitrianism, y'know national unity and cooperation and all that stuff.

National unity? Sure. International Solidarity for all Mankind as the left does? NO. "Coopertation"? Mmmmmmm as in "not laissez-faire capitalist, sure.
But they also believed in classes and hierarchy whereas the socialist left believe that eventually class will disappear.

Guess why it's called national socialism anyway?

Because Hitler was a fruitcake?
Who knows? Maybe he was a libertarian at one time and still believed that ANYTHING short of an absolute free market equaled "socialism".

When your life is full of hardship, sometimes death is a better option. Just sayin...

Not if you're a ranking apparatchik (and avoid piquing Stalin's paranoia).

[Meistro1]

Who knows? Maybe he was a libertarian at one time and still believed that ANYTHING short of an absolute free market equaled "socialism".

Or maybe he believed in state ownership of the means of production. The big difference between Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany was the former was national socialism and the latter was international socialism.

[FallenRaptor]

Stalinism is the very opposite of international socialism.

EDIT: I think I read your post wrong, since it seems you are saying that Stalinism is national socialism and Fascism is international socialism. Either way, you couldn't be more wrong.