From my observation, people tend to have their own nuanced definitions for each of these, so what are yours? How are they similar? How do they differ?
I’m white, and I like nuclear families, my country, having a career, and strong community values. Therefore, I’m labeled a fascist.
Communists and socialists are the people who would label me a fascist.
Systems supported by those who cannot make their own way in life.
Fascism: heavy handed authoritarian government. You buy the brand of those in power or face the consequences.
Socialism: Transferring the means of production to the workers from the owner - either directly with property or indirectly with earnings
Communism: where socialism always goes. Transferring the means of production to the government from the owner or worker. An advanced stage of socialism requiring fascism.
Fixed it for you.
This is a good description. I would just add that the easiest way to describe the Commies is they are anti-Capitalist. Of course they aren’t actually but they think they are…
Which leads to textbook definitions of describing Communism in America to be completely worthless.
These cunts have no idea what any of it means. They call for things that run completely counter to everything they do and say.
Under actual Communism here is how the following would go.
You hate the police?
Up against the wall.
You refuse to work?
Up against the wall.
You don’t know your gender and have PTSD?
Up against the wall.
You think rent and landlords are evil?
Up against the wall.
I can go on and on. These morons are so fucking stupid that they push for a society that would reject them and put them in harms way to the state that have certain expectations of the citizens. It’s demonstrably ignorant.
They are all collectivistic.
Every single practical example of socialism has ownership via government. Community ownership via profit sharing etc only exist in capitalist structures.
Can you find one country present or past that was socialist that had community ownership where individuals actually collectively owned the companies they worked for? (Sure you can find a company or 2 where this happens but it’s always in capitalist countries)
Basically the Canadian liberal party.
Because fascism favors passionate action over intellectualism, there isn’t a single definition and different fascism can have extremely different theories behind them. For example, the Italian fascism was mostly centered on the state, while the Nazis were not really statists, they focussed on Race. So, fascism is more something with a set of common features, with different varieties having those features to larger or smaller level. The best description is in Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco: https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
Fascism is a form of ultra-nationalism that believes that the will of the nation is not expressed through a democratic vote, but rather through a leader that in some way embodies the nation itself. The ideal citizen has a heoric character that believes in action for the sake of action and seeks out conflict so that he (usually he, it is very masculine and usually misogynistic idea) can sort things out according to who is strongest. This makes them into a kind of elite. Hierarchy is natural, and any attempt to flatten it is the result of a plot by people who would naturally be at the bottom, but have somehow rigged the game to suppress the strong. Which leads to conspiracy theory about parasitic elements sapping the nation of its strength. And they create an idealized past where things were better before those inferior elements ruined everything. Language has to be simplified because over-intelectualization is one of the things that weakens the Volk.
A system where the economic means of production are controlled by the people who do labor rather than by people who own capital, or a political program meant to reach that point. Can range from a Euro-style Social Democrats that might be not very different from a liberal, to an insurectionary Maoist.
On a basic theoretical level not that different from socialism. In Marxist-Lenninism, communism is the stateless society that socialist programs are supposed to create. In practice, though, the term has been more or less monopolized by Marxist-Lenninists and related ideologies like Maoists, Trots, and Titoists. Anarcho-communists usually are careful to use that anarcho-prefix. Personally, I would refer to anti-authoritarian libertarian socialists, anarchists, syndicalists, etc. as socialists but not communists. And since the two groups have been split since the late 1800s and have wildly different beliefs, I’m not alone in doing that.
@anthonyMI do you think the younger generation of Americans that calls themselves Communists line up at all with actual Communism? I call them Communists because that is what they are saying they are but literally none of their social views would be acceptable in a Communist society.
I think people who are more involved in left politics are more likely to be more specific about what they believe in than just say communist. If asked, I’d say I’m left-libertarian or libertarian socialist but don’t feel loyal to any specific version of it, but like the ideas of Democratic Confederalism. In large part, because they are the libertarian socialists who are doing the most in the real world. But, I don’t think you would make a distinction between that and communism.
I don’t think a lot of these kids who call themselves communists really are, but not because of social issues. I think they call themselves communists because the idea of what communism is in America is completely warped by a century of propaganda where everything the ruling class doesn’t like is labeled as communism. So, most of them are really just lukewarm social democrats who like edgy language.
But that is another division point on the left. A lot of people who will call themselves Orthodox Marxists or Communists are against identity politics and a lot of the social issues because they see them as distractions from class conflict. Or, if they do value those things, they see them as a result of capitalism and getting rid of capitalism will also get rid of racism, sexism, etc. That is one of the many things I disagree with communists about.
The thing about not liking landlords, though, is completely normal under communism, Mao specifically executed landlords. In the Soviet Union, housing was communal and homelessness skyrocketed after privatization in the 1990s.
They may not be commies irl, but they have been influenced by them. They hate capitalism, white people, America, christianity, etc.
I wonder who could be behind the anti-white, anti-christian, and anti-capitalism attitude?
It seems more like democracy meets oligarchy meets communism. Socialism never lasts long though, just look at the Bolshevik revolution.
I don’t know about the first two, but the last one where faces control the country is horrifying.
There are no differences. Not now, not ever. How about just being a good natured human being and having some motivation to do something with your life. Labels such as those are more about controlling a populace then empowering them.
You label others or yourself and then spend the rest of your time arguing for or against.
Be committed to your family. Stop worrying about what other people are doing if it has no direct effect on you. Find something you enjoy doing as a career and you’ll never look at it as a job. Be nice to people. Nobody in the history of man kind has ever called someone an asshole for.holding a door open for a stranger but they have called people assholes for being assholes.
Those terms are interchangable in terms of what the control system means on a macro scale. They are just different buzzwords meant to marginalize the slight differences in societal operation.