Facism and Communism same thing?

Fascism And Socialism Explained
Have you ever wondered why the Nazis called themselves the "National Socialist Party," and why the Soviets called themselves "Socialist Republics"? In history and political science classes we were told that the Nazis were "fascists" and that the Soviets were "communists." It is not hard to come to the conclusion that people living under fascism and people living under communism seemed to be coming out in the same place....as terrified slaves (if not dead).
Properly understood, fascism and communism were, as the Soviet and German labels openly declared, actually the same thing:, just two varieties of socialism. The fascist praises the free market, but secretly works to destroy it. The communist condemns the free market and openly works to destroy it. Both tactics are tools of a monopolistic type of parasitism known as socialism. The key goal in either case is the destruction of economic market competition so that certain ruthless individuals can acquire huge wealth and power. The wars between the fascists and the communists in the 20th century have simply been wars fought between competing monopolists.

If the communists had their way, the world would be one giant monopoly government devoid of any troublesome "free market economy." A one-world communist government would control every aspect of a world economy. Nothing would be left to the untidy devices of the free market. Wages and prices would be controlled by government fiat.

If the fascists had their way, the world would be one giant monopoly corporation devoid of any troublesome "free market economy." A one-world fascist government would control every aspect of a world economy. Nothing would be left to the untidy devices of the free market. Wages and prices would be controlled by a central bank, fiat currency, and interest rate manipulations.

Fascist socialism is more subtle than communist socialism. One form of tyranny has corporate logos pasted across the landscape, while the other has government logos pasted over the landscape. The Japanese pledge loyalty to the Corporation. The Cubans pledge loyalty to the Party. Communist socialism (less China's meager one billion strong) is falling apart because it wasn't seductive enough. Fascistic socialism is thriving because it is incredibly clever and devious.. Corporate Earth will simply take a bit longer to build than Communist Earth because the fascists have learned from the mistakes of those heavy-handed commies and are now doing things with a lot more delicacy.

What is GATT? What is NAFTA? They are both monopolistic corporate tools masquerading as "free market" devices, aren't they? Both allow corporations to exploit the cheapest labor market across national boundaries. The goal of GATT and NAFTA is to erase national borders through economic manipulation. Sounds sort of like world communism to me. So what's going on here? Well, I'll tell you.

Here is the "revelation of the method" that can turn on that light bulb in your mind. It is based on one key understanding: socialism is actually the invention of the designers of monopolistic capitalism.

Capitalism is good if government doesn't interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites.

And now we get to the "C" word: conspiracy. It is my belief that corporate monopolists like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Morgan, the Du Ponts, the Vanderbilts and other infamous "robber barons" here and in Europe (where it all began with the Rothchilds and English royalty) actually created and maintained communism in the Soviet Union.

At work is what is known as the "Hegelian Principle." There are three parts to this technique. First you create the thesis. This is usually a problem that is created by government meddling. The thesis in this case was naked monopolistic capitalism, the bared fang, no-holds-barred type that John D. Rockefeller wielded. The masses get rather angry at some point. They don't like the big boys taking over the whole block.

So, now you create the solution to the problem that you had created earlier. This solution is called the anti-thesis. You finance a twisted megalomaniac by the name of Lenin to cook up a political dogma (based upon the ideas of Karl Marx...who was funded by European industrialists) that attacks your thesis and offers something as bad or worse in its place. (Sorry, but Comrade Lenin was worse than John D. Rockefeller.) After awhile, the masses reject the anti-thesis. You have the so-called "fall" of communism.

But what is left? It is called the synthesis. What remains is what you planned for in the first place: world-wide socialism!

Bingo! And here it is. Today not one nation in the entire world has a free market economy. Not a single one. Not a single nation has gold- and silver-backed currency. Not a single nation is allowed to withdraw into its national boundaries and make its way as a free market isolationist entity. Das Korporation uber alles, ladies and gentlemen!

People this cannot have just happened by accident. That is why I call it a conspiracy. That is why I firmly proclaim that socialism is actually corporate monopolism unmasked. It has never been anything else. The mask has just slipped and you can now see behind it for yourself anytime you care to look. And the elitist sons of bitches don't care if you now know! They think it's too late for you to do anything about it.

This isn't good news. It means the return of a feudal system to the entire globe. It pretends to be the illuminated New World Order, but it will be a New Dark Age unlike anything mankind has ever known. That is...unless we stop it.

oookaaay, so, to start, i'm going to say i am thinking along the same line as you, just...i would've used different semantics, and i wouldn't have drawn the conclusion of conspiracy - its unnecessary at best. i don't know how you define a "conspiracy", but typically i think of a group of people acting with the explicit knowledge of what they have to do to achieve a certain end, with lots of planning and coordination. if a group of people have the same interests, they will all work along the line toward a certain goal, irregardless of planning or coordination =]

also, socialism is a theory of thought. see: utopianism. see: anarchism. see: scientific socialism.

communism is just a breakaway of the idea that society should focus around society, not economics. (see the "soci" part in "society" and "socialism")

state socialism is just too dangerous, but remember that what happened with the USSR wasn't even that. lenin himself SAID they had to implement state capitalism in order to rebuild society after the civil war, and hopefully they could go back to state socialism after society was rebuilt (obviously didn't happen, but if you take into account his thought process and the state of russia, his choice make some sense). state socialism is the idea that we should all AIM for what we anarchists aim for, but that people are too stupid to succeed it all by itself.

fascism is just corporatism, check out what mussolini had to say on the subject.

the reason hitler called his group of fascists the National Socialist Workers' Party was to garner votes, end of story. no conspiracy there.

you are right about what fascist and state socialist thought process will create. don't know if state socialists AIM for such a thing, fascists might, but they might not. o.o;;

also, we had a perfectly free market with no government interference, and it created corporate leaders like rockafeller. if there was no overhead government that could be used by a tool by corporations, and no corporations could exist, then a free market might not be all that bad (compared to nowadays) - its just kinda pointless if people can communicate all over the world about needs for goods....then what's the point in allowing a market that has major booms and busts INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM decide what goes where...?

remember, if there is world-wide competition, there is going to be winners and losers.

Communism is a social or economic organization that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society.

It has nothing to do with government.

SOME forms of SOCIALISM (a phase into communism, which has different varieties, such as Marxism) have to do with government, though a person can be communist and even anarchist at the same time.


Like Solpacvoicis said, I would have used different semantics though we think along the same lines.

solpacvoicis wrote:

also, socialism is a theory of thought. see: utopianism. see: anarchism. see: scientific socialism.

communism is just a breakaway of the idea that society should focus around society, not economics. (see the "soci" part in "society" and "socialism")


also, we had a perfectly free market with no government interference, and it created corporate leaders like rockafeller. if there was no overhead government that could be used by a tool by corporations, and no corporations could exist, then a free market might not be all that bad (compared to nowadays) - its just kinda pointless if people can communicate all over the world about needs for goods....then what's the point in allowing a market that has major booms and busts INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM decide what goes where...?

remember, if there is world-wide competition, there is going to be winners and losers.

"Coomunism is just a breakaway of the idea that society should focus around society, not economics" I agree with that Marx spoke heavily on social equality even though his ideas would not have produced that...and only way for society not to focus on economics is....DESTROY MONETARY VALUE(Anarcho-Communism)....and your saying corporations rely on government and the state that's true I'm not sure if multi-national corporations could exist without a state....you should look up participatory economics(Parecon) it's more so post-capitalism and alternative to market economy and planned economy...it focuses on means of production controlled by the workers and focuses on causing social equality which is really helpful since we all know how bad capitalism is on social relations always one person or many getting fucked at the expense of one.

Isaiah wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

also, socialism is a theory of thought. see: utopianism. see: anarchism. see: scientific socialism.

communism is just a breakaway of the idea that society should focus around society, not economics. (see the "soci" part in "society" and "socialism")


also, we had a perfectly free market with no government interference, and it created corporate leaders like rockafeller. if there was no overhead government that could be used by a tool by corporations, and no corporations could exist, then a free market might not be all that bad (compared to nowadays) - its just kinda pointless if people can communicate all over the world about needs for goods....then what's the point in allowing a market that has major booms and busts INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM decide what goes where...?

remember, if there is world-wide competition, there is going to be winners and losers.

"Coomunism is just a breakaway of the idea that society should focus around society, not economics" I agree with that Marx spoke heavily on social equality even though his ideas would not have produced that...and only way for society not to focus on economics is....DESTROY MONETARY VALUE(Anarcho-Communism)....and your saying corporations rely on government and the state that's true I'm not sure if multi-national corporations could exist without a state....you should look up participatory economics(Parecon) it's more so post-capitalism and alternative to market economy and planned economy...it focuses on means of production controlled by the workers and focuses on causing social equality which is really helpful since we all know how bad capitalism is on social relations always one person or many getting fucked at the expense of one.

I used to fully agree on a society based off of an participatory economical system, though it does still hold aspects of the market-created alienation and the separation of our Earth via industrialization.

IF there had to be something before anarcho communism, I would prefer anarcho syndicalism under parecon with extreme environmental attention, because industrialization is shit to the Earth. In fact, many people believe in a transition from parecon (democratic) / syndicalism to gift (free) economy /communism.

EDIT: Participatory economic system, not economically economic.. lol

Cheveyo wrote:

Isaiah wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

also, socialism is a theory of thought. see: utopianism. see: anarchism. see: scientific socialism.

communism is just a breakaway of the idea that society should focus around society, not economics. (see the "soci" part in "society" and "socialism")


also, we had a perfectly free market with no government interference, and it created corporate leaders like rockafeller. if there was no overhead government that could be used by a tool by corporations, and no corporations could exist, then a free market might not be all that bad (compared to nowadays) - its just kinda pointless if people can communicate all over the world about needs for goods....then what's the point in allowing a market that has major booms and busts INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM decide what goes where...?

remember, if there is world-wide competition, there is going to be winners and losers.

"Coomunism is just a breakaway of the idea that society should focus around society, not economics" I agree with that Marx spoke heavily on social equality even though his ideas would not have produced that...and only way for society not to focus on economics is....DESTROY MONETARY VALUE(Anarcho-Communism)....and your saying corporations rely on government and the state that's true I'm not sure if multi-national corporations could exist without a state....you should look up participatory economics(Parecon) it's more so post-capitalism and alternative to market economy and planned economy...it focuses on means of production controlled by the workers and focuses on causing social equality which is really helpful since we all know how bad capitalism is on social relations always one person or many getting fucked at the expense of one.

I used to fully agree on a society based off of an economically economical system, though it does still hold aspects of the market-created alienation and the separation of our Earth via industrialization.

IF there had to be something before anarcho communism, I would prefer anarcho syndicalism under parecon with extreme environmental attention, because industrialization is shit to the Earth. In fact, many people believe in a transition from parecon (democratic) / syndicalism to gift (free) economy /communism.

Ya I agree but I don't like the idea of a union in Union there will be a general higher level of people over the rest which can produce their own bourgeoisie.....I prefer council communism for the transition of anarcho communism