Stalinism and fascism

Explain to me why a National Socialist wouldn't be sympathetic to Stalinism. What are the fundamental differences between "Socialism in one country" and a central leader of the party and state, and the structure and philosophy behind National Socialism. Is the racial and jewish question the only thing lacking?

Other urls found in this thread:

nordfront.se/nationalsocialismen-var-grundpelare.smr
youtube.com/watch?v=JNiXHUghvxw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You may start with these:

the fascist one had a middle class, small to medium business are permitted, and you can be rich.
In communist are all equally poor but the leaders.

The communist are atheist, free sex, no family, gender equality, the state is the sole with the right to teach at the kids, not the parents
The fascists encourage and glorify whatever your local culture, religion and traditions are, including family and being an exemplar parent for the kids.
Fascists want to glorify and exaggerate national history, communist want to erase each and any history as irrelevant.

Fascists teach you to love your country, Communists teach you there is no country, but only the people, the borders will change and new people will be assimilated in the process, erasing any previous culture and traditions.

In fascism you can have a career outside the political party, in communism, you can have a career only if you actively partecipate in the party.

I didn't ask about the difference between communism and fascism. I'm speaking about Stalinism in particular. Most of the things you mention (anti-family, Maoist view of history) doesn't apply to the policies under Stalin.

Fascism also believes in people before country, referring to the volk in particular. Borders will change and the proliferation of the people takes precedence.

Then sorry, I don't know in what stalinism is different from plain communism.
I was thinking this was a bait post to point out commusm is equal to fascism.

Fascism is not National Socialism.

Stalin was /our guy/

I would never.

I could reframe the question to be about Stalinism vs. Communism. My question was peaked after reading some internet National Socialists who are seemingly sympathetic to Stalin without explaining why.

Do you wish for the old days, pasta friend?

Not all fascists are National Socialists, but all National Socialists are fascists.

Here's an article explaining National Socialism, though it's in Swedish so the Americans will remain stupid unless they translate it.

nordfront.se/nationalsocialismen-var-grundpelare.smr

Are you fucking retarded?

Stalinists don't believe in private property and are opposed to business, nationalism, and religion. Does any of that sound similar to National Socialism to you?

The Nordic Resistance Movement (a National Socialist organization). Their parliamentary branch was formed September 5, 2015. See their political views on the picture.

I disagree that Stalinism is fundamentally anti-nationalist. Maybe on paper because of the need to uphold a communist appearance, but the USSR under Stalin was functionally a nationalist country. Also, the religious view under National Socialism is still up for debate.

Stalinism is not Marxism.

But that's wrong. Stalin actively suppressed Russian nationalism with korenization programs and created new ethnic groups like Ukrainians.

"The main danger, Great-Russian chauvinism, should be kept in check by the Russians themselves, for the sake of the larger goal of building socialism." t. stalin

he literally says at the 12th party congress that the greatest threat to the Soviet Union was Russian nationalism.

Not the old day, but for an updated version of fascism yes.
More transparency and more involvement of the people in the goverment, not real democracy but at least the power to quickly remove everyone in charge if they derail too much.
Also a fascism where the leaders can have a quick turnout, so no cult of personality can be created.
And you can't shut down Internet or the phone net in today word, so you must allow freedom of speak, just make the media powerless, no super star journalists should be allowed.

I've been familiar with National Socialism for over a decade, including its history and philosophy. This thread is about the cultural and political implications of society under Stalinism, and how it relates to fascism and National Socialism. Not because I have an opinion on this question but because I am curious.

see This. Socialism would not suffice on just the Russians alone because it is won't be sustainable, and the only way is to spread its stranglehold to the rest of the world.

Being that the 12th Congress was held in 1923, it isn't relevant to the Stalinist policies which really peaked after the Purge of the late '30s.

Do you think it would be possible for an updated, more modern version of fascism to ever be implemented in your lifetime? Or do you think the people of Italy would oppose it no matter what?

>Stalin's policies only count when they fit my narrative

thanks for playing

youtube.com/watch?v=JNiXHUghvxw

Yes, very possible, if you don't call it fascism and you don't make any reference to fascism or Mussolini, these worlds are taboo, but the ideology is still sound and accepted by many Italians, just call it another way, use different language and pretend it's a new idea.

Stalin used his own native Russian population as gulag slave labor. He literally cycled almost the entire population through the campus on completely fabricated political charges. This would be like Hitler cycling the aryan population through the concentration camps.

Stalin was incredibly incompetent, and he killed and abused tens of millions of people so a literal handful on elites could live with the comforts enjoyed by upper middle class Americans and Germans. Stalinism operates entirely on state terror and is not viable economically. USSR was floated through WW2 on billions of dollars in US aid and equipment. Germany would have steamrolled them without this.

Stalinism doesn't work. The only other Stalinist state (DPRK) exists solely by extorting foreign aid and starving its people.

Nazi Germany was a utopia compared to any Stalinist nation.

/thread

Stalin wasn't Russian bro

in fascism your tax money goes to improve the country's infrastructure and military, not to feed useless pieces of shit
in fascism you're pretty much allowed to do whatever you want economically, you can own a business, earn as much money as you want, the government just makes sure you're not doing it in a degenerate way by for instance underpaying your workers or putting sawdust in the burgers
fascism allows you to have guns
communism seeks to destroy religion, culture, race, whereas fascism seeks to do the opposite
and maybe most importantly, under fascism you're allowed to leave

fascism isn't really intended to be a permanent system of government either, it's mainly just a means to get over a period of turmoil or preparing the country for a war, by getting rid your country's degenerates, traitors and communists, nationalizing the economy and building up the military, and just generally doing what is needed to get the country back on track, then fading in to something more voluntaryist once the problems are over

also it's entire existence is directly oppositional to communism and fascims generally spawned because people were growing anxious their countries would be swallowed by it, even the banners and the uniforms are designed in a way as to look as frightening and deterring as possible to the bolshevik faggots

No shit he was Georgian. Semantics. Same fucking thing.

It was nationalist in the sense that the Soviet Union was the nation, not Russia.

It's like saying an American saying "praise America" isn't nationalist because they aren't saying praise Oregon, Russia wasn't the nation

>Semantics. Same fucking thing.
Russia =/= Georgia
Russia =/= USSR
Georgia =/= USSR
USSR = USSR
Russia = Russia
Georgia = Georgia

But that's actually wrong. The concept of a Soviet nation and a Soviet people didn't come about until decades after Stalin died, in the 70s.

>Reinforcing the distinctions in national identities, the Soviet state maintained information about "nationality" on many administrative records, including school, work, and military records, as well as in the periodic censuses of population. The "fifth record" (Russian: пятaя гpaфa, pyataya grafa) was the section of the obligatory internal passport document which stated the citizen's ethnicity (Russian: нaциoнaльнocть, natsionalnost).

from wikipedia

Russia was 90% of the USSR. None of this changes the fact that Stalinism was garbage and doesn't work.

But that's wrong. Russians made up about 50% of the Soviet population.

>Russia was 90% of the USSR
Not by population you mong. I'm not talking about Stalinism, I'm talking about Stalin himself and he wasn't Russian. Just like all those "Russian" Marxist Jews that organized and advocated for the slaughter of millions of ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, and others.

I'm not asking about the difference between communism and fascism, you fucking faggot. I am a fascist asking if there is a trace of fascist merit in Stalinism.

Stalin wasn't Russian, and foreign aid never made it to the front. The war was decided early on when Germany failed to take Moscow, despite their successes they were retreating ever since. Nazi Germany was not a utopia, the government was present and felt in the every day lives of citizens. Obviously both are retarded ideas and the outcomes speak for themselves.

Similarities between Fascism and Stalinism: total control of the people by the state

That's about it

>The concept of a Soviet nation and a Soviet people didn't come about until decades after Stalin died
so wrong. The idea that all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, are all equal is one of the fundamental ideas of communism that took effect long before Stalin was in office. Printing people's ethnicity on passports was identical to printing their last names, it was a way to keep track of origin. The initial idea of a Soviet nation and people was one of the reasons why the Czarists were overthrown.

They're both highly aggressive and destructive ideologies. Both limit individual liberty and destroy the free exchange of ideas which are the cornerstone of a working, living society. Both demand complete devotion to a static set of values/ideas and punish deviation from said values. Both rely heavily on a feindbild (a group of people who are proclaimed to be the enemy) to focus the hate generated by propaganda and the set backs from having severly limited freedom (that includes but is not limited to economical freedom).
As pointed out there are differences that I'm not going to reiterate but in a fundamental way these two ideologies a very similar.
Like, for example, two movements within the same religion. They almost believe the exact same thing, but since they aggressively focus on the differences they hate each other more than they hate people who don't follow the ideology at all. The 'kill the traitors first' mentality is very common in oppressive believe sytems.

>The idea that all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, are all equal is one of the fundamental ideas of communism that took effect long before Stalin was in office.

How does that contradict what I said?

>Nikita Khrushchev had used the term [Soviet people] in his speech at the 22nd Communist Party Congress in 1961, when he declared that in the USSR there had formed a new historical community of people of diverse nationalities, having common characteristics—the Soviet people.

You're clearly retarded so I'll have to spell it out for you; Nikita Khruschev was after Stalin.

>Printing people's ethnicity on passports was identical to printing their last names, it was a way to keep track of origin.

It goes far beyond that when the Soviet government is pushing non-Russian languages and ethnic groups throughout the Soviet Union.

The claim was that the Soviet Union was nationalist during Stalin's time because their nation was the Soviet nation. If that was the case, then citizens wouldn't have their nation, which was never "Soviet" on their identity cards.

>Printing people's ethnicity on passports was identical to printing their last names, it was a way to keep track of origin.
Lel

>individual liberty and destroy the free exchange of ideas which are the cornerstone of a working, living society

Did you really believe nazi Germany was a backward nation, had a stagnant economy and a death society?
I'm implying to "death society" you mean no work of art or scientific research or people enjoying life.
The society we live in today, in my opinion at least, is much less live than the nazi or mussolinian one. Modern art is shit, people don't make kids anymore, people don't talk to each others but in social media... even science, our truly God, is slacking.
This is only my opinion but I think you had just write a lot of bullshit.

Kill the traitors first is a very good survival strategy, and is applied even by our current governments (not kill, just put in jail or discredit them).

Soviet is not an ethnicity, it wasn't ever meant to be an ethnicity, people's ethnicity was printed on passports throughout the entirety of the SU. Stalin pushed the idea that everyone is equal and should work toward a common goal (Soviet dominance, soviet nationalism) early on, and pushed it hard. Stalin's USSR was nationalist because everyone supported the USSR and not their individual republics. The passports printed their ethnicity, not their nation, there was only one nation. When a passport said this person is Armenian, that meant the person is of Armenian decent, not that he is from Armenia, he is from the USSR. Not disagreeing with you entirely, but the claim that the SU was nationalist during Stalin, is on point.

Kill the traitors first is NOT a good survival mechanism. It just shows that your argument is so weak that you have to support it by force. I agree with you that current governments are to a lesser extent using it too. And that's a travesty.

As I said communism/marxism and fascism hinge on a static det of believes. While there are ethical values that are static and important basing a whole society on values that MUST NEVER CHANGE is a very bad idea. Look at islamic societies today. It leads to stagnancy which is death. There was industriousness and scientific advances in Nazi germany but almost exclusively focused on the war effort. As for art: remember book burnings? Entartete kunst? There was stagnancy there to because everything including art had to fit the fascist ideology and that kills creativity. Now creativity as you pointed out leads to a lot of shit, but it is also the most important requirement for progress. In any field. Our society nowadays has its big flaws. We're trying things. Some work, some don't. At the moment a lot of them don't. But the solution is not stopping to try new things. Try different things. Find the things that work. That might mean taking a step back in some aspects, but keep being curious and keep moving.

Stalin wasnt rediculously corrupt i mean he was afforded comforts most citizens didnt have but he essentially lived a life like a modest middle class person.
He got really pissed off at his son trying to manipulate teachers to give him good grades by using his name while doing nothing and then refused to trade him for a german field marschall and he died in a prison camp. All his male children were soldiers in the war and i think only one of them survived.
He generally followed the rule that personal property did not exist and everything was owned by the state but usually what this meant was that if you mildly pissed someone off your shit would be taken away and if you complained you would be sent to a gulag.

short answer:

Conflict of power. Ideology has nothing to do with it, both ideology's changed radically with passing years, leaders within both ideology's often acted in opposite to their expressed belie system.

There was only one conflict, NATIONAL socialism, against INTERNATIONAL socialism. Stalin wanted to dominate the world and rule it, Hitler wanted to dominate the world and rule it, and world can only have one ruler. That's all. Ideology has nothing to do with it, it is only a tool for ultimate goal. The slight difference was that in international socialism Your background and nationality is not important as long as You support the goal, in national socialism You not only had to support the goal, You also need to be of certain nationality and in lesser degree background.

everyone wants to dominate the world, neither of those two actually had that planned that. Nazi Germany planned to unify Europe with Germany at the helm and break the USSR and Yogoslavia up. All of which happened, thanks to the devil worshipping, child molesting assholes in Washington. Stalin planned to industrialize the USSR, and partly succeeded.

I'm not an expert in communism, but one of the fundamental idea of (italian) fascism is the one of plasticity. being able to adapt and evolve to new political, social or scientific situations.
The "MUST NEVER CHANGE" is only your biased view.
The scientific advancement in nazi Germany as lead both the russian and the murricans to space, not to count advancements in chemistry or mechanics. They were mostly focused on war because nazi Germany was at war or at risk of war for most of it's life.

>everything including art had to fit the fascist ideology and that kills creativity
Some argument are taboo for every society,
you can only develop in the allowed space your society give to you.

We cannot create DNA mutated humans,
we cannot publish state secrets (wikileaks)
we are very limited in experimenting with nuclear power
we cannot make art in favor of racism
we cannot make art so extreme that can damage our society (I think about the debate about pedo-mangas)
There are a lot's of way our creativity is limited even now, in this so good and free society. And this is a good and moral thing, some limits have to be there.
The limits that this society put on us are differents from the one of a fascist society but your argument about killing creativity is not sound. Creativity is killed only on certain armful fields.

One is for saving capitalism, the other is for full destruction of capitalism.

What a stupid question, seriously.

The notion that National Socialism is for saving capitalism is the dumbest thing so far in this thread.

And if you are talking about fascism as a whole, still way off.

That's what ethics are for. To limit creativity to where it doesn't harm. Fascism however proposes that there should be additional limitations resulting from its ideology. That is where it all goes wrong.
And what is that about not being able to create racist art? You can do that in a truly free society which Europe at the moment is not.

Regarding your other claims:
I am not an expert on italian fascism but I hope we can at least agree that an unchallanged leadership is a recipe for desaster. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the old romans knew about that which is why they told victorious generals 'memento mori'. You need a funtioning opposition to keep your own dark side (which each one of us has) in check. And fascism in general is not big on opposition.

Not mentioning Stalinism is all ethnicities-friendly, Fascism suggests hatred to other ethnicities.

Stalinism has no gender restrictions, fascism for restrictions.

Are you uneducated? Tell me how capitalism was going to be abolished by fascists. Literally, you are really ignorant if you decline that they didn't plan anything other than _some_ restrictions to the market. Bankers and wealth were still on their place.

>. Both limit individual liberty

"Individual liberty" is a euphemism for degeneracy.

really good post mate

>system that works with nature and the balance of class
vs
>system that works against nature and tries to eliminate class

reminder that fascist germany only collapsed because the entire fucking developed world was waging total war against them

Way off? Really? So you think abolishing capitalism / maintaining it is something non-significant in ideology? It is the MOST significant part.

25+ years of anti-capitalist rhetoric from top NSDAP figures.

Goebbels:
"As socialists we are opponents of the Jews. We see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism: the misuse of the nation's goods."

Hitler:
"Capitalism and Bolshevism: two sides of the same Jewish coin."

Himmler:
"Throughout history, capitalism and socialism alternate with each other. Capitalism the unnatural, socialism the natural economic system."

A racial socialist ruling party with a red flag with a rotated swastika to resemble an S for Socialism was pro-capitalist?

...

You misread. NSDAP was for abolishing international capitalism and highly critical of capitalism since February 24, 1920. Yes this is highly significant.

They said mean things about capitalism just like leftists say now. All their solution is some restriction + social spends. That's all. That still means capitalism, not abolishing it. Wealth is STILL wealth. Economical classes are STILL economical classes. Monopolies are still monopolies. They didn't intend to abolish capitalism.

fascists are non-global socialists. It's really just a sales-pitch to get on board with socialism. Most people respond better to nationalism and tribal identity. In his later years, Stalin used nationalist socialism to keep some soviet states in line.

Anyone advocating for bigger and more authoritarian government is, by definition, a leftist.

This is why stormfags are the most pathetic scum to infect Sup Forums. They are leftists too dumb to realize it. Sup Forums needs to band together to eject them.

I agree with you in the second part: absolute power need to be challenged. I don't want the old fascism, but I still like the ideology and I think it can be corrected.

But what about ethics? Ethics are relative, change with time, fascisms or communism or capitalism, all these ideology have their own ethics and is impossible to fix an absolute right or wrong.
Fascist ethics are more restrictive on personal liberty, but have also many advantage over our captalistic one, you can't exploit too much the poors and the stupid consumers, you are not allowed to make economic frauds, in the end, if find it's more efficient than capitalism where a lot's of resources (human and material) go wasted in economic bubbles and homeless or unemployed people.
It's a trade-off.

>international capitalism and highly critical of capitalism

the type of "capitalism" that drives globalism

you could still run your own business in nazi germany, what they wanted to stop was the kind of free enterprise that jewry has exploited to make themselves richer for no benefit to the nations they leech on

banksters and brokers who twist investments to squeeze cash from those doing the actual production and taking the real risks

The 25 point program is the purest and most concise summary of National Socialism. 11-17 are explicitly socialist and anti-capitalist. Whether they stuck to the program after gaining power is another debate.

You are describing a socialist-leaning nation with a mixed economy. I think it's a Sup Forums thing to try to reconcile NatSoc with capitalism.

So you want to abolish fascist power structures and keep fascist values? I don't know if that is possible.

I think we have a philosophical misunderstandig. Ethics never change. Morals do. Morals are subject to the whims of the times/society. Ethics don't change. You souldn't murder, harm, steal, lie. Everyone knows that. People do it but they know it's wrong. They justify it, but they feel the need to do that because they know it's wrong.

Incidentally, your examples of fascist values are to me at least indistiguishable from socialist values.

They are no more anti-capitalist than today's leftists. Le "we want capitalism to be a little bit less cruel, plz be less cruel1". Read the 25 point program you mention, all economic-related points are literally exact what leftists say today.

coz 90% of Sup Forums is consisted from kids who like to be edgy, so they name themself nazi.

from the 10% that is left, 9% likes only the national part of it, and decides to not see the the socialism part of the name. So they are like SJW's in this matter, they also do not see flaws in things they think are cool.

Only 1% understands that socialism is dominant part of this ideology, and socialism in nature is wrong and harmful for human being, stripping it from only thing that is important - creativity.

The only real form of government that should be considered is Republic, with great economic freedom, and great personal freedom of individual, combined with strong moral code, that is part of this Republics ideology. Do not steal, do not lie, work hard, provide for Your family, this are the only real values in life, and they should be protected.

Agree on most parts, but I am a "dogmatic" fascist. A European first, Nationalist second, and Socialist third. National Socialism is science and nature applied to mankind. I would argue that you agree. Plato's Republic is a fascist state.

>Murder, harm, steal, lie.
They change, they change with time or culture.
Try to ask to a gypsy if he think stealing is wrong, to an ancient Aztek if sacrificial murder was wrong or to a medieval priest if torturing someone for saving his eternal soul was wrong.
I'm not good at philosophy but I'm sure ethics are relative. Some are proven to work better than others, but they are not universal.

Fascism is also socialism, but instead of handling down free gib-me-that, you give and pretend something in return, the state have the duty to give food and shelter to his poors, but then, these people have to repay the debt, with public work, or they will be jailed.
This was what Mussolini did, I don't know about other dictators, but Mussolini was a socialist.

But Plato argued that nation need to be divided into casts: warriors, workers, and philosophers. They all had their part to do. This later worked great to justify feudal system, it also worked for the red, to justify marxism - they the philosophers who by study of marxist theory know they end result of historical process (communism) should rule the world in order to provide this end result faster.

This division is in great conflict to personal freedom of the individual, and personal freedom is the only guarantee for person to try to achieve prosperity. In process of achieving this individual use it creativity, and by this contributes to progress of whole nation.

As long as achieving prosperity for individual is possible - nation will prosper. So any form of socialism is harmful, because individual do not to work hard for it's prosperity. As long as You can steal Your way into the wealthy - lack of strong morals - nation will also be harmed.

I would even argue that You national background, and race background does not count so much, as long as You follow morals. Look at the first era of prosper in the US. They took millions upon millions of migrants from different regions, with different religions. As long as they integrated all was fine, and they integrated because morals were enforced, and provided good foundation for achieving wealth. As soon as other options were opened, all went to shit.

Notice what you did? You provided context and explanation for every unethical thing you listed. You did that because you know, on its own, these things are wrong. The priest in the middle ages knew torture is wrong, BUT he justified it by saying I'm doing it to fight evil. Don't believe me yet? If you ask the gypsie why he steals he will give you an explanation (hunger, poverty, even envy). He will not say: 'what are you talking about? i have the right to steal'.
That is because ethics don't change.

And what you describe in the last paragraph starts to sound like communism.

The explanation was for you, a modern western person. The ancient Azteks did not need any explanation or justification, killing for the sun-god was the only right think to do, it would be unethical to NOT kill the sacrifice.
Can't find a link, but I remember a docu about Masai (pretty sure was Masai) in Africa. They believe some god gave them the cows. All the cows belong to them, and when they see another tribe with cows, they just take them, stealing or using force, because, as you say for the gypsie:
>'what are you talking about? i have the right to take these cows'.

>starts to sound like communism.
In fact there is confusion between the two ideologies, but the first post is mine The difference is that socialism/communism/whatever is applied only to those who need them, and after you repay your debt with the state, you are free to choose another path for your life.

yes, and Hitler and Stalin had absolute power. But were not the only people in charge supporting their causes. It was understood that world domination is a bit far fetched, especially in their life time. Neither of them focused on world domination, they barely lived long enough to see dominion of their neighbors. It does get really political and complicated, with so many people involved, and most of the nazi and soviet documents that weren't burned are still classified. There is a lot we still don't know.

The important thing is that they had a reason to kill. For the sun god. They didn't just kill. Ethics go beyond phiosophy. Our ancestors when they started forming societies noticed that those societies didn't work when people just killed, stole, maimed and lied all the time. You had no reason to stay in a society that could kill you or take your stuff for no reason. So our ancestors decided that killing, stealing, lying is wrong because it was bad for them. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. They found ways to justify murder, stealing and lying but they aknowledged that JUST murdering, JUST stealing, JUST lying is wrong because than people wouldn't stay together.
What constitutes a justification is where morals come into play. A lot of people think it's okay to kill a murderer. Fewer people think it's okay to chop a thief's hand of. More think it's okay to lie to not hurt someones feelings. But if questioned whether to go to a random person and just kill them is okay or not, people know it's not okay. They might still do it but they know it's not okay. And they knew that ever since our ape ancestors decided that it's not okay because than nobody would stay together and they would be eaten by sabretooth tigers. The thing about the cows is a justification. They take his cows BECAUSE he has more than them and that is unfair, not because they think stealing is okay. It BECOMES okay ONLY IN THIS SITUATION because the situation is unfair, not because it is always okay.

I can't really follow your logic regarding your explanation of the difference between communism and fascism

Stalin's USSR didn't have no family/free sex. That was under Lenin. Stalin banned legalized abortions.
Also after WWII Stalin realised the use for patriotism and love for country.

>Fascism is also socialism, but instead of handling down free gib-me-that, you give and pretend something in return, the state have the duty to give food and shelter to his poors, but then, these people have to repay the debt, with public work, or they will be jailed.
>This was what Mussolini did, I don't know about other dictators, but Mussolini was a socialist.

Stalin did exactly this - do your plan and get paid, double - double pay, niggering - gulag is waiting.

I've always found it odd

communism and fascism in the 20th centuary have more in common than they have different

probably because the "communists" today are actually liberal-anarcho-syndicatists

and the fascists are stormweenies

>whether to go to a random person and just kill them is okay or not
I can imagine the Vikings or the Mongols taking pleasure in killing random people, not one of your tribe off curse, but random strangers, just for fun. It was just their way of life. No right or wrong involved.
Sorry, I can't buy this universal ethic stuffs, and this is why we need religion, and not logic, to give us boundary.


>the difference between communism and fascism
In communism, the state give you an house and a work to do.
In fascism you choose your career and you have a small scale capitalist society.
But, if you are poor and in need, whatever the reason, the state will not abandon you like in free capitalism, the state will give you food and shelter until you can live on your own, but you have to work in the job you have been assigned. The poor in need will live in a condition similar to the one of communism. After the poor have payed his debts (the house, the land, whatever the state has given to him), he will be free to change jobs and pursue some other career if he want.
This is what Mussolini did in the poorest part of Italy, giving them some land to work or some public manual job to do, just like a communist state would have done. But unlike a in communist state, these people where free to change their status.
No homeless and no unemployment like in communism, but you retain the small scale capitalism.

Sorry if I'm not being clear, I need to leave now.

1/2
i gone argue with You again

Lets start with Germany: initial plan was to take control of central Europe, that will give them potential to invade Asian heartland. With power of the heartland German power is uncontested -> world domination.

USA was not considered great power back then, so the real enemy's for Germany were GB and France, and they could not match Germany's power after their eastern conquest. World domination in single generation. They would not literary had all the lands in the world, but with such power they would shape global politics - think USA 90's, no one could fuck with them.

This was Hitler master plan, and others simply followed him.

Now, bolshevik's, and here I'm and expert. At first revolution was leaded by Lenin, but was more of a common project of the leadership. Stalin overtook the red party after Lenin death, and made series of purges that gave him total control over the party, and state. He still followed the only porpoise of the revolution - global commie rule over the world, but now instead of having a group of leaders, USSR had only one leader with all the power.

I would argue that closest they were to world domination was just after the first world war - when europe was destroyed, red was popular in germany, all they had to do, was to join their revolution. There are plenty of accounts that testify that, and are open to public. But they had to cross Poland... wrong. Then they destroyed their country in bloody civil war with whites, issued NEP - new economic policy, in simple terms bring capitalism back, that put USSR back on their feet with economy. Then changed economic policy bringing more communism back, went full on military race, backed Hitler and Germany, with one plan - Germany will start a war, war will be long and bloody, they will fuel it for some time, and when both parties are almost dead, they step in with red army, and bring communism to whole Europe. Just like they tried after first world war.

2/2

20 years of pace gave them time to almost realise this project. Again, one generation.

What they did not predict was: Hitler fast and easy gains in Europe, nobody predicted that. Also that Hitler will back stab first. They were concentrating soldiers on the borders to assault in the same time German's did this, but German's were faster, this is the only reason we read about Hitler invasion of Russia, not Stalin invasion of Europe in today's history books. After the second world war they still were in great situation to take Europe. They even had plans for this, they were ready. US troops here or not, they did not gave a fuck about this, their war machine was in full swing, they pumped better tanks faster than the Allies combined, they had more manpower, were fighting closer, they were ready. Brits knew this. But US had atom bomb, dropped it on Japs, and Stalin did not know how many of them US had, did not wanted to risk. Halted with orders until they gone get the bomb. But when they got it... it was to late, You can keep mobilization indefinitely, also old problem was still in play, they did not knew how many bombs did the US got.

Through the whole cold war USSR atom supremacy was a hoax, they did not had as many icbms as they claimed, they were in bad shape, not accurate, took long time to fuel. If it would be otherwise they would attack.

Look at the map, designated atom strikes are marked with little bomb, during the cold war they planned to push first wave with pre-emptive atomic strikes. Then throw second wave from within heart of USSR, they do no give a fuck about goons, all that matters is succes of the revolution.

You're describing Leninism or at least NEP Russia, not Stalinism.

Stalin's reign began with "the great retreat," the return of the conservative family.

On the off chance that you might read it.

Good point about the vikings
Of course ethics applied at first only to 'your tribe'. That's what I said. Ethics were developed at first to make living in a group easier. Over time the groups became larger and now they encompass pretty much the ebtire world. Allthough if people are honest they still feel more obligated towards their family than towards their neighbour, towards their neighbour than towards the guy down the street and toward that guy more than towards some guy in the next country. And so on. That is a remnant of the behaviour that ensured our survival in the past. It is completely natural to care more about the people clise to you. To overcome your instincts doesn't mean to care about everyone equally but to care about people who are not close to you as well and as much as you can.
I hope that makes they philosophy behind ethics clear. They don't change and they evolve only in that they transcend tribalism nowadays. They were a survival mechanism and are ingrained in our soul.
Religion as you said was the first attempt to put those innate values plus some local morals of the time into words that could be spoken and therefore shared.
Alles klar?

I think I get now what you mean. You argue for a social state with strict rules for participation and against welfare abuse. You do not need Fascism for that.
In fact most social democracies are heading in this direction since they found out that they won't be able to afford letting people stay on welfare indefinitely.