[Redpill] Yes it's completely related as I condensed in the short-version above.
You can freely do lots of homework, you'll find that not only do they all sprout from the same seed(s); but you'll see how they branched into their various flavors based upon the "leader" whom took Marxism back to their country to take power, adapted it and changed it to suit them and their specific culture in a way to achieve power (and commit mass murder over and over again).
Nearly all these leaders, all travelled to the teachings of Marx (and company) in Paris & Berlin. This includes the leaders 100 years ago, of these factions in a great many countries including: Iran, Turkey, Denmark, not just the big ones like Italy, Germany, China, Russia, as well as the "party/faction" leaders in the USA.
Many people want to debate in cafes and salons, as they did 120 years ago; about the differences between what we now today call Socialism, Fascism, Communism; in how the various levers of gov power in various means/mechanisms to achieve Marx (and company) philosophies. But you can boil it all down to, Marx preaches evil, violating the 10 Commandments, and to achieve his goals-- requires the inverting of law. Which is why lefties invert word definitions as a tool/strategy. This inverting of law, means the government has the power to impose it's will upon the individual, and this has NO natural limit.
The only "limit" is the ones put in by the (Mass murdering) leaders and the cultural society norms of the country/place it's installed in the (mass murdering) leader's path to power. So yes the various leaders had very real differences with each other, and yes it can seem like they aren't related because of these differences; but those differences are not from within the evil preachings of Marx (and company).
It would be like if Marx created a philosphy to kill all animals on earth so everyone would be a vegitarian; and then various (mass murdering) accolites argue about the methods and rate of extinting the animals... MAO might argue to start with domesticated farm animals first; Adolf might argue to start with untrainable animals first; Castro might argue to start with wild animals first; Maduro/Socialists might argue to ban housepets first or eat zoo animals first.
There is many first hand writings, and some ol' movies too where many of these "successful" Marxists of all 3 stripes explain how and where they differ with each other, on where they draw the line between taking/controlling the means of production etc. Just as an example, Adolf and Germany, it wasn't until the defeat at Stalingrad, with an Army group captured (a yuuge amount troops) that in a famous speech did they appeal for full economic mobilization (like Stalin, Churchill, FDR had done)... simply because from a domestic policital point of view, Germany couldn't impose full mobilization upon their population, as they wouldn't stand for it, they would have been overthrown.
So in each and every example on the Marx spectrum, leaders push to the limit that they can within their country--So this includes the "milder" "socialism" parties even to this day, like the leftie Party in Denmark or the "socialists" in the USA today whom want to Nationalize healthcare and other sectors of the economy, vs the facists whom want even more control such as banning: plastic, fracking, foie gras, etc. vs the full-commies whom like are passing laws daily in CA State legislature/EO banning gas cars, banning self-employment, banning riffles/ammo/weapons, arresting and detaining people without warrant, mandatory solar roofs, siesing PG&E and other utilities, banning dams/powerplants, banning timber so it burns, etc.
Fascism believes the people exist to serve the state, right? That it all revolves around preserving the state. In contrast, Communism is about abolishing the state and ushering in a classless society. I understand the differences but I find it ironic that pursuit of the latter has inevitably lead to the former. In which the people’s rights are suspended to preserve whatever regime is in power. Thus, I find it funny that two plans for society inevitably end up right next to each other.
Communism, inevitably leads to fascism as that level of control is necessary to usher in their ideal society. Ironically, they all get stuck in the muck and mire because humans don’t cope with oppression well.
Libre South China Sea
Marxism is evil ln all its forms:
Marxism (light) = Socialsim; Marxism (medium) = Fascism; Marxism (heavy) = Communism.
Marxism promotes at least 3 violations of the 10 Commandments. Including Theft, Coveting, and Killing/murder.
Fascism sprouts from Marx and Engles.
It's socialism all the same.
[Redpill] Yes it's completely related as I condensed in the short-version above.
You can freely do lots of homework, you'll find that not only do they all sprout from the same seed(s); but you'll see how they branched into their various flavors based upon the "leader" whom took Marxism back to their country to take power, adapted it and changed it to suit them and their specific culture in a way to achieve power (and commit mass murder over and over again).
Nearly all these leaders, all travelled to the teachings of Marx (and company) in Paris & Berlin. This includes the leaders 100 years ago, of these factions in a great many countries including: Iran, Turkey, Denmark, not just the big ones like Italy, Germany, China, Russia, as well as the "party/faction" leaders in the USA.
Many people want to debate in cafes and salons, as they did 120 years ago; about the differences between what we now today call Socialism, Fascism, Communism; in how the various levers of gov power in various means/mechanisms to achieve Marx (and company) philosophies. But you can boil it all down to, Marx preaches evil, violating the 10 Commandments, and to achieve his goals-- requires the inverting of law. Which is why lefties invert word definitions as a tool/strategy. This inverting of law, means the government has the power to impose it's will upon the individual, and this has NO natural limit.
The only "limit" is the ones put in by the (Mass murdering) leaders and the cultural society norms of the country/place it's installed in the (mass murdering) leader's path to power. So yes the various leaders had very real differences with each other, and yes it can seem like they aren't related because of these differences; but those differences are not from within the evil preachings of Marx (and company).
It would be like if Marx created a philosphy to kill all animals on earth so everyone would be a vegitarian; and then various (mass murdering) accolites argue about the methods and rate of extinting the animals... MAO might argue to start with domesticated farm animals first; Adolf might argue to start with untrainable animals first; Castro might argue to start with wild animals first; Maduro/Socialists might argue to ban housepets first or eat zoo animals first.
There is many first hand writings, and some ol' movies too where many of these "successful" Marxists of all 3 stripes explain how and where they differ with each other, on where they draw the line between taking/controlling the means of production etc. Just as an example, Adolf and Germany, it wasn't until the defeat at Stalingrad, with an Army group captured (a yuuge amount troops) that in a famous speech did they appeal for full economic mobilization (like Stalin, Churchill, FDR had done)... simply because from a domestic policital point of view, Germany couldn't impose full mobilization upon their population, as they wouldn't stand for it, they would have been overthrown.
So in each and every example on the Marx spectrum, leaders push to the limit that they can within their country--So this includes the "milder" "socialism" parties even to this day, like the leftie Party in Denmark or the "socialists" in the USA today whom want to Nationalize healthcare and other sectors of the economy, vs the facists whom want even more control such as banning: plastic, fracking, foie gras, etc. vs the full-commies whom like are passing laws daily in CA State legislature/EO banning gas cars, banning self-employment, banning riffles/ammo/weapons, arresting and detaining people without warrant, mandatory solar roofs, siesing PG&E and other utilities, banning dams/powerplants, banning timber so it burns, etc.
Marxism is evil ln all its forms:
Marxism (light) = Socialsim; Marxism (medium) = Fascism; Marxism (heavy) = Communism.
MAGA On!
Giovanni Gentile
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/phil-gentile.htm
It’s funny how all Communist nations degrade, quickly too, into fascists states but the two are not connecting in any way?
Fascism believes the people exist to serve the state, right? That it all revolves around preserving the state. In contrast, Communism is about abolishing the state and ushering in a classless society. I understand the differences but I find it ironic that pursuit of the latter has inevitably lead to the former. In which the people’s rights are suspended to preserve whatever regime is in power. Thus, I find it funny that two plans for society inevitably end up right next to each other.
Communism, inevitably leads to fascism as that level of control is necessary to usher in their ideal society. Ironically, they all get stuck in the muck and mire because humans don’t cope with oppression well.