Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: communism, capitalism, fascism

  1. #1 communism, capitalism, fascism 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2
    i'm writing a paper for an intro political science course and the essay topic is "how do ideologies like communism, capitalism, and fascism affect politics?"
    i'm looking for a bit of guidence. i don't know much about politics and i just don't really know how to get it started.
    any help is really appreciated!!!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I would start by noting that the difference between ideology and politic is like the difference between theory and practice. One is not exclusively caused by the other. For examples: Canadian socialism did not come from ideology, rather we just kinda found ourselves in it, after centuries of politically expedient decisions. Likewise the fascist reality Germans found themselves living, came more from unfortunate chain of political conditions than ideological ideal. And I'll bet that to survive the capitalist system you find yourself in, you'd better learn to appreciate it i.e. learn to think like a capitalist.

    Well okay, I personally think the assigned topic begs the question. And I guess that most who launch their essays off it will be straining to support the faulty premise. I dunno if my insight helps your motivation in this course or your grades. On the bright side, you'll find a virtual industry supporting the pretencion that ideologues significantly affect political reality.


    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2
    that helped so much thanks pong! it definitly gave me some ideas for my intro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I would concentrate on how ideology acts as a linchpin to organize people around. Often a political party's personal ideology is more readily identifiable. Likewise, there are some clear examples of how Liberalism has shaped politics in Liberal Democracies of the West. Just like Fascist ideas shaped the Nazi regime, note that Hitler was readily aware of Mussolini's Fascist philosophy and was readily copying and modifying aspects of it.

    Although, one thing that troubles me about the question is that Communism and Capitalism are economic ideologies while Fascism is more directly a political ideology. The economic ideology of Fascism was State Corporatism. Just like the political ideological base of Communism is Marxist-Leninism and the political ideology at the base of Capitalism is Liberalism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The #1 goal of any good government is to maintain and improve the economy. An economic failure is the most likely reason they'll get voted out. The way we organize our economy directly relates to how our laws will be structured. Law making is the most important way to get a good economic result.

    In a capitalist society, the laws will most likely tend to focus on fair play. It's like making rules for a sport like football. With no rules, the game would totally suck, and nobody would want to play it. With too many rules it sucks also. You start with the understanding that people want to win the game, and then focus on making sure that they don't try to win in ways that are harmful.


    In a communist society, you want people not to play the game at all. You're trying to convince them to work as hard as possible without incentive, or only using incentives that are allowed within your ideology. But, people are not supposed to try and win. They're supposed to be happy with what they have, and try to contribute to the community. If they compete with each other at all, it might be like how soldiers compete with each other during practice excercises in the US military. They're competing for honor, not any specific material rewards. For that to work, you need a very strong sense of ideology, so everyone considers the same honors to have the same value. They need to all agree about what is praiseworthy behavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: communism, capitalism, fascism 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by jjl034
    i'm writing a paper for an intro political science course and the essay topic is "how do ideologies like communism, capitalism, and fascism affect politics?"
    i'm looking for a bit of guidence. i don't know much about politics and i just don't really know how to get it started.
    any help is really appreciated!!!
    I would start with noting that communism and fascism are totalitarian ideologies. They start with an ideal outcome in mind; for communism it's universal equality; for fascism it might be a master race of blond aryans dominating the world. They have specific goals and everything must be subjected to the achievement of those goals. They can be ruthless, undemocratic and bloody and can justify it all in the name of the ultimate goal.

    Capitalism is fundamentally different in that it has no defined goal and no one can predict what kind of future world it will create. It allows human creativity to explore, and succeed or fail. It is like science in that it is empirical. The totalitarian ideologies, on the other hand, believe they know what the result will be so experimentation is unnecessary and is suppressed, or if allowed, it is directed to prove preexisitng beliefs and when the scientist proves that belief to be wrong he is sent ot the gulag; communism and fascism cannot therefore learn from their mistakes and are doomed to fail ultimately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    I would focus the essay on the cold war and American and Russian influence on each others party's by infiltration. Its a good topic and has tons of things to pick through.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: communism, capitalism, fascism 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Capitalism is fundamentally different in that it has no defined goal and no one can predict what kind of future world it will create. It allows human creativity to explore, and succeed or fail. It is like science in that it is empirical. The totalitarian ideologies, on the other hand, believe they know what the result will be so experimentation is unnecessary and is suppressed, or if allowed, it is directed to prove preexisitng beliefs and when the scientist proves that belief to be wrong he is sent ot the gulag; communism and fascism cannot therefore learn from their mistakes and are doomed to fail ultimately.
    While Communism quite often takes this form, I'm not sure that it has to take this form. At least socialism doesn't have to. Socialism is just the belief that the economy will run more smoothly of the people allow the government to run their life. It doesn't suggest any particular plan for the state to follow once it is in control. Certainly some plans that the state might propose are going to work better than others. Ideally, the state would be continually refining and improving its plan.

    Capitalism's main goal is basically the same as Communism's main goal: maximize economic output. The difference is that capitalism also considers it important to reward people more if they work harder and/or produce more, while Communism prefers to reward everyone the same regardless of accomplishment. Both of them often fail in their goal. Often capitalism will reward a lazy or unproductive person better than a more productive person (or sometimes rewards a person who's impact has been wholly destructive, as we've seen happening in Wall Street lately.) Communism often breaks down when the leaders of a country begin giving themselves privileges or wealth that is not available to the people at the bottom of the system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: communism, capitalism, fascism 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    While Communism quite often takes this form, I'm not sure that it has to take this form. At least socialism doesn't have to.
    You can't have just a little bit of communism. The communist goal is a classless society without individual property rights. Socialism is a vague term and you can cherry pick bits and pieces of scoialism just as we do in free countries. If the bits we pick don't work we throw them out and try something else. Communists just keep on keeping on till the whole thing falls apart, after thousands have starved or been murdered by the state.

    Socialism is just the belief that the economy will run more smoothly of the people allow the government to run their life. It doesn't suggest any particular plan for the state to follow once it is in control. Certainly some plans that the state might propose are going to work better than others. Ideally, the state would be continually refining and improving its plan.
    As mentioned, socialism is not necessarily communism, and the OP was about communism. So you are wandering off topic.

    Capitalism's main goal is basically the same as Communism's main goal: maximize economic output.
    I disagree. Capitalism is the principle of property ownership and trade for profit. There is no overall goal.

    The difference is that capitalism also considers it important to reward people more if they work harder and/or produce more, while Communism prefers to reward everyone the same regardless of accomplishment. Both of them often fail in their goal.
    When capitalism fails it treats failure as a lesson and acts differently next time. When communism fails it kills the people involved and does the same thing over again.

    Often capitalism will reward a lazy or unproductive person better than a more productive person (or sometimes rewards a person who's impact has been wholly destructive, as we've seen happening in Wall Street lately.)
    Capitalism, to put it bluntly, is based on greed. It requires regulation, and regulations have to be enforced. Despite the abuses, capitalism, regulated, has been able to feed its populations, improve their health and produce happiness far in excess of what any communist regime has ever done.

    Communism often breaks down when the leaders of a country begin giving themselves privileges or wealth that is not available to the people at the bottom of the system.
    Communism breaks down beacuse without property rights no one is motivated to work for "the state".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: communism, capitalism, fascism 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    While Communism quite often takes this form, I'm not sure that it has to take this form. At least socialism doesn't have to.
    You can't have just a little bit of communism. The communist goal is a classless society without individual property rights. Socialism is a vague term and you can cherry pick bits and pieces of scoialism just as we do in free countries. If the bits we pick don't work we throw them out and try something else. Communists just keep on keeping on till the whole thing falls apart, after thousands have starved or been murdered by the state.
    The communism of China was never identical to the communism of Russia. There's a lot of freedom within the system to change things up or vary your approach, but the need to keep everyone ingrained in the ideology usually prevents the system from being able to adapt itself to changing circumstances, or learn from experience.

    On the other hand, China has managed to soften itself quite a bit over the last few decades without any kind of violent internal revolution. Its version of communism proved much more adaptable than Russia's.

    Capitalism's main goal is basically the same as Communism's main goal: maximize economic output.
    I disagree. Capitalism is the principle of property ownership and trade for profit. There is no overall goal.
    You're kidding, right? The goal of all economic models is prosperity. Whether it's the primary goal or not may be debatable, but it's certainly high on the list of objectives.


    The difference is that capitalism also considers it important to reward people more if they work harder and/or produce more, while Communism prefers to reward everyone the same regardless of accomplishment. Both of them often fail in their goal.
    When capitalism fails it treats failure as a lesson and acts differently next time. When communism fails it kills the people involved and does the same thing over again.
    Nobody has yet attempted to repeat Pol Pot's version of communism in Cambodia.

    The USSR was constantly trying to adapt to the failings of previous years, or improve its output. There was no second decimation of the Ukrainian farmers. There was no second attempt to take Afghanistan. There was no second Chernobyl (though admittedly we have no way to know whether there would have been, since it was so late in history.)


    Often capitalism will reward a lazy or unproductive person better than a more productive person (or sometimes rewards a person who's impact has been wholly destructive, as we've seen happening in Wall Street lately.)
    Capitalism, to put it bluntly, is based on greed. It requires regulation, and regulations have to be enforced. Despite the abuses, capitalism, regulated, has been able to feed its populations, improve their health and produce happiness far in excess of what any communist regime has ever done.
    It's not supposed to be based on greed. It's supposed to be based on competition. It's sort of like how a professional basketball team is not supposed to try to win by cheating. Many do attempt this, but ideally every basketball team would endeavor to win by way of being a better player.

    A true capitalist wants to deserve the money they make, by being more productive or contributing more to the economy. The goal of deserving wealth matters more than the goal of actually obtaining it. .....but of course these kinds of ethics have been declining lately....



    Communism often breaks down when the leaders of a country begin giving themselves privileges or wealth that is not available to the people at the bottom of the system.
    Communism breaks down beacuse without property rights no one is motivated to work for "the state".
    Yeah. That is true too. I have to admit you're right that it's probably the stronger cause of the two. The only way to get around property rights is to award prestige or honor on people who accomplish great things, and that's very hard to do on a large scale. On the tribal scale, it would be easier. It's quite unfortunate that people keep trying to apply it to a national scale instead.

    The US military manages to do communism pretty well somehow. I mean, in all honesty, there's very little difference between living in the military and living in a communist system. You have a fixed rate of pay, no privilege to take economic initiative if you want more, and most of your basic needs are provided for you. The question is whether a system run like the US military would be capable of running an economy. I don't know. . Probably it is not efficient enough in terms of utilization of resources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    You're kidding, right? The goal of all economic models is prosperity. Whether it's the primary goal or not may be debatable, but it's certainly high on the list of objectives.
    No Iím not kidding. The goals of capitalism are individual and corporate, not national, which is what I mean by no overall goals. The liberal democratic governments of western countries and some others encourage capitalism, while regulating and taxing it, because it has been shown empirically and analytically that capitalism can increase the wealth of nations. But it is the goal of the liberal democratic governments, not of capitalism, to increase the general wealth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    You're kidding, right? The goal of all economic models is prosperity. Whether it's the primary goal or not may be debatable, but it's certainly high on the list of objectives.
    No Iím not kidding. The goals of capitalism are individual and corporate, not national, which is what I mean by no overall goals. The liberal democratic governments of western countries and some others encourage capitalism, while regulating and taxing it, because it has been shown empirically and analytically that capitalism can increase the wealth of nations. But it is the goal of the liberal democratic governments, not of capitalism, to increase the general wealth.

    your my new best friend lol
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Regarding capitalism, I thought that, before Charles Darwin borrowed the phrase "survival of the fittest" and applied it to evolution, Herbert Spencer had coined it to describe a consequence of the economy under the laissez-faire doctrine. I think that "laissez-faire" and "survival of the fittest" aptly describe the spectrum of capitalism from individuals to corporations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    You're kidding, right? The goal of all economic models is prosperity. Whether it's the primary goal or not may be debatable, but it's certainly high on the list of objectives.
    No Iím not kidding. The goals of capitalism are individual and corporate, not national, which is what I mean by no overall goals. The liberal democratic governments of western countries and some others encourage capitalism, while regulating and taxing it, because it has been shown empirically and analytically that capitalism can increase the wealth of nations. But it is the goal of the liberal democratic governments, not of capitalism, to increase the general wealth.

    your my new best friend lol
    Then as a friend I respectfully ask you to go and learn something about climate change because from what I've read from you so far it appears that you have formed an opinion based on ignorance of the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    wow that is not very friendly of you.

    But i refuse. I think everyone is ignorant on that subject whatever it is there side is on the issue i dont think i saw one neutral post in that whole subject.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    wow that is not very friendly of you..
    1. Issues as important as global warming have bugger all to do with friendship.
    2. There is absolutely nothing unfriendly about Bunbury's post. Quite the reverse: he is offering you positive advice based upon an objective reading of the situation, qualified ('it appears') by the possibility he may be mistaken. How much more friendly can he be without getting arrested for sexual assault?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    There is absolutely nothing unfriendly about Bunbury's post. Quite the reverse: he is offering you positive advice based upon an objective reading of the situation, qualified ('it appears') by the possibility he may be mistaken. How much more friendly can he be without getting arrested for sexual assault?
    Pure gold. I love you, man. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Well there is a limit...


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    wow that is not very friendly of you.

    But i refuse. I think everyone is ignorant on that subject whatever it is there side is on the issue i dont think i saw one neutral post in that whole subject.
    You refuse to become informed? You are wrong in thinking everyone is ignorant. There is at least a handfull on this site who are very well informed. What does neutral mean in the context of a scientific discussion? "Well F might equal ma but I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •