I’m not sure if I’ve read more BS in all my life. Fascism and Communism are forms of Socialism.

No they’re not. If you actually look up the definitions of Fascism and Communism, you’ll notice that they’re different from Socialism (although Communism is related to Socialism). Fascism is completely unrelated to Communism.

Do you people even know what Nazi meant? National Socialist German Workers’ Party – Nazi, English version of the German word NAtionalsoZIalistische, or National Socialists. They are all far-left on the political spectrum.

Names don’t mean anything. You’d know this if you actually looked up the history of the Nazi party. Hitler initially called it the National Socialist Workers Party because he wanted to attract workers to his party and thereby build up his base. One of the first things he did when he gained power was to abolish worker’s rights. That’s not very “Socialist” of him. Nazism is an example of fascism, its name notwithstanding.

They are all far-left on the political spectrum. The far right is NO government or chaos. The far left is TOTAL government.

Not at all. Nazism is on the right of the political spectrum. Overt nationalism, a strong attribute of Nazism falls on the right of the political spectrum.

Capitalism, as in our Representative Republic, is right of center. Please stop indoctrinating these sheep into the never-ending quest for the Liberal (Socialist) mindless indiscriminate philosophy of the non-existent Utopian nirvana. Vivin is leading you sheep over a cliff and you’re happy to go, completely out of ignorance. baaaaaaaaaaaa

I’m not trying to indoctrinate anybody. Also, Liberalism is not necessarily socialism. Perhaps you shouldn’t be throwing terms about without understanding them. Really, just spend an hour or so going over these political ideologies and the history of the Nazi party and you’ll understand better.

@Roland Hall: @Patheticus:

Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive learn something like this before. So nice to search out any individual with some …

Thank you for that wonderful response. Yes, sometimes I think it is a cynical view, but in the end human nature gets in the way of an equitable system. It’s sad that we have to call it “human nature” because that suggests that inequity and greed are something that is innate and is something that we cannot rise above.

Perhaps there will be a time when humanity will sufficiently advance to rise above greed and inequity. I sincerely believe this is a possibility (though I know nothing of its probability) because we are able to recognize that there is greed and inequity and we seem to recognize that it is wrong.

As noted in the primary entry, communism is not practical due to human nature. But it is not just communism that is adversely affected by human nature. So are fascism, socialism, capitalism, corporatism, and “whateverism”. So are democracy, republicanism, monarchy, oligarchy, and every other form of government. Human nature is selfish – for money and goods, for power and prestige, for ease and pleasure, for honor and glory. That selfishness infects all, from those at the highest levels to the lowest. When that selfish nature gains more of one’s “fair share” (whatever that is), it invents all manner of justifications for having it, as well as contempt for any who would suggest it wrong. When it is denied what it believes is at least one’s fair share, it breeds animosity, jealousy, and contempt.

Capitalism under a republican form of government (what the USA has had, at least in theory, since 1789) seems to have been the most practical, for it tends to check and balance the selfishness of one person or group against that of others. But as history has shown, it has not fully succeeded. As John Adams said, as much as he favored our system, it will not work without a moral people.

The voluntary communism of the early Christian church worked because their selfishness was countered by a spiritually engendered love. I believe this, in part, demonstrates the need, whatever the political or economic structure, for the influence of spiritual argument and guidance away from selfishness and toward its opposite: love. Not the emotion or feeling of love, as in romance, but the consciously adopted attitude of giving of one’s self for the benefit of others. Not that atheists are incapable of love nor that Christianity has a monopoly on it (as a Christian I lament much of what has been done in the name of Christianity), but that without something stronger than laws, human nature will spoil every system.

Thank you! Yes, that’s something I’d like to write about sometime.