There are benefits of collective power but there are also great dangers. There must be checks and balances or the people lose control of their destiny. This means that we must allow to a certain extent for injustices to take place and then correct them when we see them. Seeking to create too perfect of a system without injustices requires so much control that those in power are corrupted and the people can hardly change it without chaos, bloodshed, and revolution.

However, often when governments have that much power they manipulate the population with propaganda so that the people blame other nations and don’t know how corrupt they themselves or their leaders are – this results in wars.

ps: when I referred to US fascism it was not meant in the context of nationalism but of economics – the consolidation and mergers of corporations, financial institutions, etc… into a monopoly. Actually, Russia & China presently are practicing economic fascism internationally. This is not to be confused with the social-fascism of the Nazis.

This article explains it in part: From Communism to Fascism?

“Unions have to exist to protect the workers, because without them they would be at the mercy of their employer. Employers have often been merciless in the past.”

As for the UK sinking, this has little or no connection with the NHS, if it is sinking at all.

The USA has fallen into corporate capitalism; that much is clear. But there are no signs whatsoever -apart from the minimum wage being tabled- that the USA is any more socialist than it was ten years ago. Whether it is fascist or not is open to debate, although personally I think that is a little strong.

I have already stated as much, you cannot allow murder and anarchy – But my argument is to the degree of control and who it is that has it. I say establish the minimum amount of control necessary and give it to the people.

Collective societies such as communism/fascism /socialism (they all produce the same results in the end) impose to much control, take power away from the people and give it to an elite ruling class. Given time, and it may take years, but it will become absolutely corrupt by slowly taking any real power away from the people.

Why do you believe the ruling class will have more integrity than the people? The more power people possess the more ability they have to correct things when they go wrong – and things will always go wrong no matter what system you have. The people will correct things because they are more directly effected than elitists.

I people were perfect socialism/communism would happen on its own without force.

When collective societies gain power greedy men who lust for power are drawn to the positions of it and the state becomes an oppressor.

As far as the UK without socialism being as good as a third world state – give it time, the UK is sinking and all of Europe will eventually go down with it. The same for the USA, for it has also crossed over the line into corporate-capitalism/socialism/fascism, it will go down also. Fasten your seat-belt, it’s going to be a bumpy ride sometime in the not too distant future.

Furthermore, you again emphasize the human imperfection. This means (to a certain extent) humans have to be controlled. You cannot argue with this: take away the police force, there will be rioting, take away the borders, people will move in/out.

Businesses have to be regulated to make sure they don’t exploit their workers, as well as consumers. They are prone to, because bosses are greedy. Unions have to exist to protect the workers, because without them they would be at the mercy of their employer. Employers have often been merciless in the past.

Furthermore, you cannot entrust the social security of the worse-off to charitable whims. There are plenty of people who would rather not pay taxes, but have to nonetheless. Without revenue the government would be able to set up homeless shelters, or rehabilitation programmes for alcoholics. In the UK there is a National Health Service (NHS) to which 2/3 of the total revenue goes towards. Yet not everyone goes to hospital each year; they are thus paying taxes to help the people who DO go to hospital that year.

And with those 60 million people giving their money to a good cause involuntarily, the UK would be as good as a third world state.

This forced “charity” both corrupts and becomes corrupt. In the societies where individuals have basic inalienable rights above the “common good,” they can choose to be selfish and greedy, and many do, but the can also choose to do good and give freely, which many do – And to the causes THEY, not not the state, believe in!

The world is imperfect and people are imperfect, by trying to perfect society beyond a certain point you will destroy it for the “perfectors” are themselves imperfect and thus do not know what perfections is to impose it. This has happened every time it was tried. There must be basic laws against murder, stealing, etc. to protect life and property but by trying to force “goodness” and “charity” on society you will destroy it. That is what socialism and communism dream to do. Even if it is well intended the gravitation of collective societies over time will tend to totalitarianism, for the consolidation of power to do “good” will become corrupt and turn into a destructive force.

It is exactly this susceptibility, and the near-impossibility of creating a single world government, which makes me socialist. Democratic socialist. This goes further than social libertarianism, which simply exists to STOP authoritarianism. It doesn’t go as far as Communism, which seeks to overhaul the current system altogether, and start anew.

What you fail to notice is that socialism and social libertarianism aren’t a threat. Social democratic parties across the globe exist to help their fellow man, not to implement another dictatorship. Although you have observed, quite correctly, that man is flawed, you failed to notice the amazing aptitude a human has for his fellow humans. Have you ever given to charity? I’m sure you have. Do you ever feel glad about doing so, knowing that you’ve given something -for nothing- to help someone less fortunate than yourself? Of course. This is what socialism -and Communism- is all about. When socialists and Communists fail to see this, they STOP being socialists and Communists.

First we must agree on a definition of fascism and the way it is used. In this case the it is used in the context of the Roman fasces – a collective society strictly controlled by an powerful authoritarian. Both Rightist and Leftist become fascist to the degree that they force adherence of their ideology on others. Many of us to the left or right fall somewhere in between but there are extremes in either direction.

Communism and fascism are both forms of collectivism, they have their nuances which make them appear different but they are at the root driven by the same natural impulses. All extremism is driven by the same natural impulses even if they appear to be diametrically opposed to each other.

The Catholic Church in the Inquisition, militant Islam today, movements in communism and fascism that killed millions – What they all have in common is they were driven by the same natural impulses but manifested themselves in different forms due to their unique cultural and social influences. Our nature is very basic and it is in us. We make choices but when we chose certain impulses they are going to drive us all to do the same things in our own unique ways which may even appear to be opposites – At the core however, is the same innate force.

This is not a right or left thing, I primarily write about the left because it has overwhelmed western culture. I see some of the same impulses in radical Islam which I would consider extreme right – same impulses but a different manifestation.

It is like a disease which creates different reactions in different people so that it is not always recognizable from the symptoms.

To understand some of this better read Eric Hoffer’s book True Believer: Thoughts on The Nature of Mass Movements

Also here are a couple of other links that answer some of your other points:

Fascism And Socialism Explained

Fascism Reconsidered

My first doubt was your assumption, outlined primarily in the third and fourth paragraphs, that liberal progressives are fascist. Nothing could be further from the truth; social liberalism implies freedom -freedom from authoritarianism (or fascism).

You go on to make the point that Communists and Nazis are from the same ‘beast’, and many millions have died at the hand of both. However, you fail to notice that social liberalism is NOT the same as Communism; Communism emphasises economic change for the benefit of the working classes, liberalism has no such desire.

A few parapgraphs on and you make the vital link between Communism and Nazism/fascism, explaining how Mussolini was originally a socialist, and how Hitler stated that ‘National Socialism is Marxism made workable’. In fact, National Socialism is nothing like Marxism. It never cared for the workers, pushing wages down and dismantling the unions. Mussolini, on the other hand, gave up on socialism because of his national pride.

I was, however, appalled to read that ‘humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights’ groups are ‘disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy’. Civil Rights activists are protesting against authoritarianism which impedes human rights, while the idea that homosexuals are about to rise up and take control is, in fact, about as plausible as Hitler’s theory that the Jews were trying to take control of the world.

You then describe liberals as being ‘intellectual elitists’ and, rather too bitterly to my mind, a ‘nihilistic religion of narcissism whose chief fruit of the spirit is arrogance’. Is it not right, then, to cherish knowledge and wisdom? You also describe how liberals belittle anyone who does not think likewise; social liberals, socialists and Communists believe that education is extremely important. In fact, I have seen much belittling and hysterical propaganda directed at and against at the Democrat Party in America by the conservative end of the political spectrum.

The ideology of Communism, as stated before, is to make the workers more aware of their position in society, and are not thus trying to rule over the ignorant lower-classes.

I would also like to point out that H.G. Wells is not the founding father of socialism.

This rather upsets your view that all social liberals, socialists and Communists want a world government -I am a socialist, and I do not. George Orwell was a socialist, and neither did he. I know many like minded-people who wish for no such thing.

Following this is the point that Communism can’t embrace diversity because diversity divides, yet since there is no desire for a homogenuous society in any case, this has never really been an issue. At the point where a socialist impresses his or her own views on other people, and becomes intolerant of other cultures, he or she stops being a socialist. This is certainly true of Soviet Russia, which is now no longer seen as socialist, or even Communist (it is generally classified as authoritarian and state-capitalist, just like Nazi Germany).

Your most valuable and valid point follows directly on from that: that the left-wing (you failed to specify a particular group) aims to control the means of production, media and education to institute an authoritarian state answerable to no one. However, social liberals and socialists do not want to control all of society. The latter, however, do want government regulation over most of these to ensure that capitalism does not corrupt them. Communism has more solidified intentions (to control the lot) and can use this power inappropriately (like Soviet Russia). However, at this point the government is no longer Communist; it is ‘National Bolshevist’, as one critic termed it.

You then come to the conclusion that ‘modern liberalism’, meaning social liberalism, is intolerant. This is not so: it preaches tolerance, multiculturalism and diversity. Capitalists are seen as misguided, and high-earners who are philanthropical are usually accepted as decent, moral people. Only those who KNOW hey are doing wrong, KNOW they are exploiting people for their own benefit are considered ‘evil’.

But by far the most offending argument is the idea that fascism has morphed into a more ‘effeminate’ and palpable movement, which rejects the military. The only evidence you give is the fact that Mussolini draft-dodged, and that H.G. Wells despised the military. Adolf Hitler was IN the Second World war, and Mussolini had no qualms about sending his military into Abyssinnia, Spain and Albania before taking part in the Second World War. The very desire to escape the military-authoritarian doctrines of the past is what spurred social liberalism in the first place; it is the direct opposite of fascism. Just two people doesn’t count as a trend, in any case. It is not evidence.

Your observation, also, that the multicultural cancer-like liberal ideal will impose a “final solution” is the most flimsy part of your article, which has never been attributed to any social liberal government or theory. It was popularised by the Nazis, who weren’t social liberals, and it was executed –quite literally- by the state capitalist Russian government for the best part of the 20th Century, who weren’t social liberals, either.

Your H.G. Wells quote is the final piece of ‘evidence’ which is supposed to represent the last nail in the coffin lid, but look at the provenance: it was written in 1939. The rise of Nazism was generally soon to be a dangerous reactionary revolution, with a thumb in every pie: in Germany, Spain, Italy and certain conservative circles in Britain. Yet the Germans saw it, in the thirties, to be a forward-looking, well-meaning movement; it was the opposite. Wells was not alone in fearing Nazism.

All this, however, does not detract from what is, essentially, a well structured, worded and phrased article. I admire your ability to write so fluently. But the glaring inaccuracies, whims and strange notions of world politics are both offensive and erroneous.

I await your reply,

Archaix.