Is China a Fascist State?

[Kaniska]

what is that section??

Section starts with many thing dear friend..it varies from state to state....like in my state..it is SC and ST....in other states..it is different quaotas based on type of people be in Minorities, SC-ST, Gujjar...Khap panchayat...fanatic Bajrang Dal and many more....the story is endless.....

 

[jamahir]

Section starts with many thing dear friend..it varies from state to state....like in my state..it is SC and ST....in other states..it is different quaotas based on type of people be in Minorities, SC-ST, Gujjar...Khap panchayat...fanatic Bajrang Dal and many more....the story is endless.....

the "reservations and quotas" system is a mistake... rather than remove the reason for discrimination, the system deepened reactionary thought... two decades after v.p. singh's prime ministership, i see no progress at all.

society should be uplifted as a whole rather otherwise nothing will be achieved.

 

[Desert Fox]

(a). "peoples of those nations", (b). "popular resistance".

sorry, but you are using words extracted from revolutionary context to forward the theory that a majority is automatically right and there is no other element involved.

from ( Bavarian Council Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )...

Well, because it was a popular suppression otherwise the German Army, which like the Russian Army was mostly made up of working class men and peasants, would have joined the Communist uprising and disobeyed the orders of their superiors.

so, the capitalists used guns to defeat the communists rather than arguments in a debate.

Well, because the Communists themselves weren't exactly looking to debate when they took up arms against the German state. Kinda like how stupid it would be for the Pakistani government to debate with the Taliban while they are blowing up schools and market places and proclaiming Shariah states.

Anyhow, the Communists were allowed to become a mainstream political party in Germany despite these violent uprisings.

the "communist party of india" was formed in 1920 in tashkent city by eight people... the indian revolutionary, bhagat singh, who acted against british imperial rule of india, was hanged in 1931 and was socialist... these events were before world war 2 and were inspired by the russian revolution of 1917... these were ideological inspirations, transfer of idea, seeing of solutions in a global idea for local issues/problems.

from ( Carlos the Jackal shows he has not lost the ability to provoke at his Paris trial | US news | The Guardian )...




the hardcore socialist is a person of the free-est mind and is a true spiritualist... he seeks to bring humanity into a state of harmony where no fellow human is deprived of necessary material needs... ussr did much to help every socialist, so did muammar gaddafi, who did more than any single leader to forward the cause of socialism, true democracy and anti-imperialism.

let us keep this discussion to events after world war 2 and keep it to ideologies and heroes and heroines.

the thought of a human-wide communism is a thought worth changing one's life and turning every resource to achieve it.

Marxism in theory sounds great, but it is not realistically achievable. And i'm sure there are many inspirational stories of Marxist revolutionaries, but they only prove that Communist revolutions on their own failed and thus either required a massive war to achieve power or external assistance.

 

[waz]

Testing.

 

[Desert Fox]

@Desert Fox I hope this gives you a bit more details (and makes it more convincing perhaps) why I preferred my method of analysis in that fascism/socialism thread and why I focussed on the more “fundamental” level (human psychology instead of differences observed on the surface). My methodology is trying to answer this “half challenge”.

Okay, i see. Could you for example put this into a historical context for me with regards to National Socialism and Fascism just so i get a clearer picture? Thanks in advance.

Also what is your view of how i broke down international Socialism according to Marxist theory, in post #83?

 

[William Hung]

Okay, i see. Could you for example put this into a historical context for me with regards to National Socialism and Fascism just so i get a clearer picture? Thanks in advance.

I will give a proper respond to your previous post during my next break. You know I always try to put in the proper effort to write replies. So wait a bit!

 

[William Hung]

@Desert Fox buddy, now I have time to post my reply. Man it took me hours and days of research, googling, reviewing notes, thinking and writing to make this thread, I hope it won’t get locked again. I trust that the previous lock was due to a misunderstanding.

Well, here's how i see it: the internationalism of the Soviet Union was the best, and sincerest attempt at implementing theoretical internationalism as envisioned by Karl Marx and here's why:

The ultimate goal of Marxism is proletarian revolution in all class based societies (world revolution), even theoretically Marxism espouses this goal, otherwise "true socialism" will never be achieved as long as there remains capitalist nations that can pose a existential threat to socialism.

But the issue here is how will one go about achieving this world revolution??

This is indeed one of the most central question for socialists/communists. Let me first make a quick comment. Marxism is only one branch of socialism/communism. So we should not paint all forms of socialism and communism under the same brush in the form of Marxism.

Yes, all forms of socialism/communism espouse the goal of a “utopia”, or at least strives for that goal even if they know it cannot be achieved in their lifetime. But how we get there or strives to get there is in dispute within the socialist/communist circle. Some were pacifists like Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Kautsky (disputable). Socialist pacifism wasn’t confined to theoreticians, there were pacifist political parties who once existed in a period where militant communism was rampant: Pacifist Socialist Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These socialists/communists believed that their “utopia” can be achieved through non-violent means. In our contemporary context, these kind of non-violence activism/pacifism is even more popular in western socialist circles (both in academia and the mainstream). So socialism/communism does not necessarily imply armed revolution/interventions.

But even if violence and co-ercion is needed, what is wrong with that? It is only a problem if you are an ardent pacifist. Personally, I currently lean more towards Just war theory and I’m pretty sure you are familiar with that theory. And under my definition of socialism and internationalism, I don’t see any contradictions between that and armed interventions. I’ll explain this later.

A revolution which aspires to overthrow the bourgeoisie societies worldwide will be a violent one, according to Marxist doctrine. And a violent revolution will require arms (weapons) and troops no matter which way one looks at it.

Thus, the Soviet Union, was doing exactly that. By implementing imperialistic measures to achieve world revolution under the guise of overthrowing capitalistic societies. If it wasn't imperialism as @jamahir suggests then why did the Soviet Union need to suppress resistance through force of arms in many of the countries it was "liberating" from "oppression"?

And that is exactly why the Soviet Union as a Communist state could no longer exist because either world revolution was achieved to establish true Communist utopian society or the Soviets should just give up (which they did).

Just war theory says that war (or armed interventions) can be justified. You are justified on two conditions: (1) your reasons for going to war/taking up arms and (2) how you conduct yourself in that war/armed intervention. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss what those specific conditions should be but the main point of Just war theory is that you can be justified in engaging in war/armed interventions. And to be justified means that you have killed, but have not murdered, you intervened, but not being imperialistic, you co-ercively acted against another person, but did not violate their dignity, value, worth, etc.

A classic example is acting in self-defense against a killer that resulted in the death of the offender, or killing a terrorist in order to save other innocent lives (assuming all peaceful means has been exhausted). Yes, you have killed someone, used violence, acted co-ercively, etc. but you are not considered as a murderer, having violated someone’s rights and dignity, etc. (unless you are an extreme pacifist).

So under Just war theory, one can be justified in waging a war, inciting an armed revolution or carrying out an armed intervention. This does not contradict my definition of socialism or internationalism. I don’t see how socialism/communism in theory contradict its action because of the possibility for the need of armed conflicts when armed conflicts itself can be justified under Just war theory. Unless, you are a pacifist which would give you some ground against all armed conflicts but socialism/communism has its own pacifist branch too as mentioned earlier.

However, the devil is in the details. Justification of armed conflicts depends on those 2 conditions mentioned earlier. I have to concede that in lots of cases, the Soviet Union did violate those conditions on both count (intervening in other countries when even their “comrade” didn’t want it or carrying out heinous crime like killing innocent children). I did say many times that I am not fond of the Stalinist, so I’ll let you and @jamahir to continue debate on this issue.

And given what I have explained, I don’t see how you can conclude that the “internationalism” of the Soviet Union was the best and sincerest attempt at implementing Marx’s thereotical internationalism. It was the best attempt at Lenin and Stalin’s form of internationalism perhaps, but certainly not the best and sincerest form of Marxist internationalism, let alone Socialist internationalism. Remember, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Kautsky (he was once a colleague of Marx and Engels) are both Marxists and they were both pacifists at one point or another.

Now you might argue that that's corrupted Marxism in practice, but you see, Marxism in practice is the greatest contradiction to Marxism in theory because of its utopian aspirations, which when attempted to implement in real life turned out to be disastrous, not once, not twice, but every time throughout history one Communist state to another, each thought they were gonna "do it right this time".

Whatever "Communist" states remain today have abandoned such aspirations because any practical person would know by now that a world revolution is not achievable as conceived by Marxist theoretical doctrine.

Yes, I consider Stalinism a corrupted form of Marxism, but I don’t see how “Marxism in practice” is a contradiction to “Marxism in theory” (I’ve already explained this above). If your premise for this conclusion was that there will always be resistance to international socialism/communist utopia, then your argument seems to have several flaws:

1. Do you absolutely know for sure (as in 100% certainty) that there will always be resistance to socialist internationalism? Are you dismissing the possibility of a divine intervention to bring about a utopia? yes, I’m asking this genuinely because I’m a religious person and my socialist beliefs are religiously motivated. But my main point is, if you do not know 100%, then you could only conclude, at best, that socialism in theory is most likely implausible with socialism in practice. Me becoming a trillionaire has 0.00001^1000 chance of becoming a reality, but for me to say I can become so is only very likely implausible, not a contradiction.

2. So assuming that it is extremely likely that there will always be resistance to international socialism, it does not mean that Socialists need to just give up their goal. I agree with you that the Soviet Union did gave up, but why should this set the precedent for other socialists to also give up (especially if one is not a stalinist)??

The problem I see is this: you are analysing socialism/communism from a consequentialist/utilitarianist perspective, while socialism/communism is based on virtue ethic.

Meaning, a utilitarian emphasises the end goals, which you assume to be a socialist utopia/communist internationalism. So if this end goal is extremely unlikely to be achieved, then socialism/communism should be dismissed. I assume you already know the Utilitarian-Virtue dichotomy in ethics, but I’ll paste a link about utilitarianism/consequentialism just in case:

Consequentialism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences...

...Plain Consequentialism: Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences.

But socialism/communism are based on Virtue ethics, not utilitarianism. This Marxist site explicitly made this clear:

Glossary of Terms: Vi

In ethics, virtue answers the question “What is the right sort of person to be?”, in contrast to duty, which answers the question “What is the right thing to do?”.

Bourgeois ethics is exclusively an ethics of duty. Problems of bourgeois ethics centre on moral dilemmas in which a person must determine the right course of action; but it is never asked whether it is right that someone should value this or that thing, whether they should want some particular thing in the first.

For example, utilitarianism, the dominant ethics of bourgeois society, takes for granted the lowest kind of selfishness and greed, and seeks to prove that the general good will arise from the ethical pursuit of selfish needs.

Socialist ethics, by contrast, are essentially an ethic of virtue, being primarily concerned with the kind of needs and the kind of desires which may lead to a better life and a better world...

However, this marxist site does not give a good description of Virtue ethics, so I’ll use another site:

Virtue Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”

Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility or gain favors or simply do her duty.

Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper family and social values?”

So this is the problem I see with many objectors of socialism/communism, and what I see underlying your criticism: you guys analyze or argue against socialism/communism from the perspective of utilitarian ethics. Since the consequences or the end goals are what is important to your ethical outlook, any actions or ideologies that has extremely low chances of achieving those end goals should be dismissed. i.e. Socialist utopia is unlikely to be achieved, therefore socialism should not be practiced. Capitalism has more chances of producing a prosperous society, therefore capitalism should be championed.

However, socialism is based on Virtue ethics. So, as the article have said, nurturing the virtues and good character traits is just as important, or even more important than the end goals. The end goal (socialist utopia) is important to socialists, and we do believe that if everyone were to be virtuous and possess good character traits, then a utopia will materialize. However, nurturing our good character traits and striving to be virtuous is as important, or even more important than the end goal. You know the expression, “it’s not just about the destiny, but about the journey itself”, it protrays socialism and virtue ethics pretty well.

So in socialism and virtue ethics, it’s not just the question of “what are my end goal for society?” but more fundamental is the question of, “what kind of person should I strive to become?”, “What kind of character traits should I strive to possess?” and in socialism, these are: we all must be kind, caring, sharing, generous, compassion, empathetic, honest, altruistic, selfless, communitarian, etc. And even Che Guevara dared to declare that the heart of a revolutionary is “love”. We strives to have these characteristics not just to achieve the end goal of a socialist utopia, but they are in themselves important to become a proper human being. It answers the question “what kind of person should I become?”. That’s why I even said previously that religion plays an important role, because religion (atleast in Christianity, Islam and Buddhism) asks similar questions, “what is a person?” “why am I here?”, “what am I to become?”. Most religions are based on virtue ethics. These questions are not fundamental to capitalism.

Here is something else socialism has in common with religion (and it is not a surprise given that western socialism was rooted in Christianity before Marx and other Jews became the main figureheads): Both socialism and religion (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism) all have underlying beliefs that the human race have flawed nature and we must reform and change ourselves to become the better and proper human being.

On the other hand, most capitalists would often say, our flawed human nature is just something there and we just have to live or work with it. So, it is better to harness our flawed nature, such as our selfishness and greed, to produce something better (e.g. a prosperous and technologically advanced society). This has an underlying utilitarian ethics: the consequence or end goal is what is fundamental. It’s “hey, if harnessing our selfishness and greed can produce a prosperous and advanced society, then what is there to object?”. The utilitarians basically says “the ends justify the means”.

The socialists/religious says, “the means/actions is as important, independent from its ends/consequences”. I remember someone mentioned that his brother once decided to give up his business because the business sector in his country was corrupted and infringes on his Islamic principle, that’s virtue ethics. If the action infringes on his character trait of honesty, then he will give up that action regardless of the good consequences it will bring to him.

For the utilitarian capitalist, if the actions or character traits can bring good consequences, or produce more good than bad consequence, then let’s embrace and harness that traits/actions. Actions and character traits are meaningless independent of its consequences (utility).

For us socialists, actions and character traits are important independent of its consequence and utility. And if you are more prosperous because you have managed to harness your flawed human nature (e.g. selfishness and greed), then so what? us socialists don’t want that because we value our character traits of kindness, generosity, compassion, altruism, etc. And it is for the same reason that even if a socialist utopia is extremely unlikely to materialize in my lifetime, I will still strive to become a true socialist. Because socialism (and religion) answer the question, “what kind of person should I become?”.

So can you now understand why your criticism “socialist theory contradicts socialist practice” is flawed and meaningless to us socialists?

Now, lets put this into historical context: the Soviet Union was born out of chaos of WWI and was perhaps the only successful Communist revolution of its time. There were other short lived Communist revolutions and states at that time but they were all crushed by the respective armies and peoples of those nations like the Bavarian Soviet Republic which was installed after the "German revolution", the Finish Soviet Republic which formed out of the "Finish Revolutionary War", the Hungarian Soviet Republic, also short lived and formed out of the chaos of WWI, to name a few. All of these early Communist revolutions were brutally crushed by popular resistance.

So this basically left the Soviet Union as the only partially successful Communist revolution (there was still considerable resistance from Czarist Russians & counter revolutionaries) but this only Communist state was now surrounded by "capitalist" states and on top of that there was still considerable resistance within Russia itself against the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks would eventually consolidate their hold over Russia through the use of force but they were faced with a dilemma; how would they go about achieving "world revolution"? Seeing that most of the Communist revolutions were crushed in Europe, the only option was through direct military intervention and such attempts were made:

Soviet Invasion of Poland,1920-Wikipedia

Soviet Invasion of Eastern Europe,1919-Wikipedia

Soviet Westward Offensive Toward Germany, 1919-Wikipedia

Of course, the Red Army, despite its numerical superiority in arms and men was repelled by the newly formed Polish state and thus this first attempt at saving the World Revolution was utterly disastrous. A new strategy had to be devised.

This strategy devised the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union in order to establish a strong military industrial base to spread world revolution through the use of arms because otherwise all Communist revolutions would be crushed on their own and the Communist dream of single world Communist state would not be achieved. In order to establish a strong military industrial base you need a strong leader to organize and mobilize the masses to march forward to the cause of Socialism and establish massive arms industries and that is where Stalin comes into the picture. A lot of Communists portray him as "hijacking the cause", but he was only going about the world revolution through the only logical path possible. After all, the world revolution is a bloody struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (theoretically) and you need a strong leader to build up a arms manufacturing base to fight for the establishment of a world communist state.

Communism has only been able to make significant gains twice in its history: 1st time out of the chaos of WWI when the Bolsheviks seized power in Czarist Russia and 2nd time out of the chaos of WWII when Communism spread into former European colonies and Eastern Europe. Thus, Communism can only triumph in war and bloodshed, not during peacetime. During peacetime Communist movements were crushed in non-Communist countries worldwide and were reduced to rebel factions or political parties forced to utilize the democratic process of election (even there they did not achieve any significant gains).

Brother, I appreciate you explaining this and I enjoyed reading it. And your history about the Soviet Union is quite accurate, but there are two things I want to say:

Firstly, I do not regard the Soviet Union to be a successful “communist revolution” since I don’t consider them to be real communists at all (just a perverted version). In my opinion, the Russian October revolution was important and was the right start, but what happened after that just went down hill. I side with Kautsky’s analysis in the Lenin vs. Kautsky arguments. With hind sight, we can see that Kautsky was right when predicting that the the Bolsheviks revolution would end up becoming a disaster. So I don’t agree that the Soviet Union was successful to begin with.

Secondly, I absolutely disagree with your conclusion that “Communism can only triumph in war and bloodshed, not during peacetime”. If by “Communism” you mean a specific (corrupted) form such as Stalinism or Marxist-Lenism, then I might agree with you. But if you are referring to “Communism” in its much broader term, especially if it includes socialism, then I would absolutely disagree with you. My explanations above already answers why. Fundamentally, my form of socialism begins from the individual level, the individuals must first change themselves, get rid of their flawed nature and become virtuous. Just like in religion. The Soviet Union did not managed to achieve this. Mao’s cultural revolution attempted to achieve this but failed.

And here is my own speculation why they both failed: because they have removed religion from their worldview. I personally believed that western socialism was indeed rooted in Christianity before Marx banished it. And in doing that, he has banished something important from the socialist worldview: the story of why us humans are here, why we exist, who are we, etc. Non religious Socialists continue to ask “what kind of person ought I to become?” as their fundamental ethical question but for this question to be answered adequately, they must answer the question of “why do I even exist at all?”, “who am I?”, “what am I here for?”, “where am I going after I inevitably die?”

Christianity gave a nice narrative to all of those questions (Islam and Buddhism give its own narrative too). Marx removed this narrative and replaced it with an atheistic narrative that leaves mankind disenchanted and empty. We are not here because of a loving Divine creator who has a plan for us all, etc. Rather, we are all just a product of chances, of an impersonal mechanical universe, and outside this universe, there aren’t really anything else. And when times get rough and temptation arises, you will ask, “actually why the hell do I need to be kind, generous, empathetic, etc.?” this is just an empty mechanical universe, we are all product of random chances, there’s nothing to it other than that so who said I must be virtous and these kind of character traits, etc. I will just live for myself. I think this was what happened in the Soviet Union and why their leaders turned tyrannical.

Regardless whether religion is true or not, it keeps people motivated. It ask and answers the fundamental questions. And this is why a form of communism flourished in the Christian or Buddhist monastery. @gambit always said: the closest form of a communist society to ever exist are the religious monasteries. And I agree with him. This also object your claims that the Soviet Union was the only few successful communist revolution or that Communism can only triumph in war and bloodshed. It also refutes the common criticism that socialism cannot be achieved in reality because of our flawed human nature (or its too difficulty to change it). Its just that people don’t have the heart, will and discipline to change themselves and become the better person, like the monks or the true socialists. They rather harness and embrace their greed and selfishness in order to pursue their goals. Lord have mercy.

Me too, but i think its only fair that we take into consideration the way these ideologies were implemented as it gives a complete picture on the practicality of these socioeconomic systems.

Absolutely, what good is a political theory if it has no praxis? But hopefully you will now realize what I’m trying to say all along, that Socialism has practicality not just on the political sphere, but on the personal sphere. Actually, it is more accurate to say it is necessary for Socialism to be implemented on the personal level, for each individuals to nurture their virtues and good character trait.

What I meant by my comment about differentiating theory from practice is to hightlight your somewhat “guilty by association fallacy” when you tried to paint all the socialists/communists under the same brush of Stalinism.

It is a common fallacy used against Islam:

All ISIS fighters do horrible things.
All ISIS fighters call themselves muslim.
You call yourself muslim.
Therefore, you will do horrible things.

Now you are using this fallacy against socialist/communist:

All Stalinists did bad things and never succeeded.
All Stalinists call themselves communists.
You call yourself a communist.
Therefore, you will never succeed (and will do bad things?).

Well, one can argue what about the children who were born into kulak families (and there were children), they weren't pardoned just because they were born into a social class. They were still hauled off to Siberia on cattle cars. What about the Muslim population of the Crimean Tatars who were shipped off to the Gulags (women, children, etc..) all because they were Muslims?? None of them were pardoned because they were born into their class.

This is precisely what I mean by “guilt by association”. Yes, the Stalinists did many horrible things. But I don’t agree with their actions or form of “communism”, so why are you asking me to explain their actions?

I don’t go around grabbing a random muslim on the street and say, “hey! you call yourself a muslim, the ISIS call themselves muslims and do bad things, explain to me now why you guys are doing such bad things.”

You might argue that its not the same as racial classification, but i can argue that its still meets your criteria of "others" nonetheless and history proves that even women and children were not spared. If it were just based on social class than why were children not spared from mass starvation and forced labor??

Firstly, you should stop using the analogy of the women and children persecuted under the Soviets or other Stalinist dictatorships. If I am a Stalinist, then by all means use it against me, . But I am not a stalinist my friend, as I have made it clear numerous times. Most contemporary socialists/communists are also not Stalinists.

Most contemporary socialists/communists would not agree that innocent children are “bourgeois” or “reactionary” if they don’t have the capacity to act or to consent to any political or economic activities/ideologies. They may be regarded as belonging to a bourgeois household but they are themselves not bourgeois and not in need of transformation. And even if the child grows up to become a real bourgeois or reactionary, then he/she can be changed and become socialist just like everyone else.

But for the racist/fascist, if a child were born into a family of “inferior” race, then that child is of an inferior race regardless if the child has the capacity to act or to consent to anything. Furthermore, the child cannot be changed. Her genes are inferior so she will always remain that way and the distinction between the superior race and inferior race must always be maintained. That’s the difference. I don’t get why you can’t understand this.

Secondly, the socialist classification does not meet my criteria of “sectarianism” (not just differentiating the “others”). I thought I have clarified this in my previous post: The fascist wants to maintain their race/group classification and don’t want the inferior race/group to join the superior race/group while the socialists see the possibility of the “other” class transforming themselves and wants them to join and become the same class as everyone else (to achieve a classless society). Sure the the Stalinists ended up killing the “others” instead of rehabilitating them (their Gulags are officially regarded as “corrective facilities” so even in theory, they were supposed to be rehabilitated, not persecuted and executed) but that’s the Stalinists fault and I (or any other non-stalinist socialists) don’t need to justify them.

Well, i think each person will have a subjective criteria as to what they believe classifies as fascist. In your case your definition will fit all of the above since its molded to do so. But one can ask, why must it be the designation of Fascism, why can't they all then be categorized as 'Nazist' states if indeed fundamentally they are all the same?? Why can't the titles be interchangeable?? Because it just won't make sense to do so since Nazism is distinct on its own and classifying Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain as 'Nazist' would distort historical facts. Which is why i believe that National Socialism cannot be classified as Fascist. National Socialism is in a category of its own but for most people its just easier to brush it under the label of Fascism because it makes things less complicated.

My definition is based on the belief that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain (and a few others) all seems to have something in common beneath the surface. It is for this reason that many academics have grouped them together under the category of “fascism”. And I have given lots of explanations why I prefer to concentrate on this more fundamental attributes/characteristics common amongst them. My definition just simply tries to identify these common attributes/characteristics. So if my defintion managed to fit all of them and exclude the other “non-fascist” regimes, then I think I am on the right track. This is not a matter of molding my definition to fit my own classification. The classification (grouping GER, ITA, SPA, etc.) is already out there in academia and mainstream culture, I’m just trying to find a definition that fits them all and exclude everyone else.

As for why we must name this group “Fascist” and not Nazi, Francoist, Falangist, etc.? I have no idea, it is what it is. I did said previously that the label “Fascist” for this group was arbitrary. But the mainstream culture and academia have already made a habit of labelling this group as “Fascist” so I have kept it that way, it is what it is. I have no problem if there were entirely new names like Beardist, Satanist, etc.

For example, if i were to persuade someone that National Socialism is a Marxist ideology because it meets the following criteria:

1). Both aspire to remove social stratification albeit using different methods.

2). Both oppose religious involvement in government affairs and public institutions, albeit utilizing different methods to carry out their respective policies.

3). Both aim to create a socialist paradise, albeit using different interpretations.

4). Both oppose capitalism.

Thus, would it be safe to conclude that National Socialism is a Marxist ideology?? No, of course not, because there are still differences there even if some of the fundamentals coincide.

Your analogy is flawed. Their fundamentals does not coincide. Everyone accepts that the fundamentals of socialism/communism strifes for a “classless” worldwide society, both economically classless and racially classless while “fascism” wants to maintain their racial/national “classes”, which is fundamental to “fascism”.

Your third criteria is also flawed because a Nazi’s “socialist paradise” and Socialist’s “socialist paradise” has different meaning. Its like me classifying garderners and pimps together because they all work their “hoes”. I can do that but its meaningless.

I can classify regimes based on the leader’s gender so that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are under the same category. Nothing wrong with that, but that classification is meaningless to me. My classifications looks at the fundamentals.

You can also classify regimes under the category of “Aryanism” and you can get your own unique Nazi Germany category. And it might be meaningful for those who are studying Aryanism or German history, but its meaningless for us in the mainstream culture and academia who have the intuition that there is something common between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain, etc.

And I would consider I’m going on the right track if I can manage to come up with a definition that fits them all (and excludes other “non-fascist” regimes) and at the same time covers their fundamentals.

 

[jamahir]

@Yorozuya

that was a major post... allow me a few days to read the post.

in the meanwhile, please go through this thread ( post is my reply - India to be home to 4.37 lakh millionaires by 2018: Study | Page 4 ) where a few indian members are stubbornly supporting a unscientific and obsolete political system which has caused suicide of farmers and has kept the social system reactionary.

 

[William Hung]

@jamahir done I’ve read it. Good luck.

P.s. I’ve read the whole thread about India that you’ve linked. I’m not familiar with some stuff like “panchayat”. When I have time I will do some reading into it then make some comments.

Jamahiriya looks to be a branch of Libertarian-socialism (at least in theory), judging by reading some of Gaddafi’s interviews. You may find more info and defence for it if you search for English source on Libertarian-Socialism, Libertarian-Communism, Anarcho-Communism.

I’ve also just discovered the site called radicalnotesdotcom that looks like a blog written by Indian leftist?

 

[jamahir]

P.s. I’ve read the whole thread about India that you’ve linked. I’m not familiar with some stuff like “panchayat”. When I have time I will do some reading into it then make some comments.

"panchayat" is a "village council of the elders" that decides over matters in the village and is a all-powerful body in most cases... it is found all over south asia traditionally... the term i think comes from "panch" which means five, so it would refer to the "sar-panch" ( village headman, sar == head ) and his four advisors.

it is really a obsolete and anti-democracy system because the headman is not elected with free consent of every one of the villagers and generally is put up to the post by the local rich man or the local career politician.

the "sarpanch" is usually a male but has been a female is a few cases... there have been a few instances where city ladies have become "sarpanch" and taken up progressive works but this progress is despite the confusing system and not because of it.

one such lady is chhavi rajawat...

Chhavi Rajawat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jamahiriya looks to be a branch of Libertarian-socialism (at least in theory), judging by reading some of Gaddafi’s interviews. You may find more info and defence for it if you search for English source on Libertarian-Socialism, Libertarian-Communism, Anarcho-Communism.

okay.

I’ve also just discovered the site called radicalnotesdotcom that looks like a blog written by Indian leftist?

looks interesting, though the the articles in the center of the home page look more academic than theory... but there seems to be a diversity of thought and the "about us" page invites article submissions that are not only the "socialist and communist current of thought".

why not you submit??

 

[William Hung]

"panchayat" is a "village council of the elders" that decides over matters in the village and is a all-powerful body in most cases... it is found all over south asia traditionally... the term i think comes from "panch" which means five, so it would refer to the "sar-panch" ( village headman, sar == head ) and his four advisors.

it is really a obsolete and anti-democracy system because the headman is not elected with free consent of every one of the villagers and generally is put up to the post by the local rich man or the local career politician.

the "sarpanch" is usually a male but has been a female is a few cases... there have been a few instances where city ladies have become "sarpanch" and taken up progressive works but this progress is despite the confusing system and not because of it.

one such lady is chhavi rajawat...

Chhavi Rajawat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, looks like the typical village’s elder leadership type found across the globe but a bit more structuralized. I’ll look more into it.

looks interesting, though the the articles in the center of the home page look more academic than theory... but there seems to be a diversity of thought and the "about us" page invites article submissions that are not only the "socialist and communist current of thought".

why not you submit??

Yes their articles look really academic.

I currently don’t have any academic articles to submit. And it looks like the focus is in the South Asia region which I’m not familiar with. If I have more free time in the future, we can collab on an article if you want to submit or I can give some inputs on your own article. (although Political Science is not my major)

Publishing articles on those kind of website can give you some extra credential for your membership process.

 

[jamahir]

Interesting, looks like the typical village’s elder leadership type found across the globe but a bit more structuralized. I’ll look more into it.

yes, and i think the formalization of structure happened because of gandhi's followers who after the 1947 formation of the indian republic wanted to forward gandhi's naive idea of villages being composed of a innocent and happy bunch... gandhi's naivete then has allowed today's indian villages to have "honor" killings, farmer suicides, bonded labor and oppression of every kind.

Yes their articles look really academic.

I currently don’t have any academic articles to submit. And it looks like the focus is in the South Asia region which I’m not familiar with. If I have more free time in the future, we can collab on an article if you want to submit or I can give some inputs on your own article. (although Political Science is not my major)

Publishing articles on those kind of website can give you some extra credential for your membership process.

i agree.

 

[Desert Fox]

@Desert Fox buddy, now I have time to post my reply. Man it took me hours and days of research, googling, reviewing notes, thinking and writing to make this thread, I hope it won’t get locked again. I trust that the previous lock was due to a misunderstanding.

I understand. For some reason i did not encounter this problem though because i did visit this thread quite a few times within the past couple of days.

This is indeed one of the most central question for socialists/communists. Let me first make a quick comment. Marxism is only one branch of socialism/communism. So we should not paint all forms of socialism and communism under the same brush in the form of Marxism.

Of course, i understand that there's different forms of socialism. In fact "socialism" existed before the term was even coined. Its not a Marxist monopoly. But, i was strictly talking in the context of Marxist socialism which is the basis/has been the basis for most Marxist movements throughout history. And frankly speaking, any form of socialism that is not based on Marxism is denied by Marxists as being "socialism", which indicates they are claiming a monopoly over Socialism.

Yes, all forms of socialism/communism espouse the goal of a “utopia”, or at least strives for that goal even if they know it cannot be achieved in their lifetime. But how we get there or strives to get there is in dispute within the socialist/communist circle. Some were pacifists like Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Kautsky (disputable). Socialist pacifism wasn’t confined to theoreticians, there were pacifist political parties who once existed in a period where militant communism was rampant: Pacifist Socialist Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These socialists/communists believed that their “utopia” can be achieved through non-violent means. In our contemporary context, these kind of non-violence activism/pacifism is even more popular in western socialist circles (both in academia and the mainstream). So socialism/communism does not necessarily imply armed revolution/interventions.

But then its not Marxist Socialism in the truest sense if it adopts a alternative, peaceful method to achieving the goals of Communism. I'm talking strictly Marxist Socialism as stated by Karl Marx. Also, most Socialists that i have encountered in the West are Trotskyiites, not really fond of pacifism though vehemently anti-Stalinists.

But even if violence and co-ercion is needed, what is wrong with that? It is only a problem if you are an ardent pacifist. Personally, I currently lean more towards Just war theory and I’m pretty sure you are familiar with that theory. And under my definition of socialism and internationalism, I don’t see any contradictions between that and armed interventions. I’ll explain this later.



Just war theory says that war (or armed interventions) can be justified. You are justified on two conditions: (1) your reasons for going to war/taking up arms and (2) how you conduct yourself in that war/armed intervention. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss what those specific conditions should be but the main point of Just war theory is that you can be justified in engaging in war/armed interventions. And to be justified means that you have killed, but have not murdered, you intervened, but not being imperialistic, you co-ercively acted against another person, but did not violate their dignity, value, worth, etc.

A classic example is acting in self-defense against a killer that resulted in the death of the offender, or killing a terrorist in order to save other innocent lives (assuming all peaceful means has been exhausted). Yes, you have killed someone, used violence, acted co-ercively, etc. but you are not considered as a murderer, having violated someone’s rights and dignity, etc. (unless you are an extreme pacifist).

So under Just war theory, one can be justified in waging a war, inciting an armed revolution or carrying out an armed intervention. This does not contradict my definition of socialism or internationalism. I don’t see how socialism/communism in theory contradict its action because of the possibility for the need of armed conflicts when armed conflicts itself can be justified under Just war theory. Unless, you are a pacifist which would give you some ground against all armed conflicts but socialism/communism has its own pacifist branch too as mentioned earlier.

However, the devil is in the details. Justification of armed conflicts depends on those 2 conditions mentioned earlier. I have to concede that in lots of cases, the Soviet Union did violate those conditions on both count (intervening in other countries when even their “comrade” didn’t want it or carrying out heinous crime like killing innocent children). I did say many times that I am not fond of the Stalinist, so I’ll let you and @jamahir to continue debate on this issue.

for one, i never accused you of being a Stalinist, i was merely using the historical context to establish a better picture of theoretical Marxism in practice. But, now, putting Stalinism/Leninism aside:

Also, i never said that there was anything wrong with violence and coercion (in self defence of course), and im not really a pacifist. I do believe in self defense. The issue only comes into play when Communists themselves hypocritically speak of the "imperialistic" nature of other ideologies, both secular and religious alike, but would act/have acted no differently.

One man's "just war" can be another man's imperialist occupation. In George Bush's eyes invading Afghanistan and Iraq was a "just war". However, i'm sure the Afghans and Iraqis beg to differ (that's an understatement actually).

And this is indeed a contradiction (or hypocrisy, better put) in Marxist theory and practice. It's bad when others do it, but cannot be bad if we do it as long as it is in our interest.

And given what I have explained, I don’t see how you can conclude that the “internationalism” of the Soviet Union was the best and sincerest attempt at implementing Marx’s thereotical internationalism. It was the best attempt at Lenin and Stalin’s form of internationalism perhaps, but certainly not the best and sincerest form of Marxist internationalism, let alone Socialist internationalism. Remember, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Kautsky (he was once a colleague of Marx and Engels) are both Marxists and they were both pacifists at one point or another.

Marx clearly states in The Communist Manifesto that the means of achieving Communist utopia in all capitalist societies is through the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Now lets try implementing this absurd theory in real life and see if we can achieve a Communist utopia by attempting to violently overthrow all of the world's non-Communist societies. Chances are most of these attempts will utterly fail (as have in history) unless we have a powerful and violent Communist state willing to provide external support to these revolutions in making them successful and that is where the Soviet Union fits in.

That is why the Soviet Union morphed into a autocratic military state and i've already explained the reasons in my previous post.

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat." - Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto

Also, Stalinists believe that dictatorship is only a necessary phase on the path to achieving true communism. Once all bourgeoisie societies have been purged only then will the dictatorship cease to exist and true communist utopian society will emerge.

Yes, I consider Stalinism a corrupted form of Marxism, but I don’t see how “Marxism in practice” is a contradiction to “Marxism in theory” (I’ve already explained this above). If your premise for this conclusion was that there will always be resistance to international socialism/communist utopia, then your argument seems to have several flaws:

1. Do you absolutely know for sure (as in 100% certainty) that there will always be resistance to socialist internationalism? Are you dismissing the possibility of a divine intervention to bring about a utopia? yes, I’m asking this genuinely because I’m a religious person and my socialist beliefs are religiously motivated. But my main point is, if you do not know 100%, then you could only conclude, at best, that socialism in theory is most likely implausible with socialism in practice. Me becoming a trillionaire has 0.00001^1000 chance of becoming a reality, but for me to say I can become so is only very likely implausible, not a contradiction.

2. So assuming that it is extremely likely that there will always be resistance to international socialism, it does not mean that Socialists need to just give up their goal. I agree with you that the Soviet Union did gave up, but why should this set the precedent for other socialists to also give up (especially if one is not a stalinist)??

Well for one, Marxist Socialism doesn't believe in Divine Intervention. So that is a no no to begin with. Secondly, why would God (assuming that is what you mean by Divine) intervene to establish a Communist Utopia? How is this a convincing argument that Communist utopian society can be implemented all over the world??

I'm strictly discussing Marxist Socialism which rejects religion. Thus i don't think your addition of Divine intervention makes any sense in this regard. I understand that you own socialist beliefs are religiously motivated, but from the beginning of this discussion i was talking only about Marxist Socialism. You should have made this clear from the outset of our discussion that you were taking into consideration religion as a factor within your version of socialism and that our discussion would have revolved around the particular version of socialism which you believe in. From the beginning of our discussion i was/am still discussing Marxist socialism and Marxist socialism depicts religion as a tool of the bourgeoisie to undermine the proletariat, and thus rejects religion.

Secondly, is it impossible for a Marxist utopian society to exist? Maybe, maybe not. Considering it expects too much from humanity as a whole. And neither did i indicate that Communists should give up on their aspirations in achieving a Communist utopian society but they really won't get anywhere considering their aspirations and methods. They can continue for all i care, as long as they don't resort to violence to achieve their means otherwise they'd be no different from ISIS.

Thirdly, with all of these modifications to Marxist socialism like the addition of religion and peaceful means of establishing communist utopian society rather than violent revolution, this can no longer be considered communism/Marxism. Will the next addition/modification to Marxism include allowing private property?? And the one after that include unequal distribution of wealth according to individual capability (kinda like what the Chinese are doing)?? But then this isn't communism anymore. Its something else.

The problem I see is this: you are analysing socialism/communism from a consequentialist/utilitarianist perspective, while socialism/communism is based on virtue ethic.

Meaning, a utilitarian emphasises the end goals, which you assume to be a socialist utopia/communist internationalism. So if this end goal is extremely unlikely to be achieved, then socialism/communism should be dismissed. I assume you already know the Utilitarian-Virtue dichotomy in ethics, but I’ll paste a link about utilitarianism/consequentialism just in case:

Both the methods utilized to achieve the end goals and the consequences should take a moderate path in line with human nature.

Secondly, socialism itself should not be dismissed as there are many forms of socialism that have worked wonderfully both before and after the advent of Marxist "socialism". For example (since you brought the religion factor into the discussion, allow me) the system of Zakat (obligatory charity) and the concept of Sadaqah (voluntary charity) which have existed within Islam since its inception are socialist in nature because they aim to distribute wealth within the population and fulfill the basic needs of the citizenry and help eradicate poverty. But the problem is a Marxist would dismiss this system as exclusionary and therefore not socialism because it has a religious tone to it and also because religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie thus it is a no no to begin with. For a Marxist any system is not socialist if it's not Marxist.

But socialism/communism are based on Virtue ethics, not utilitarianism. This Marxist site explicitly made this clear:



However, this marxist site does not give a good description of Virtue ethics, so I’ll use another site:



So this is the problem I see with many objectors of socialism/communism, and what I see underlying your criticism: you guys analyze or argue against socialism/communism from the perspective of utilitarian ethics. Since the consequences or the end goals are what is important to your ethical outlook, any actions or ideologies that has extremely low chances of achieving those end goals should be dismissed. i.e. Socialist utopia is unlikely to be achieved, therefore socialism should not be practiced. Capitalism has more chances of producing a prosperous society, therefore capitalism should be championed.

I can't speak for others but that is not my view. Marxist Socialism's method of achieving the end goal are very radical in nature. If one were to compare two separate ideologies and ponder over the practicability of the either two, the one that's most practical and in line with reality will be the one that's logical to implement.

However, socialism is based on Virtue ethics. So, as the article have said, nurturing the virtues and good character traits is just as important, or even more important than the end goals. The end goal (socialist utopia) is important to socialists, and we do believe that if everyone were to be virtuous and possess good character traits, then a utopia will materialize. However, nurturing our good character traits and striving to be virtuous is as important, or even more important than the end goal. You know the expression, “it’s not just about the destiny, but about the journey itself”, it protrays socialism and virtue ethics pretty well.

So in socialism and virtue ethics, it’s not just the question of “what are my end goal for society?” but more fundamental is the question of, “what kind of person should I strive to become?”, “What kind of character traits should I strive to possess?” and in socialism, these are: we all must be kind, caring, sharing, generous, compassion, empathetic, honest, altruistic, selfless, communitarian, etc. And even Che Guevara dared to declare that the heart of a revolutionary is “love”. We strives to have these characteristics not just to achieve the end goal of a socialist utopia, but they are in themselves important to become a proper human being. It answers the question “what kind of person should I become?”. That’s why I even said previously that religion plays an important role, because religion (atleast in Christianity, Islam and Buddhism) asks similar questions, “what is a person?” “why am I here?”, “what am I to become?”. Most religions are based on virtue ethics. These questions are not fundamental to capitalism.

Here is something else socialism has in common with religion (and it is not a surprise given that western socialism was rooted in Christianity before Marx and other Jews became the main figureheads): Both socialism and religion (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism) all have underlying beliefs that the human race have flawed nature and we must reform and change ourselves to become the better and proper human being.

On the other hand, most capitalists would often say, our flawed human nature is just something there and we just have to live or work with it. So, it is better to harness our flawed nature, such as our selfishness and greed, to produce something better (e.g. a prosperous and technologically advanced society). This has an underlying utilitarian ethics: the consequence or end goal is what is fundamental. It’s “hey, if harnessing our selfishness and greed can produce a prosperous and advanced society, then what is there to object?”. The utilitarians basically says “the ends justify the means”.

The socialists/religious says, “the means/actions is as important, independent from its ends/consequences”. I remember someone mentioned that his brother once decided to give up his business because the business sector in his country was corrupted and infringes on his Islamic principle, that’s virtue ethics. If the action infringes on his character trait of honesty, then he will give up that action regardless of the good consequences it will bring to him.

For the utilitarian capitalist, if the actions or character traits can bring good consequences, or produce more good than bad consequence, then let’s embrace and harness that traits/actions. Actions and character traits are meaningless independent of its consequences (utility).

For us socialists, actions and character traits are important independent of its consequence and utility. And if you are more prosperous because you have managed to harness your flawed human nature (e.g. selfishness and greed), then so what? us socialists don’t want that because we value our character traits of kindness, generosity, compassion, altruism, etc. And it is for the same reason that even if a socialist utopia is extremely unlikely to materialize in my lifetime, I will still strive to become a true socialist. Because socialism (and religion) answer the question, “what kind of person should I become?”.

So can you now understand why your criticism “socialist theory contradicts socialist practice” is flawed and meaningless to us socialists?

I agree with everything you stated above and i hold the same view. However bro, i'm not criticizing socialism in general as socialism has existed in many forms and has worked wonderfully (as i stated earlier). I'm criticizing Marxist Socialism, which im sure you have your share of criticism for too judging from what you stated above (the necessity of religion in forming a basis for socialism). And neither am i defending capitalism, which i extremely dislike due to its exploitative nature and individualism as a result.

Brother, I appreciate you explaining this and I enjoyed reading it. And your history about the Soviet Union is quite accurate,

Thanks and same to you as well. I have enjoyed reading your posts a great deal too.

but there are two things I want to say:

Firstly, I do not regard the Soviet Union to be a successful “communist revolution” since I don’t consider them to be real communists at all (just a perverted version). In my opinion, the Russian October revolution was important and was the right start, but what happened after that just went down hill. I side with Kautsky’s analysis in the Lenin vs. Kautsky arguments. With hind sight, we can see that Kautsky was right when predicting that the the Bolsheviks revolution would end up becoming a disaster. So I don’t agree that the Soviet Union was successful to begin with.

Secondly, I absolutely disagree with your conclusion that “Communism can only triumph in war and bloodshed, not during peacetime”. If by “Communism” you mean a specific (corrupted) form such as Stalinism or Marxist-Lenism, then I might agree with you. But if you are referring to “Communism” in its much broader term, especially if it includes socialism, then I would absolutely disagree with you. My explanations above already answers why. Fundamentally, my form of socialism begins from the individual level, the individuals must first change themselves, get rid of their flawed nature and become virtuous. Just like in religion. The Soviet Union did not managed to achieve this. Mao’s cultural revolution attempted to achieve this but failed.

No, not socialism, i think socialism is a good system in line with human nature and can help to bring out the best qualities in humanity with regards to altruistic tendencies which exist within all of us. But then again, it also depends on which socialism one is referring to. Communism based on Marx's theory is not in line with human nature.

For example, as you rightfully pointed out the religious factor which is necessary in encouraging altruistic tendencies within human beings as it puts an emphasis on compassion, selflessness, empathy, honesty, sacrifice, etc... And also in the case of Islam and Christianity religion puts an even greater emphasis on the fact that this life is temporary and excessive materialistic gains will not benefit us in this life and in the hereafter, where the reward will be greater than anything is this world. Kind of like an incentive to give up worldly material gains and become selfless by helping the poor, the needy, the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, being kind to your neighbor, forgiving your enemy, etc...

But Marx says religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie and thus must be discarded. If we discard religion than what is there left to form a basis for human morals?? A common ground?? What is left to encourage us to abandon greed and selfishness?? If their is no God then what does it matter if i give charity or not?? If their is no God then what does it matter if my business is profiting at the expense of others well being?? I only got one life to live so i'll make the most of it.

And secondly, could you give me even one example where Marxist Socialism/Communism which worked?? I'm not talking about some isolated Buddhist monks from centuries ago, i'm talking about Communist society as envisioned by Karl Marx.

That is why i say Marxism (not Socialism) is not practical.

And here is my own speculation why they both failed: because they have removed religion from their worldview. I personally believed that western socialism was indeed rooted in Christianity before Marx banished it. And in doing that, he has banished something important from the socialist worldview: the story of why us humans are here, why we exist, who are we, etc. Non religious Socialists continue to ask “what kind of person ought I to become?” as their fundamental ethical question but for this question to be answered adequately, they must answer the question of “why do I even exist at all?”, “who am I?”, “what am I here for?”, “where am I going after I inevitably die?”

Christianity gave a nice narrative to all of those questions (Islam and Buddhism give its own narrative too). Marx removed this narrative and replaced it with an atheistic narrative that leaves mankind disenchanted and empty. We are not here because of a loving Divine creator who has a plan for us all, etc. Rather, we are all just a product of chances, of an impersonal mechanical universe, and outside this universe, there aren’t really anything else. And when times get rough and temptation arises, you will ask, “actually why the hell do I need to be kind, generous, empathetic, etc.?” this is just an empty mechanical universe, we are all product of random chances, there’s nothing to it other than that so who said I must be virtous and these kind of character traits, etc. I will just live for myself. I think this was what happened in the Soviet Union and why their leaders turned tyrannical.

Regardless whether religion is true or not, it keeps people motivated. It ask and answers the fundamental questions. And this is why a form of communism flourished in the Christian or Buddhist monastery. @gambit always said: the closest form of a communist society to ever exist are the religious monasteries. And I agree with him. This also object your claims that the Soviet Union was the only few successful communist revolution or that Communism can only triumph in war and bloodshed. It also refutes the common criticism that socialism cannot be achieved in reality because of our flawed human nature (or its too difficulty to change it). Its just that people don’t have the heart, will and discipline to change themselves and become the better person, like the monks or the true socialists. They rather harness and embrace their greed and selfishness in order to pursue their goals. Lord have mercy.

You're right, and i agree with you here. Now regarding the Monks, im sure they never referred to themselves as Communists nor was their selfless lifestyle based on Marx's Communist Manifesto. Socialist, yes, Communist? No?

Absolutely, what good is a political theory if it has no praxis? But hopefully you will now realize what I’m trying to say all along, that Socialism has practicality not just on the political sphere, but on the personal sphere. Actually, it is more accurate to say it is necessary for Socialism to be implemented on the personal level, for each individuals to nurture their virtues and good character trait.

I never disagreed in that regard. I think there must have been a misunderstanding because i never criticized socialism but i did criticize Marxist socialism, which is why if you noticed i always clearly stated Marxist Socialism or Marxism and not Socialism because there is a broad category of Socialism.

What I meant by my comment about differentiating theory from practice is to hightlight your somewhat “guilty by association fallacy” when you tried to paint all the socialists/communists under the same brush of Stalinism.

It is a common fallacy used against Islam:

All ISIS fighters do horrible things.
All ISIS fighters call themselves muslim.
You call yourself muslim.
Therefore, you will do horrible things.

Now you are using this fallacy against socialist/communist:

All Stalinists did bad things and never succeeded.
All Stalinists call themselves communists.
You call yourself a communist.
Therefore, you will never succeed (and will do bad things?).

No, i never stated such a thing that because Stalin or the other despots committed terrible crimes in the name of Socialism thus all Socialists are stalinists. This is your straw man argument because i never stated/implied such a thing. I'm aware that there's even different branches of Marxism, although they don't disagree with each other on the fundamentals of Marxism like opposing religion, equally distributing wealth, etc....

This is precisely what I mean by “guilt by association”. Yes, the Stalinists did many horrible things. But I don’t agree with their actions or form of “communism”, so why are you asking me to explain their actions?

I'm not asking you to explain their actions. I was pointing out that by adhering to Marx's theory of purging and eradicating the bourgeoisie and other "class enemies" this falls under your criteria of classifying segment of the population as "others" which you assigned for Fascism.

Marx doesn't say "if the bourgeoisie pleads for forgiveness and promises to mend his ways then forgive him and let him live". Marx rather says violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.

In the real world, if you violently overthrow someone from their throne of power and allow them to live, chances are they will overthrow/attempt to overthrow you.

I don’t go around grabbing a random muslim on the street and say, “hey! you call yourself a muslim, the ISIS call themselves muslims and do bad things, explain to me now why you guys are doing such bad things.”



Firstly, you should stop using the analogy of the women and children persecuted under the Soviets or other Stalinist dictatorships. If I am a Stalinist, then by all means use it against me, . But I am not a stalinist my friend, as I have made it clear numerous times. Most contemporary socialists/communists are also not Stalinists.

Most contemporary socialists/communists would not agree that innocent children are “bourgeois” or “reactionary” if they don’t have the capacity to act or to consent to any political or economic activities/ideologies. They may be regarded as belonging to a bourgeois household but they are themselves not bourgeois and not in need of transformation. And even if the child grows up to become a real bourgeois or reactionary, then he/she can be changed and become socialist just like everyone else.

Firstly, this is a straw man argument on your part. I never said that all Communists are Stalinists or that all Socialists are Marxists, etc... I was making a point which i have already clarified.

Secondly, this is the thing with communists. If they find something distasteful or flawed about their ideology, they modify it, which i have no issue with. But the issue arises when they continue to defend the original theory which they themselves modified but can't take it when others criticize that original theory. If you are aware that Marx's theory is flawed then don't be so defensive about it. It's just a theory after all.

But for the racist/fascist, if a child were born into a family of “inferior” race, then that child is of an inferior race regardless if the child has the capacity to act or to consent to anything. Furthermore, the child cannot be changed. Her genes are inferior so she will always remain that way and the distinction between the superior race and inferior race must always be maintained. That’s the difference. I don’t get why you can’t understand this.

Personally, although i disagree with such theories of inferior race and superior race, however i don't see what is wrong with it as long as it remains a theory and is not acted upon in violent ways. Theories like these were very common at that period in time in all Western countries and like all theories they are bound to change.

And to point out to you, there were all kinds of theories on race within Nazi Germany. For example, there was even a theory by a respected German academic of that time that suggested race mixing was good because it decreased the chances of common genetic diseases within the same racial gene pool, but this too was a theory but for some reason this doesn't get much attention by academics. Perhaps its something to do with the strong Jewish influence on Western academia.

Now you might point out what the Germans allegedly did to the Jews after 1942 as proof, but that was during war time when everyone was killing everyone. Churchill starved to death 4 million indians in the bengal famine and then inquired why Gandhi did not die. But he is celebrated by the world and the israelis as a hero and they built him a statue in his memory. Hitler was in fact cooperating with World Zionism before 1940. Anyhow, i digress.

What is your view of race? Do you believe race exists? Why and why not?

Secondly, the socialist classification does not meet my criteria of “sectarianism” (not just differentiating the “others”). I thought I have clarified this in my previous post: The fascist wants to maintain their race/group classification and don’t want the inferior race/group to join the superior race/group while the socialists see the possibility of the “other” class transforming themselves and wants them to join and become the same class as everyone else (to achieve a classless society). Sure the the Stalinists ended up killing the “others” instead of rehabilitating them (their Gulags are officially regarded as “corrective facilities” so even in theory, they were supposed to be rehabilitated, not persecuted and executed) but that’s the Stalinists fault and I (or any other non-stalinist socialists) don’t need to justify them.

My definition is based on the belief that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain (and a few others) all seems to have something in common beneath the surface. It is for this reason that many academics have grouped them together under the category of “fascism”. And I have given lots of explanations why I prefer to concentrate on this more fundamental attributes/characteristics common amongst them. My definition just simply tries to identify these common attributes/characteristics. So if my defintion managed to fit all of them and exclude the other “non-fascist” regimes, then I think I am on the right track. This is not a matter of molding my definition to fit my own classification. The classification (grouping GER, ITA, SPA, etc.) is already out there in academia and mainstream culture, I’m just trying to find a definition that fits them all and exclude everyone else.



As for why we must name this group “Fascist” and not Nazi, Francoist, Falangist, etc.? I have no idea, it is what it is. I did said previously that the label “Fascist” for this group was arbitrary. But the mainstream culture and academia have already made a habit of labelling this group as “Fascist” so I have kept it that way, it is what it is. I have no problem if there were entirely new names like Beardist, Satanist, etc.

Your analogy is flawed. Their fundamentals does not coincide. Everyone accepts that the fundamentals of socialism/communism strifes for a “classless” worldwide society, both economically classless and racially classless while “fascism” wants to maintain their racial/national “classes”, which is fundamental to “fascism”.

Your third criteria is also flawed because a Nazi’s “socialist paradise” and Socialist’s “socialist paradise” has different meaning. Its like me classifying garderners and pimps together because they all work their “hoes”. I can do that but its meaningless.

I can classify regimes based on the leader’s gender so that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are under the same category. Nothing wrong with that, but that classification is meaningless to me. My classifications looks at the fundamentals.

You can also classify regimes under the category of “Aryanism” and you can get your own unique Nazi Germany category. And it might be meaningful for those who are studying Aryanism or German history, but its meaningless for us in the mainstream culture and academia who have the intuition that there is something common between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain, etc.

And I would consider I’m going on the right track if I can manage to come up with a definition that fits them all (and excludes other “non-fascist” regimes) and at the same time covers their fundamentals.

Okay, fair enough.

 

[jamahir]

Will the next addition/modification to Marxism include allowing private property??

there are thousands of court cases in india about property disputes, intra-family and extra-family, some going on for decades... a proper socialist society will have solved this by the system making land a public property and alloting a house or farm land to a individual or group as per need.

in the libyan jamahiriyan version of socialism ( until 2011 ), no one was homeless or was burdended for money to pay rent and they lived in comfortable houses indeed.

from ( International Green Charter )...

12. We are liberated from any feudalism. The land is nobody's property. Each person has the right to exploit it and to benefit from it by labour, agriculture or animal-keeping, throughout one's life, that of one's heirs, and within the limits of personal effort and the satisfaction of needs.

13. We are free from any rent. A house belongs to the person who lives in it.

now, a family member had the choice of going to another neighborhood or city and the system having to provide housing to that citizen without the citizen being burdened with worries of rent ( because no rent ) and the citizen living in that house as long as he or she wants.

And the one after that include unequal distribution of wealth according to individual capability (kinda like what the Chinese are doing)??

the arguments in the "che and china" thread and this thread were also about where china as a society is socialist or has it succumbed to capitalism mostly, with the ideology being nationalist rather than internationalist/socialist.

Both the methods utilized to achieve the end goals and the consequences should take a moderate path.

Secondly, socialism itself should not be dismissed as there are many forms of socialism that have worked wonderfully both before and after the advent of Marxist "socialism". For example (since you brought the religion factor into the discussion, allow me) the system of Zakat (obligatory charity) and the concept of Sadaqah (voluntary charity) which have existed within Islam since its inception are socialist in nature because they aim to distribute wealth within the population and fulfill the basic needs of the citizenry and help eradicate poverty. But the problem is a Marxist would dismiss this system as exclusionary and therefore not socialism because it has a religious tone to it and also because religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie thus it is a no no to begin with. For a Marxist any system is not socialist if it's not Marxist.

the core of islam i call early socialism... as were the teachings of christ, some greek philosophy ( i know about "demokratia" ), and buddhism, and the more recent sikhism... islam as early socialism was also called so by the west asian ba'ath movement and by muammar gaddafi.

tragedy of islam is that its followers have in the last 20 years fallen into a morass of only prayers and rituals and certain clothing which all have turned these particular followers into reactionaries who are not fit for enlightened discussions.

one need not focus only on charity ( zakat, sadaqah ) to see socialist economics in islam... if one looks at the other economic aspects ( property distribution, wedding, loans, ban on idolatry ), one sees socialist wisdom there too.

india wouldn't have had these thousands of farmer suicides and student suicides if even without looking at modern socialism, it would have adopted just the economic aspects of islam.

though islam brought great simplicity and harmony for the time it came about and though if actually implemented even now would be a great help, but...

1. islami economic theories cannot exist for a near-future ideal communist society or humanity because islam retains money system but money system must be abolished !!

2. islami property distribution method is negated by the even more simplification done in modern socialism ( if actually implemented ) of land being a public property and the government supervising its allocation on behalf of the entire citizenry.

I can't speak for others but that is not my view. Marxist Socialism's method of achieving the end goal are very radical in nature. If one were to compare two separate ideologies and ponder over the practicability of the either two, the one that's most practical and in line with reality will be the one that's logical to implement.

the extremest form of capitalism is practiced in south asia, especially india... if you were to look at a big-picture level the injustices and oppressions here, you would immediately call for socialism to be imposed here.

Spot on my friend! I agree with everything you stated above and i hold the same view. However bro, i'm not criticizing socialism in general as socialism has existed in many forms and has worked wonderfully (as i stated earlier). I'm criticizing Marxist Socialism, which im sure you have your share of criticism for too judging from what you stated above (the necessity of religion in forming a basis for socialism). And neither am i defending capitalism, which i extremely dislike due to its exploitative nature and individualism as a result.

in that case, you should compare "marxist socialism" to another theory of socialism.

No, not socialism, i think socialism is a good system in line with human nature and can help to bring out the best qualities in humanity with regards to altruistic tendencies which exist within all of us. But then again, it also depends on which socialism one is referring to. Communism based on Marx's theory is not in line with human nature.

For example, as you rightfully pointed out the religious factor which is necessary in encouraging altruistic tendencies within human beings as it puts an emphasis on compassion, selflessness, empathy, honesty, sacrifice, etc... And also in the case of Islam and Christianity religion puts an even greater emphasis on the fact that this life is temporary and excessive materialistic gains will not benefit us in this life and in the hereafter, where the reward will be greater than anything is this world. Kind of like an incentive to give up worldly material gains and become selfless by helping the poor, the needy, the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, being kind to your neighbor, forgiving your enemy, etc...

1. having our reasonable material needs fulfilled is necessary for us to be spiritually calm. to be in harmony with nature when living in a society, to be a actually contributing member of society... one cannot be happy is one's material needs are either not coming or come from painful exploitative engagement ( like wage-slavery ).

2. "helping the poor" is essentially helping bring material needs to the "poor" and the "poor" exist because the political system has been inefficient in removing inadequecies of material needs.

3. "forgiving your enemy"... how would one have a economic or political enemy if the political system is the most scientific socialism??

But Marx says religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie and thus must be discarded. If we discard religion than what is there left to form a basis for human morals??

let us take three extremely religious-mysticism-filled societies of present - india, iran and saudia... can these be described as enlightened societies??

A common ground?? What is left to encourage us to abandon greed and selfishness?? If their is no God then what does it matter if i give charity or not??

that is the similar to what is asked by capitalists... if money system is abolished, where is the incentive to work??

 

[William Hung]

I understand. For some reason i did not encounter this problem though because i did visit this thread quite a few times within the past couple of days.

Sorry for the late reply bro. Was a bit busy the previous week to make posts.

What I was refering to was the few days that this thread was locked, but its not a problem anymore I think.

I agree with everything you stated above and i hold the same view. However bro, i'm not criticizing socialism in general as socialism has existed in many forms and has worked wonderfully (as i stated earlier). I'm criticizing Marxist Socialism, which im sure you have your share of criticism for too judging from what you stated above (the necessity of religion in forming a basis for socialism). And neither am i defending capitalism, which i extremely dislike due to its exploitative nature and individualism as a result.

Oh so we don’t really disagree much. I was assuming you were a capitalist arguing against everything socialist/leftist in general, my mistake.

Of course, i understand that there's different forms of socialism. In fact "socialism" existed before the term was even coined. Its not a Marxist monopoly. But, i was strictly talking in the context of Marxist socialism which is the basis/has been the basis for most Marxist movements throughout history. And frankly speaking, any form of socialism that is not based on Marxism is denied by Marxists as being "socialism", which indicates they are claiming a monopoly over Socialism.

Yes, I agree most marxists try to claim a monopoly over the “socialist” ideology. Even, within modern marxists movement, marxists fight over who are the “real” marxist. But you can probably tell by the fascist discussion, I’m not too particular about names. So I did used the name marxism/socialism/communism too ambiguously. Let’s just say, I’m a “socialist”.

I like this phrase from Che Guevara:

“If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.”

So even Socialists should not even claim a monopoly over justice, altruism, care, etc. I just use “socialism” as a label for these characteristics (which were manifested in various societies even before the word “socialism” was coined, as you’ve mentioned).

But then its not Marxist Socialism in the truest sense if it adopts a alternative, peaceful method to achieving the goals of Communism. I'm talking strictly Marxist Socialism as stated by Karl Marx. Also, most Socialists that i have encountered in the West are Trotskyiites, not really fond of pacifism though vehemently anti-Stalinists.

OK fair enough. There are indeed marxists who have that kind of sectarian mentality (i.e. our ideology is the only true marxist ideology, the rest are reactionaries, etc.)

Speaking of Trotskyism, in another old thread I mentioned that the Vietnamese socialist I admired the most was “Ta Thu Thau”, a Vietnamese Trotskyist. Some say he was the most successful Trotskyist since he actually wins regional elections. Like Trotsky himself, Ta Thu Thau was assassinated at the command of the stalinist Comintern, hence, my disdain for Stalinism. (So it was absolutely bizzare for another member to try to paint all socialists under the same brush when I don’t even think he knows the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism, let alone other non-marxist socialist ideology ).

One man's "just war" can be another man's imperialist occupation. In George Bush's eyes invading Afghanistan and Iraq was a "just war". However, i'm sure the Afghans and Iraqis beg to differ (that's an understatement actually).

And this is indeed a contradiction (or hypocrisy, better put) in Marxist theory and practice. It's bad when others do it, but cannot be bad if we do it as long as it is in our interest.

To be fair to Marx/marxists, they are not saying that ALL form of foreign interventions/coercions/wars are imperialistic. It would depends on the reasons and motives for that intervention/coercion/war.

Here’s what lenin wrote:

“We Marxists differ from pacifists...in that we deem it necessary to study each war historically (from the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) and separately. There have been in the past numerous wars which, despite all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind.”

Although I’m sure you can find examples of their hypocrisy. But I’m not here to defend stalinism/marxist-lenism.

Personally, I would use my own definition of fascism (that I gave a few pages back) to determine what kind of war/interventions are imperialistic.

Marx clearly states in The Communist Manifesto that the means of achieving Communist utopia in all capitalist societies is through the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Now lets try implementing this absurd theory in real life and see if we can achieve a Communist utopia by attempting to violently overthrow all of the world's non-Communist societies. Chances are most of these attempts will utterly fail (as have in history) unless we have a powerful and violent Communist state willing to provide external support to these revolutions in making them successful and that is where the Soviet Union fits in.

That is why the Soviet Union morphed into a autocratic military state and i've already explained the reasons in my previous post.

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat." - Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto

I’m going to defend Marx a bit and say that he only wrote that due to his social-historical context. E.g. the only plausible means for the working class to overthrow their oppressors was a “violent” revolution. And in other specific context for other marxists, to mobilize the mass for guerrilla warfare. If Marx was writing today in the west, I don’t think he would promote “violent” revolutions to propagate communism in western countries, although I could be wrong.

Also, Stalinists believe that dictatorship is only a necessary phase on the path to achieving true communism. Once all bourgeoisie societies have been purged only then will the dictatorship cease to exist and true communist utopian society will emerge.

Yep, and they were wrong.

I'm strictly discussing Marxist Socialism which rejects religion. Thus i don't think your addition of Divine intervention makes any sense in this regard. I understand that you own socialist beliefs are religiously motivated, but from the beginning of this discussion i was talking only about Marxist Socialism. You should have made this clear from the outset of our discussion that you were taking into consideration religion as a factor within your version of socialism and that our discussion would have revolved around the particular version of socialism which you believe in. From the beginning of our discussion i was/am still discussing Marxist socialism and Marxist socialism depicts religion as a tool of the bourgeoisie to undermine the proletariat, and thus rejects religion.

I did mentioned religion in post #25 on the second page. Sorry I thought you have read those earlier posts.

Thirdly, with all of these modifications to Marxist socialism like the addition of religion and peaceful means of establishing communist utopian society rather than violent revolution, this can no longer be considered communism/Marxism. Will the next addition/modification to Marxism include allowing private property?? And the one after that include unequal distribution of wealth according to individual capability (kinda like what the Chinese are doing)?? But then this isn't communism anymore. Its something else.

Well like I said, I’m not too particular about names. If people don’t consider my ideology as communism/marxism, then I don’t really mind. Many people do take up new/different names like neo-marxism, orthodox marxism, trotskyism, libertarian-communism, etc. to differentiate themselves. But I wouId personally still call them “leftist” or “socialist” even if I may not agree with their methodology (I would just say they are perverted/corrupted).

In this thread, I just want to discuss and learn what are the “essence” or core elements of “socialism” just like how I attempted to define the core elements of “fascism” (yes, you can consider “socialism” and “fascism” as just arbitrary names that I have given them).

At this point, I’m not too concerned about the “method” of achieving the utopia, etc. It is crucial, but needs to define the core elements first.

Secondly, socialism itself should not be dismissed as there are many forms of socialism that have worked wonderfully both before and after the advent of Marxist "socialism". For example (since you brought the religion factor into the discussion, allow me) the system of Zakat (obligatory charity) and the concept of Sadaqah (voluntary charity) which have existed within Islam since its inception are socialist in nature because they aim to distribute wealth within the population and fulfill the basic needs of the citizenry and help eradicate poverty. But the problem is a Marxist would dismiss this system as exclusionary and therefore not socialism because it has a religious tone to it and also because religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie thus it is a no no to begin with. For a Marxist any system is not socialist if it's not Marxist.

I can't speak for others but that is not my view. Marxist Socialism's method of achieving the end goal are very radical in nature. If one were to compare two separate ideologies and ponder over the practicability of the either two, the one that's most practical and in line with reality will be the one that's logical to implement.

I agree with the first part.

OK lets ignore Marxism for now. Let’s agree that Marxism, as traditionally interpreted, is not practical or viable.

No, not socialism, i think socialism is a good system in line with human nature and can help to bring out the best qualities in humanity with regards to altruistic tendencies which exist within all of us. But then again, it also depends on which socialism one is referring to. Communism based on Marx's theory is not in line with human nature.

I’ll make a comment that “socialism” is in fact not in line with human “nature”. By nature I mean our natural instincts, character trait, etc.

We, the average people, are selfish, greedy, violent, hedonistic, sectarian, etc. Just think of a gorilla troop. So that’s why I said we have a flawed human nature. As far as my understanding of Christianity and Buddhism goes, they say the same thing about humans. I think Islam says the same thing to?

The difference between these religions/socialism and other ideology such as capitalism is that the mentioned religions and socialism says that our “flawed” human nature needs to be corrected. They are “sins”. We need to change ourselves to become the better and proper human. Capitalism don’t want to endorse this, as they want to justify greed/selfishness, etc. (But this is not to say that humans are 100% flawed. There are still some good or a “divine spark” in us.)

That is why I think @LeveragedBuyout argued with me in another thread that human nature cannot be changed, and perhaps we should just learn to live with it (correct me if I’m wrong sir). But this way of thinking is not compatible with religions like Islam, Christianity and Buddhism (not sure about the rest). Ironically, this capitalist way of thinking is more in line with the nihilistic marxist worldview where there are no divine entity or divine moral order in this universe and that we are just a product of chances.

For example, as you rightfully pointed out the religious factor which is necessary in encouraging altruistic tendencies within human beings as it puts an emphasis on compassion, selflessness, empathy, honesty, sacrifice, etc... And also in the case of Islam and Christianity religion puts an even greater emphasis on the fact that this life is temporary and excessive materialistic gains will not benefit us in this life and in the hereafter, where the reward will be greater than anything is this world. Kind of like an incentive to give up worldly material gains and become selfless by helping the poor, the needy, the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, being kind to your neighbor, forgiving your enemy, etc...

Yes, and I sometime think that we are only living in a “simulation”, a matrix of sort, to test us. I made hints about this in another thread but I’ll get back at it later.

But Marx says religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie and thus must be discarded. If we discard religion than what is there left to form a basis for human morals?? A common ground?? What is left to encourage us to abandon greed and selfishness?? If their is no God then what does it matter if i give charity or not?? If their is no God then what does it matter if my business is profiting at the expense of others well being?? I only got one life to live so i'll make the most of it.

Yes agree, that’s why I previously said capitalism is ironically more in line with marxism in this aspect. If you debate with a capitalists, especially when it is about wealth inequality, a common phrase to come out of them is “why should I have to share my wealth with othwrs?”. I.e. there are no moral ground to say people ought to share their wealth.

Although I’m not saying there are no moral ground for secular socialism...Kant’s Categorical imperative is an example. But those are hard to live by compared to religiously motivated morality.

And secondly, could you give me even one example where Marxist Socialism/Communism which worked?? I'm not talking about some isolated Buddhist monks from centuries ago, i'm talking about Communist society as envisioned by Karl Marx.

That is why i say Marxism (not Socialism) is not practical.

Well, nearly all contemporary marxists do not think that there have ever been a perfect marxist country. But to be fair to them, this does not imply that it is not “practical”. Well if by “not practical” you mean that there is 0.01 chance of achieving it, then yes, its not “practical” but they can still strive for it.

Can a muslim ever become a sort of excellent person that Allah wants him to be? Can a Buddhist likely reach nirvana in one lifetime, or can a Christian become someone like Mother Theresa or a saint? Yes, but extremely hard. But this does not mean that Islam, Christianity, Buddhism is not “practical”.

Remember these kind of religions and socialism/marxism are based on Virtue ethics, where the journey is just as important as the destination. So even if the destination looks hard to get to, we must still stick to the journey. And if you add on top of this that life is just temporary and a test, then the “journey” is even more important than the “destination”, so to speak.

I'm not asking you to explain their actions. I was pointing out that by adhering to Marx's theory of purging and eradicating the bourgeoisie and other "class enemies" this falls under your criteria of classifying segment of the population as "others" which you assigned for Fascism.

Marx doesn't say "if the bourgeoisie pleads for forgiveness and promises to mend his ways then forgive him and let him live". Marx rather says violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Actually, even Stalinism thinks that bourgeoisie can and should be rehabilitated. Even their gulags were considered as “corrective facilities”. But this is in theory. I’m aware that in reality, they used it to torture, murder people for unjustified reasons. But in theory, they would want to rehabilitate them so that there will be a classless society. The stalinist wanted to remove the sectarianism (the class) while the fascist wants to enforce their sectarianism (race, nationality, etc.). They both don’t fall under the same criteria that I described. I have absolutely no idea why you still don’t get this...Remove, Enforce....big differences. The stalinist does not want to divide society (except for the “ruling” class) while the fascist wants to divide society (and the world) into diferent race or nationality, etc.

Of course, the Stalinists’ method of “removing” the sectarian divide ended up looking like fascist concentration camps, but in theory, those camps were supposed to be rehabilitation or re-education camp. Even then, they are “removing” (in a twisted and perverted method) the sectarian divide instead of enforcing and maintaining the sectarian divide like how I characterize fascism.

In the real world, if you violently overthrow someone from their throne of power and allow them to live, chances are they will overthrow/attempt to overthrow you.

And this is where Just war theory comes into play. Violently overthrowing a power or killing someone is not in itself bad (assuming we are not pacifists), it can be justified depending on the context.

So in Just war theory, a marxist killing someone can be justified depending on the context. I’m not trying to defend the Stalinists or Marxist-Leninists as I’ve already mentioned my disdain for them, but them endorsing a violent overthrow or killing of a group of people does not imply that their ideology is unjustified or fascist. Killing a certain group of “others” can be justified if they have the right context. Just like killing the leaders of the ISIS is justified and not regarded as “sectarianism”.

The Stalinists obviously had no justifications in a lot of their killings and treatment of the “others”. But this does not imply that they were enforcing sectarianism. They were just murdering and torturing people, targetting a certain group. Sectarianism does not even need to involve murder or torture at all (e.g. you can just impose a law where whites and blacks sit in different section of public buses).

Secondly, this is the thing with communists. If they find something distasteful or flawed about their ideology, they modify it, which i have no issue with. But the issue arises when they continue to defend the original theory which they themselves modified but can't take it when others criticize that original theory. If you are aware that Marx's theory is flawed then don't be so defensive about it. It's just a theory after all.

Well, this does not apply to me. Marx make some analysis that I like, such as his concept of alienation. While I disagree with some of his other ideas.

Personally, although i disagree with such theories of inferior race and superior race, however i don't see what is wrong with it as long as it remains a theory and is not acted upon in violent ways. Theories like these were very common at that period in time in all Western countries and like all theories they are bound to change.

And to point out to you, there were all kinds of theories on race within Nazi Germany. For example, there was even a theory by a respected German academic of that time that suggested race mixing was good because it decreased the chances of common genetic diseases within the same racial gene pool, but this too was a theory but for some reason this doesn't get much attention by academics. Perhaps its something to do with the strong Jewish influence on Western academia.

Now you might point out what the Germans allegedly did to the Jews after 1942 as proof, but that was during war time when everyone was killing everyone. Churchill starved to death 4 million indians in the bengal famine and then inquired why Gandhi did not die. But he is celebrated by the world and the israelis as a hero and they built him a statue in his memory. Hitler was in fact cooperating with World Zionism before 1940. Anyhow, i digress.

What is your view of race? Do you believe race exists? Why and why not?

What is my view of race and whether I believe race exist?

I do believe that various people groups have different genetics make, and thats it.

Having different genetic make up may give people slightly different characteristics, but for socialists, this doesn’t really mean much. Even within a “race”, individuals will have different characteristics. Socialism sees everyone as having the same worth and value. It’s pretty simple.