What's new

4th of July and Religion


One Brow

Well-Known Member
Your definition is so broad as to be worthless. By your definition, how is Stalin's Soviet Union not considered fascist? Communism, like fascism, is inextricably linked to a set of economic organizational concepts.
Not my definition, Merriam-Webster's determination of how the term is used.

Stalin's Soviet Union elevated the worker over the state. That's kind of the whole of point of Communism, at least rhetorically.

Just out of curiosity, what do you feel should be the economic markers of fascism that differentiate it from communism?
 


Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, what do you feel should be the economic markers of fascism that differentiate it from communism?
The single biggest economic difference between fascism and communism is in how each handle property rights for private citizens.

....And no workers were not above Stalin's state apparatus. Utopian communism may be that way but the USSR under Stalin definitely was not.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
The single biggest economic difference between fascism and communism is in how each handle property rights for private citizens.
So, you're saying the reason that Trump was not approaching fascism was because of his record supporting property holders?




....And no workers were not above Stalin's state apparatus. Utopian communism may be that way but the USSR under Stalin definitely was not.
I don't think anyone believes Stalin had a utopian communism. Then again, we have no utopian nor prototypical governments of any kind. Despite his many ugly actions, Stalin rhetorically emphasized the rewards for individuals as opposed to putting the state over individual happiness.

"But the policy of our Party would not be worth a farthing, were it not for the truly friendly support it receives from the vast masses of non-Party workers. Indeed, our Party is strong precisely because it has the support of the masses of non-Party workers. That, comrades, should never be forgotten."

"The collective farm has liberated women, and made her independent by means of the work-days. She no longer works for her father when she is unmarried, but works primarily for herself. And that is just what is meant by the emancipation of peasant women; that is just what is meant by the collective farm system which makes the working woman the equal of every working man. Only on these grounds, only under these conditions could such splendid women arise. That is why I regard today's meeting not as just an ordinary meeting of prominent people with members of the government, but as a solemn day, on which the achievements and capabilities of the emancipated labour of women are being demonstrated. I think the government ought to confer distinctions on the heroines of labour who have come here to report their achievements to the government."
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
So, you're saying the reason that Trump was not approaching fascism was because of his record supporting property holders?
No. I told you the single biggest difference between fascism and communism.

I don't think anyone believes Stalin had a utopian communism.
Yes. That is why what you said about Stalin's Soviet Union was ridiculous. As for the rest of your Soviet propaganda, it is propaganda. The Soviet Union under Stalin was not a worker's paradise. Everyone in that system is a slave. The state owns everything including any fruits of a worker's labor. Nothing was above Stalin in Stalin's Soviet Union and that includes the worker.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
No. I told you the single biggest difference between fascism and communism.
Lest we forget, we started this discussion from you saying:
Fascism is inextricably linked to a set of economic organizational concepts. If Trump's proposals fall within those economic organizational concepts then point them out.
Mission Accomplished.

Yes. That is why what you said about Stalin's Soviet Union was ridiculous. As for the rest of your Soviet propaganda, it is propaganda.
Much like Hitler's worship of the German state was propaganda. I don't see how that affects the rhetorical distinction between communism and fascism.
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
Mission Accomplished.

Much like Hitler's worship of the German state was propaganda. I don't see how that affects the rhetorical distinction between communism and fascism.
We weren't talking rhetorical distinctions. Your question was about economical organizational distinctions, and even that question didn't reference Trump. I suspect you are on meds or have a good level of blood alcohol. You are prone to moving goalposts but in this exchange you aren't even trying to connect dots.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
We weren't talking rhetorical distinctions.
Conversations tend to wander all over the place. You asked how the Soviet Union was different, and I pointed out a rhetorical difference.

Your question was about economical organizational distinctions, and even that question didn't reference Trump. I suspect you are on meds or have a good level of blood alcohol. You are prone to moving goalposts but in this exchange you aren't even trying to connect dots.
I should have been more clear: you seem confused about the nature of property rights under fascist governments. Property rights were eroded under Hitler/Mussolini/Franco, just as they were under Stalin/Mao/etc. You'll see very few autocratic governments that respect the rights of private property.

I'm quite serious that the primary differences between autocratic communist regimes and autocratic fascist regimes seems to be rhetorical, with the occasional minor sop thrown to support that rhetoric.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
All you are doing by claiming that ours is unique is admitting that we don't fit within the bounds of fascism but you really want to use the word. I am not a fan of concept creep, sometimes called 2+2=5, where terms are stretched to justify an otherwise unsupportable claim.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. All I’m doing is something that I’ll likely never finish. Trying to understand the various streams that fed into the rise of Trump, and Trumpism. Imagine the effort involved in trying not only to see all the relevant streams feeding into a popular movement, but see them all at once, as if one were standing outside time itself. I know I’m not up to it, I don’t have the intellect for such a task, but the effort is still compelling to me. Because, in my head, I can “see” the synthesis I’m trying to work out, but actually finding the words, etc. is so difficult. And, as said, I’m not likely up to it in the last analysis.

One exercise I’ve used my whole life in trying to understand the times in which I live is to try and somehow extricate myself from my own time and place: I’m from another planet, and I’m observing this life form known as human beings. Of course, it’s impossible, it’s like trying to see the world for the very first time, but under the hope that any little bit helps, I try that approach at times. Or, if one can’t see the forest for the trees, back up far enough until one does see the forest. Another tool is to simply follow my own advice: never sleepwalk through that portion of History’s narrative that is you’re to live. Which is where the past informing the present comes in, it helps prevent sleepwalking through the history of one’s own time and place.

I am trying to understand the age and the moment in which I am living. And it is so very difficult. Churchwell’s essay helped. I’m in student mode. Till the day I pass I imagine. Good luck with your own efforts to understand this time and place.
 

BabyPeterzz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
This is happening in Texas. “Freedom Caucus” legislators want to be cops too. We’re staring theocracy in the face. Women and those protecting them will be hunted. They will go full fascist if we let them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bigb

Free at last!!!
Contributor
I have a different take and experience than others in this thread.

I've always understood that we celebrate and support whatever country we are in to the best of our abilities and while there work to make things better from within.
The teaching that stood as the backbone of this was for me Article of Faith 12 "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

For me that means supporting the country I live in, and also for me that means knowing the pledge of allegiance and at times singing the national anthem.
We have at times sung the national anthem at church meetings around the 4th.
While I don't have an extensive travel history, I had always hoped that meant the national songs/anthems/pledges or whatever is equivalent were supported in those other countries.

The church is not necessarily in support of the US, but is in support of and/or respects all countries and encourages members to adhere to laws in the country they live in.

This is definitely not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is as a whole in support of the US and that the US is better than any and all other countries. My take is that we are in support of people. All people.
I did my mission in Honduras. I can tell you, at no point ever is the Honduran National Anthem sung in a church meeting. Honduran Independence Day is a big thing. It’s celebrated like crazy. There is a big national rivalry between Honduras and its neighboring countries. They all think they’re better than the others. But I was never in a church meeting where anything patriotic was ever discussed or mentioned.
 

fishonjazz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
I did my mission in Honduras. I can tell you, at no point ever is the Honduran National Anthem sung in a church meeting. Honduran Independence Day is a big thing. It’s celebrated like crazy. There is a big national rivalry between Honduras and its neighboring countries. They all think they’re better than the others. But I was never in a church meeting where anything patriotic was ever discussed or mentioned.
I think that honduras (roatan island) is my favorite place I have ever been. Hawaii is up there but honduras was even better. Of course I was only there for like 7 hours but holy crap the beach I was on was the best of all time and I have been on a lot of beaches all over the world.
 


Top