NationStates Jolt Archive

I have always been struck about the similarities between the two, but with the recent influx of fascists on this site, no one has mentioned it. I've decided that I must.
First off, I want to explain that the systems have two different goals. Communism seeks the redistribution of wealth among all, while fascism seeks the advanced prestige of their nation or race. But the two try the same means for different ends.
The similarities begin during WWI. Fascism has obvious roots to Germany, as it essentially flourished there. The economic liberalization and democratization left quite a few people angry. Hitler and the Nazi regime sought to restore what was lost in the Treaty of Versailles. What was lost was the inspiration for Lenin's Soviet economy. He admired the way that German factories and farms were under direct control of the state in WWI, and sought to apply that system in Russia.
The rest of the similarities should be obvious. Both became the most totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen. Both became dictatorships (there's an important difference). Both controlled many sectors of the economy. And both had the same attitude towards religion, that it was an opiate of the masses.
The main difference is who the scapegoat is. In fascist Italy and Germany, it was the racially inferior, especially the Jews. In Soviet Russia, it was the capitalists and the kulaks. However, I find that the differences seem to end there.

Facism started in Italy, not Germany.
The Jews weren't hardly as much of a scapegoat in Italy as they were in Germany.
Anti-semetism and racism have nothing to do with Facism--everything to do with Nazism.

Soviet Russia denounced religion.
Nazism essentially is a religion as it believes that the Germanic people are the results of humans mating with gods (from Norse mythology).


Communism and Soviet Russia aren't the same thing.

Facism didn't exist in Germany in WWI.

By making this post you prove your own ignorance to what fascism is (and possibly what communism is, although you didn't say enough about it for me to judge that)

First off, communism does not require an authoritarian ruler(s)

Secondly, Fascism allows for a free market economy

Fascism gives a reason (national pride) to override selfishness, communism simply assumes everyone won't be selfish

There's many more, but this is the biggest one and I don't feel like making a huge list, NAZIS AND FASCISTS ARE NOT THE SAME THING. I can't believe how many people still think they are.

Facism didn't exist in Germany in WWI.
...but there must have been some sense of superiority inherited from the Prussians.

One of the main differences between these two systems is private enterprise. Even if it's just private in name, after all, factories had to build war material for the Reich.

He admired the way that German factories and farms were under direct control of the state in WWI.
Well, it was war. What do you expect? And Germany wasn't facist in WW1.

Genuine communism is virtually the complete opposite of fascism. Fascism is authoritarian capitalism with strong nationalism. Communism is opposed to all social classes, markets, or money, and favors international coöperation of workers. They couldn't be any more different.

You seem to have confused Stalinism with communism, which really aren't similar in any way. Stalinism is a corrupted form of Leninism, which is in turn a form of Marxism adapted for the conditions of Russia. Marxism was a theory that advocated communism by first passing through a socialist dictatorship.

...but there must have been some sense of superiority inherited from the Prussians.
Not more, or less, then in any other country in those days.

Wow! I agree with Letila on something!

Haha anyways, yeah, what he/she said (sorry, I don't know?).

Oh Letila sorry for not responding to the fascism thing, I haven't checked NS until now, and I'm too lazy to dig it up. If there was anything you want answered, you can telegram me or something like that.

I sent you a TG on fascism, LordaeronII.

Genuine communism is virtually the complete opposite of fascism. Fascism is authoritarian capitalism with strong nationalism. Communism is opposed to all social classes, markets, or money, and favors international coöperation of workers. They couldn't be any more different.

Hang on, loads of fascists keep banging on about "the third way" which is, essentially a pussy version of communist economics. Theyre authoritarians but not all of them are right wing

Hang on, loads of fascists keep banging on about "the third way" which is, essentially a pussy version of communist economics. Theyre authoritarians but not all of them are right wing
Facism in Germany (which is what is being talked abou on this thread) was.

Anyway, anyone else find it funny that Purly Euclid hasn't come back?

Anyway, anyone else find it funny that Purly Euclid hasn't come back?
Not realy. He´ll be back some enough.

I have always been struck about the similarities between the two, but with the recent influx of fascists on this site, no one has mentioned it. I've decided that I must.
First off, I want to explain that the systems have two different goals. Communism seeks the redistribution of wealth among all, while fascism seeks the advanced prestige of their nation or race. But the two try the same means for different ends.
The similarities begin during WWI. Fascism has obvious roots to Germany, as it essentially flourished there. The economic liberalization and democratization left quite a few people angry. Hitler and the Nazi regime sought to restore what was lost in the Treaty of Versailles. What was lost was the inspiration for Lenin's Soviet economy. He admired the way that German factories and farms were under direct control of the state in WWI, and sought to apply that system in Russia.
The rest of the similarities should be obvious. Both became the most totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen. Both became dictatorships (there's an important difference). Both controlled many sectors of the economy. And both had the same attitude towards religion, that it was an opiate of the masses.
The main difference is who the scapegoat is. In fascist Italy and Germany, it was the racially inferior, especially the Jews. In Soviet Russia, it was the capitalists and the kulaks. However, I find that the differences seem to end there.
You CANNOT compare Communism and Facism on a historical basis becasue Communism has NEVER existed. It was sought after but never acheived, it didn't become, it was a dictatorship to begin with.

In theory the two are completely different, there is no corrolation between the two. Communism is working hard because you want to, not because you are being forced to. Communism has no government, everything is owned by everyone; Facism is everything is owned by the government.

The only similarity I see is that both use extreme government control over society and economy, usually through a large bureaucracy. (Granted, communism doesn't require extreme government control, but when communism is applied to countries, there is usually a bureaucracy that controls the sharing of production and consumption. And I think "applied communism" is an oxymoron, but that's another thread....) Also, fascism doesn't isn't as anti-religion as communism. Christianity was a very big part of Nazism.

Differences:
Communism emphasizes shared production and consumption, while fascism doesn't necessarily have to. Fascism emphasizes nationalism and a strong military instead--which isn't necessarily a major component of communism. Fascism also focuses on an efficient economy, whereas communism assumes the economy will be efficient enough...

In practice, they're similar just because both use authoritarian dictatorships. But actually they're on completely different levels. Communism is more of an economic theory and fascism is military culture applied as a political theory.

NAZIS AND FASCISTS ARE NOT THE SAME THING. I can't believe how many people still think they are.

Read, for example, The Russian Face of Germany (London: Wishart, 1932) by Cecil F. Melville and Out of the Night (New York: Alliance, 1944) by Jan Valtin

Stalinism is a corrupted form of Leninism, Stalinism is not a corrupted form of Leninism, it's a natural progression from Lenin's authortarian politics.which is in turn a form of Marxism adapted for the conditions of Russia.Leninism is not a form of Marxism, Lenin broke with Marx on all significant points. It's as accurate as me saying Pol Pot was a primitivist.was a theory that advocated communism by first passing through a socialist dictatorship. You misunderstand Marxes conception of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It was a poor choice of words, but if you read his work on the Paris Commune, you'll see that he by it he means that the proletariat will have absolute control, not through tolitarian means, but simply as the majority class in society.

Christianity was a very big part of Nazism.

Than why did Hitler say, "One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. The religions are all the same, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future- certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the church. So shall I. Why not? That won't be prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch- and annihilating it in Germany."

Quoted in Therefore, Stand.

You misunderstand Marxes conception of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It was a poor choice of words, but if you read his work on the Paris Commune, you'll see that he by it he means that the proletariat will have absolute control, not through tolitarian means, but simply as the majority class in society.

I don't believe that any class should have control. I don't really view classes as anything but categories. I don't hold the collectivist view that they have wills and are greater than the individual.

I have always been struck about the similarities between the two, but with the recent influx of fascists on this site, no one has mentioned it. I've decided that I must.
First off, I want to explain that the systems have two different goals. Communism seeks the redistribution of wealth among all, while fascism seeks the advanced prestige of their nation or race. But the two try the same means for different ends.
The similarities begin during WWI. Fascism has obvious roots to Germany, as it essentially flourished there. The economic liberalization and democratization left quite a few people angry. Hitler and the Nazi regime sought to restore what was lost in the Treaty of Versailles. What was lost was the inspiration for Lenin's Soviet economy. He admired the way that German factories and farms were under direct control of the state in WWI, and sought to apply that system in Russia.
The rest of the similarities should be obvious. Both became the most totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen. Both became dictatorships (there's an important difference). Both controlled many sectors of the economy. And both had the same attitude towards religion, that it was an opiate of the masses.
The main difference is who the scapegoat is. In fascist Italy and Germany, it was the racially inferior, especially the Jews. In Soviet Russia, it was the capitalists and the kulaks. However, I find that the differences seem to end there.



See what watching the WWII documentaries on the "History" channel will do to you? :headbang:

Well well, I have to disagree with the topic. First, Communism was the Marxist utopia, a society where everyone did what they could and were given what they needed. There were to be no different classes in society, just the proletariat. Fascism, in turn, trumpets the superiority of a single ethnic group, like the Germans and it considered the people form other countries to be inherently inferior sub-humans. In the ideal communist state, which, as pointed out before, has never existed, there would be no dictetors and there would be no need to fight wars. Since there would only be workers, they wwoudl have no reason to fight each other. Fascism, on the other hand, is a very warlike ideology and it implies that the super-race had the right, if not obligation, to take whatever it needs by force. For these reason I do not think that Fascism and Communism are at all like each other.

Facism started in Italy, not Germany.
The Jews weren't hardly as much of a scapegoat in Italy as they were in Germany.
Anti-semetism and racism have nothing to do with Facism--everything to do with Nazism.
Still, fascism got a tremendous boost once it went to Germany. It got onto the idealogical map, and converted at least Spain, Portugal, and millions across Europe to the idea. Besides, Hitler perfected fascism. Mussolini preffered to have only absolute political control, not economic, and certainly not social.

Facism didn't exist in Germany in WWI.
No, it didn't. I was just reffering to the fact that Hitler, as well as others, wanted to use fascism to restore prestige.

Genuine communism is virtually the complete opposite of fascism. Fascism is authoritarian capitalism with strong nationalism. Communism is opposed to all social classes, markets, or money, and favors international coöperation of workers. They couldn't be any more different.

You seem to have confused Stalinism with communism, which really aren't similar in any way. Stalinism is a corrupted form of Leninism, which is in turn a form of Marxism adapted for the conditions of Russia. Marxism was a theory that advocated communism by first passing through a socialist dictatorship.
But it was certainly the farthest left wing of a totalitarian dictatorship that has ever graced the earth. And besides, Stalin worked hard to make most everyone economically equal. That's the real difference from fascism. It tries to do the same thing, only except for their own nation/race. Communism is very inclusive, fascism is exclusive.

Genuine communism is virtually the complete opposite of fascism. Fascism is authoritarian capitalism with strong nationalism. Communism is opposed to all social classes, markets, or money, and favors international coöperation of workers. They couldn't be any more different.

You seem to have confused Stalinism with communism, which really aren't similar in any way. Stalinism is a corrupted form of Leninism, which is in turn a form of Marxism adapted for the conditions of Russia. Marxism was a theory that advocated communism by first passing through a socialist dictatorship.

Exactly. Communism>Fascism and Capitalism (No, I'm not some crazy anarchist who thinks capitalists are fascists)

You CANNOT compare Communism and Facism on a historical basis becasue Communism has NEVER existed. It was sought after but never acheived, it didn't become, it was a dictatorship to begin with.

What we saw in the USSR was communism, but there were two camps by 1917. The first was what you've described. The second was the Lenin theory, adhered to by the Bolsheviks. They believed that Communism was best carried out by a central command structure, and to no one's surprise, Lenin wanted to head it. No, the type of communism you describe is impractical, especially in this age of mass consumption.
Call the Soviet version of communism whatever you want, but there's no denying that it was a centrally planned economy that allowed no room for private property. Fascism wasn't as centralized, but by WWII, the German and Italian government owned a lot of what was once private property. They did, however, make advances much sooner.

GET A LIFE ALL OF U.... comparing fascism and communism is like comparing a meatloaf with a banana :mad:

See what watching the WWII documentaries on the "History" channel will do to you? :headbang:
I didn't get this idea from the History Channel. I'm building this idea out of a thesis I read in a book, The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and the Free Market in the 21st Century by Michael Mandalbaum. He never explicitly linked the two, but he named similarities that were striking (but I alway suspected that they existed). I just went for the gold, and named some things he didn't.
I also wanted to say, for example, that this is why the Soviet-Nazi alliance early in WWII bloomed. The two hated eachother, but they realized that they could easily work together, because in practice, they were nearly identical. Of course, Hitler changed his mind.
In case if it helps you, btw, Dr. Mandalbaum is a senior fellow at the Concil on Foreign Relations :D.

The only similarity I see is that both use extreme government control over society and economy, usually through a large bureaucracy. (Granted, communism doesn't require extreme government control, but when communism is applied to countries, there is usually a bureaucracy that controls the sharing of production and consumption. And I think "applied communism" is an oxymoron, but that's another thread....) Also, fascism doesn't isn't as anti-religion as communism. Christianity was a very big part of Nazism.

Differences:
Communism emphasizes shared production and consumption, while fascism doesn't necessarily have to. Fascism emphasizes nationalism and a strong military instead--which isn't necessarily a major component of communism. Fascism also focuses on an efficient economy, whereas communism assumes the economy will be efficient enough...

In practice, they're similar just because both use authoritarian dictatorships. But actually they're on completely different levels. Communism is more of an economic theory and fascism is military culture applied as a political theory.
However, in practice, Communism developes a military culture. There is plenty of production, as there was in the Soviet Union, but not much consumption. For one, no one could afford it. For another, consumption leads to wealth, and as Lenin and Stalin realized, too much wealth in society, and not enough in the state, can be dangerous. Thus, to sustain the production machine, while placating people, it all goes to a military machine. It's true, for example, that before WWII, Stalin was able to completely modernize the Soviet Army.
Also, fascism needs the use of private property to survive. As it relies on a military, it needs quite a few factories and farms to sustain its machine. Besides, state owned enterprise is needed to effectively create a toltalitarian state, especially in keeping out those they descriminated against.

bump

No more flood of angry replies?

I don't believe that any class should have control.In a system of direct democracy and workers control how will you stop the largest class from dominating the proceedings? I don't really view classes as anything but categories. I don't hold the collectivist view that they have wills and are greater than the individual.Neither do I. They're categories as you say, but they're categories of classes of people that tend to have similar social and economic interests.

No more flood of angry replies?That's because none of us accept your defination of communism so the rest of the argument falls. ;)

The reason you get posts like the first one is actually due to a rather complicated propaganda campaign, based around the idea of 'totalitarianism'

Post WW2, the (capitalist/liberal democratic) west was faced off against (Stalinist) USSR + allies, in what we generally call 'the cold war'. The ideology in power in the USSR, was generally called Communism (no matter how close to or distant from theoretical communism it actually was). This was an ideological battle, between two competing ways of organising society.

This is all set in the context of WW2, people were discovering the worst excesses of the Nazi regime, this was very much in the forefront of peoples minds.

What better way to vilify one's enemy than to put 'communist' regimes in the same category as what was clearly regarded by all right thinking people as a really bad thing? therefore both Fascism and Communism were described under this theoretical category of 'Totalitarianism'.

The roots of the concept of 'totalitarian' comes form around this time, there really wasnt much use of it before then. It's also not a particularly useful category that doesnt really stand up to much examination. It's an essentialist definition that is more of an 'ideal-type' than a description of any particular country.

:rolleyes: Fascism started in ITALY!!! Nazism is not facism, per se, but rather the belief of superiority over other "races" and imposing totalitarian codes upon the "inferior races"

facism= not equal
communism= equal

Communists are deadly enemies of facists
Facists hate communists

:rolleyes: Fascism started in ITALY!!! Nazism is not facism, per se, but rather the belief of superiority over other "races" and imposing totalitarian codes upon the "inferior races"Not per se, but I'd argue that Nazism is certainly a form of fascism- all Nazis are fascists, not all fascists are Nazis.

A lot of people here seem to be confusing communism - the theory developed by Karl Marx - with socialism - a form of government adapted from marx's theory and used in countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, China and the former USSR.

According to Karl Marx's theory, socialism would be the natural progression to capitalism. After years and years of the proletariate (that's the industrial working class) being exploited by the bourgoise (the middle class, those with the money. Bill Gates is an example) would rise up and overthrow the exploitive system.
In doing so, they would take all the wealth (and there in theory would need to be a lot, not just money but also infastructure) and redistribute it equally, with each person doing their job for the same amount of money, and the state running just about everything in order to set up a stable society, all while educating people away from inequality. THIS is socialism in theory, and it would be several hundred years in this stage at a global level before we moved on to communism.

Communism is when the massive state beuracracy becomes more or less obsolete. What you need to know about communism can be summed up in "to each according to his need, from each according to his work". The theory is that the society will be so finely tuned from socialism, that a government wont be necessary to regulate people, cause everything will just be sweet, as it were. Communism has never been reached in reality. Infact, socialism has never even come close to achieving it because most of the countries which adopt socialism are too poor in order to make it work properly: the USSR, China, Vietnam, many african nations tried it at one point or another.

Sorry its a bit long but as I'm sure you'll agree its a vast subject, I've tried to tackle all the main points but I've had to cut it down considerably so it maybe a little vague and inconsistent in places, anyway have a read and let me know what you think, cheers :)

Fascism= Nazism?
It is indeed the case that the Nazism that emerged after 1933 was a very extreme form of Fascism. Central to Hitlers' ideological beliefs was the idea of 'struggle' or survival of the fittest where the naturally stronger race, nation, army, people etc would emerge victorious which would be proof of their inherent superiority. So Hitler organised the Nazi state on similar lines as a series of competing structures, often giving the same job to more than one department or ministry believing that the stronger organisation would naturally emerge providing the best results. As a consequence this led to a cumulative radicalisation of policy where each power centre within the Nazi state would seek to advance its own interests by suggesting ever more radical solutions to problems in the hope of gaining the favour of the Fuhrer and advancing their own interests. I admit many of the points raised here are highly contestable, and although no two Fascist systems were ever identical, Germany was very much thee dominant power over Italy and other Fascist countries like Spain. So for the moment if we just take German Nazism to represent the gold standard for Fascism.

Communism
It’s clear that the Communism that emerged in Russia after 1917 and more crucially after Lenin’s death in 1924 represented quite a significant departure from orthodox Marxism. Marx stressed the importance of a spontaneous revolutionary class consciousness awaking amongst the urban proletariat who he saw as the revolutionary class who would then rise up and overthrow the ruling capitalist class and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat based around democratic workers control. Lenin however distorted this and argued that a 'vanguard party' consisting of a core of ideologically committed revolutionaries is necessary to co-ordinate and ultimately lead the revolution. After Stalin emerged as Soviet leader he then embarked upon policies of forced collectivisation and rapid industrial expansionism as well as 'Socialism in one country' which was completely at odds with internationalism preached in the Communist Manifesto, these policies lead to countless millions of deaths in the ensuing famine and terror. After the war this model of 'Soviet Communism' was imposed on Eastern Europe and in the Far East and became the accepted norm for what communism meant throughout the 20th century. As with Fascism/Nazism I admit this is a highly contestable interpretation, but for the sake of argument lets take the Soviet model to be the standard for Communism.

Similarities:
Obsessionism with rebirth or ideological objectives.
Hitler’s' short terms goals after taking power in 1933 where the restoration of the fatherland by uniting German speaking people separated at the treaty of Versaille as well as restoring German pride. In the long-term he believed that he had a destiny to lead the Aryan race to world domination. Therefore world war two and more specifically invading the Soviet Union was part of this ideological crusade to crush Jewish bolshevism that he saw as responsible for undermining Germanic racial purity as well as ensuring Jewish domination of the world. Its debatable as to how clearly defined these goals were, Hitler spoke of ideas such as Lebensraum, racialism and restoring Germany in Mein Kampf which he wrote some 10 years before becoming chancellor However there doesn't seem to have been any kind of clear or logical plan as to how they should be achieved as there were many clear contradictions in what followed (e.g. war with other Aryan countries, delay in resolving the Jewish question etc)
In the Soviet Union the communists believed that they had uncovered the laws of history and that socialism then communism were inevitable. They believed that history could be explained as a serious of stages resulting from tensions between various classes. I.e. Slave society, feudalism, capitalism, culminating in socialism and communism. Therefore history was an unstoppable process and that any group of people obstructing this process leading to a workers utopia should be eliminated.

Militarism.
In both Germany and the Soviet Union a strong military was considered critical to ensuring their survival as well ultimately achieving their ideological goals. In the Soviet Union a strong military was crucial to protecting the gains of the revolution and guarding against counter-revolution (1920-21). Many new countries were later socialised through force of arms. In Germany a strong military was considered vital as means re-uniting Germany as well was restoring national pride and would later be used in their wars of expansionism.

Symbolism/Propaganda.
The political connotations of seeing a Swastika or a Hammer and Sickle are as acute today as they were then. Both used parades, rallies etc as a means of projecting power and strength as well as disseminating political ideas in order to memorise as well as intimidate the people.

Economics.
Both recognised the necessity of a strong economy. In the early Soviet Union their own estimates put them over hundred years behind their capitalist rivals in terms of economic industrialisation, so Stalin’s 5 year plans were designed to catch up with west, for the most part they succeeded but at an enormous cost in human lives. It was done so with a central planning authority where the means of production are concentrated solely in the hands of the state, the enormous bureaucracy associated with this meant that it look little or no account of consumer taste and in the later half of the 20th century would be consistently out performed by the western free-market model and would prove to be a crucial factor in the downfall of Soviet Communism.
The Fascist economic model was different, they adopted a system of corporatism from Mussolini whereby a market system was used to ensure the efficient allocation of resources through the price mechanism but was still quite heavily regulated and ultimately subordinate to the ideological objectives of the state. Despite these differences they both believed in the concept of autarky enwhich a country was supposed to be autonomous and able to provide for itself and meet its own needs in the event of war.

Tyrannical Leadership.
In Germany strong centralised leadership was not only preferable but vital to national greatness. They were obsessed with the idea of hierarchy and they argued it was inevitable that special or even unique people would rise to the top to provide leadership. In the Soviet model this concept was very much a departure from their ideological routes of a government run by the workers for the workers. The authority of the central committee and the politburo was essentially unquestionable, they were also characterised by a strong charismatic leader (e.g Lenin, Mao, Ceausescu) whose responsibility was to lead the workers to utopia.

Terror.
In the Soviet model terror was crucial for ensuring that there was no obstruction of the goal of workers utopia, the state held a monopoly on truth and were acting in the best interests of the workers so any kind of dissent or opposition categorised you as an enemy of the people which made you liable for liquidation. In Fascism/Nazism the leader was omnipotent and all-powerful and could articulate the will of people, so anyone who spoke out was an enemy of the nation or race.

I've tried to outline some of the main similarities between the extreme Fascism of Germany and the Soviet model of Communism. There are of course many more similarities as well as differences but I've tried to stick to the main ones. All comments both for and against are welcome.

I'm slightly surprised at such a sweeping opening gambit from you, Purly. I'd agree that there's not a whole lot of difference between Stalinism and fascism but I can't accept that communism and fascism share a common system.

I'm slightly surprised at such a sweeping opening gambit from you, Purly. I'd agree that there's not a whole lot of difference between Stalinism and fascism but I can't accept that communism and fascism share a common system.
That's partly because they clearly had different objectives, and partly because they were enemies of eachother. But both communism (at least the Bolshevik brand) and fascism used the same means for different ends.

The reason you get posts like the first one is actually due to a rather complicated propaganda campaign, based around the idea of 'totalitarianism'

Post WW2, the (capitalist/liberal democratic) west was faced off against (Stalinist) USSR + allies, in what we generally call 'the cold war'. The ideology in power in the USSR, was generally called Communism (no matter how close to or distant from theoretical communism it actually was). This was an ideological battle, between two competing ways of organising society.

This is all set in the context of WW2, people were discovering the worst excesses of the Nazi regime, this was very much in the forefront of peoples minds.

What better way to vilify one's enemy than to put 'communist' regimes in the same category as what was clearly regarded by all right thinking people as a really bad thing? therefore both Fascism and Communism were described under this theoretical category of 'Totalitarianism'.

The roots of the concept of 'totalitarian' comes form around this time, there really wasnt much use of it before then. It's also not a particularly useful category that doesnt really stand up to much examination. It's an essentialist definition that is more of an 'ideal-type' than a description of any particular country.
Historically, however, toltalitarianism was never this widely used. Before these systems and democracies was a traditional monarchy. The monarch's cheif concerns were to increase his personal wealth and prestige, often through war. There are exceptions, like Louis XIV and Peter the Great, of a toltalitarian monarch. However, those were generally ambitious monarchs. The rest were just content with the old ways of gaining power.
And btw, even if Stalinism was not a pure form of communism, it was extremely close. Lenin was even closer to communism, but Stalin showed that a leader like him is communism's natural conclusion. Just read George Orwell's Animal Farm. Orwell himself was a socialist, but only in the sense of the many socialists in Europe and the US back in the sixties and seventies. He didn't want communism because the USSR's status was its natural progression, or at least in this stage of human understanding.
Besides, if you ask me, Hitler and Mussolini were more of communists than they care to admit. Both wanted a complete redistribution of goods, but these two wanted it mostly for their own nation or race.

And btw, even if Stalinism was not a pure form of communism, it was extremely close. Lenin was even closer to communism, but Stalin showed that a leader like him is communism's natural conclusion. What do you base that assertion on? I certainly fail to see where the Bolsheviks even took steps towards putting production into the hands of the workers, surely the defining factor of communist theory. I can go into great amounts of detail about the specific breaks Leninism makes from Marxism if you wish.Just read George Orwell's Animal Farm. Orwell himself was a socialist, but only in the sense of the many socialists in Europe and the US back in the sixties and seventies. He didn't want communism because the USSR's status was its natural progression, or at least in this stage of human understanding. With all due respect that's a massive misrepresentation of Orwell's politics. His criticisms of Lenin and Stalin came from the left, not the right. If Orwell "didn't want communism" then how do you explain him fighting alongside the Marxist communists POUM in the Spanish Civil War?
Besides, if you ask me, Hitler and Mussolini were more of communists than they care to admit. Both wanted a complete redistribution of goods, but these two wanted it mostly for their own nation or race.[/QUOTE]From http://www.termsnpapers.com/sample.htm

"By his fiery oratory and agitatory techniques par excellence, he gained the confidence of the business and industrial magnates who gave him effective financial support against the Marxist Parties and elements, seeing in him the answer to anti-capitalism forces. Events corroborated this since after coming to power Hitler had nothing against monopoly capitalism as long as it stayed loyal to his regime. In the Nationalists of the extreme right who were irked mainly by the humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler likewise found a natural ally. His alliance with the nationalist leader Hugenberg greatly strengthened his position. "

From http://www.politicalcompass.org/

"Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power. "

Surely if anything that shows that fascism is friendlier to capitalism then communism?

What do you base that assertion on? I certainly fail to see where the Bolsheviks even took steps towards putting production into the hands of the workers, surely the defining factor of communist theory. I can go into great amounts of detail about the specific breaks Leninism makes from Marxism if you wish.
Lenin used the WWI era German economy as a model for his government. He didn't put the factories and farms in the hands of "the people", but the state, which he believed existed solely to serve the people. Besides, it did a lot of unnessesary things to give "the people" more jobs, and increased production. A giant string of factories from Ukraine to the Urals developed, and that production went first to building cities, then the army. I should also note that Lenin's brand of communism went much further than any other system to control the economy, and by extension, their lives.
With all due respect that's a massive misrepresentation of Orwell's politics. His criticisms of Lenin and Stalin came from the left, not the right. If Orwell "didn't want communism" then how do you explain him fighting alongside the Marxist communists POUM in the Spanish Civil War?
This was before WWII. During that, he realized that the USSR was really this horrible place, and communism wasn't a great system. He wanted socialism, but not communism. It was also expressed in 1984. It's interesting that he called the underlying principles of "the party" in Oceania English Socialism, and Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia.
[/QUOTE]From http://www.termsnpapers.com/sample.htm

"By his fiery oratory and agitatory techniques par excellence, he gained the confidence of the business and industrial magnates who gave him effective financial support against the Marxist Parties and elements, seeing in him the answer to anti-capitalism forces. Events corroborated this since after coming to power Hitler had nothing against monopoly capitalism as long as it stayed loyal to his regime. In the Nationalists of the extreme right who were irked mainly by the humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler likewise found a natural ally. His alliance with the nationalist leader Hugenberg greatly strengthened his position. "

From http://www.politicalcompass.org/

"Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power. "

Surely if anything that shows that fascism is friendlier to capitalism then communism?[/QUOTE]
It wasn't true capitalism, however. The companies lived for the state. It is why Nazi Germany maintained such a massive war machine in WWII, especially with the arrival of Alfred Speer in 1944. Even before then, however, German businessmen were quite indebted to Germany, and many were sock puppets, as much of the German industry and banks was Jewish owned.
As for Italy, I can't speak for that specifically. However, Mussolini was still anti-capitalist. It'd be a cold day in hell before he let an Ethiopian own a business in Ethiopia, or anything like that. And both, btw, had control of key industries.

Lenin used the WWI era German economy as a model for his government. He didn't put the factories and farms in the hands of "the people", but the state, which he believed existed solely to serve the people. Besides, it did a lot of unnessesary things to give "the people" more jobs, and increased production. A giant string of factories from Ukraine to the Urals developed, and that production went first to building cities, then the army. I should also note that Lenin's brand of communism went much further than any other system to control the economy, and by extension, their lives.If Lenin used the WW1 era Germany as an economic model for his goverment, surely the very economic basis of the Russian system was non-communist. Lenin's economic policy can better be described as "state capitalist" in that the means of production was in the hands of the party bureucrats as opposed to individual business owners. As you say Lenin didn't put the factories and farms in the hands of "the people" but the state which is directly opposed to all communist theorys. After all, Marx said that "the emancipation of the workers is the job of the workers itself" so Lenin was not a communist (and certainly not a Marxist) as he did not make any attempts to place control of the means of production in the hands of the workers. Equally Lenin's building of a strenghned state is anthema to true communism. The only essential difference between anarcho-communism and the Marxist variety is that anarchists believe that the state will disapear on the day of the revolution whereas Marxists believe it will start to unravel. Neither tradition calls for the increased state powers Lenin put into place.

This was before WWII. During that, he realized that the USSR was really this horrible place, and communism wasn't a great system. He wanted socialism, but not communism. It was also expressed in 1984. It's interesting that he called the underlying principles of "the party" in Oceania English Socialism, and Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia.He didn't realise that "the USSR was really this horrible place" during WW2, he'd already figured that out, if you read "Homage to Catalonia" you'll see many attacks on the politics of Stalin and the Spanish 'Communist' (actually Leninist-Stalinist) Party. But he was still happy to fight alongside the Marxist POUM, showing it was not communism he was opposed to but the Leninist perversion of it. On 1984- are you aware it was originally called "1948" but his publishers wouldn't publish it with that title? In other words it was about the world around him not a prediction of the future. It's also interesting that their are three countries in 1984, mirroring the three tolitarian systems of fascism, Leninist-Stalinist and capitalist 'democracy'. And all three are shown to operate the same despite the supposed differences between them. The crucial scene in Animal Farm is the pigs trading with their supposed enemies the farmers. The farmers are obviously metaphors for capitalist countries, and this scene is a reference to the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Stalin and his supposed capitalist enemies. So Animal Farm is not an attack on true communism (the Karl Marx character Old Major is portrayed highly sympathetically)
It wasn't true capitalism, however. The companies lived for the state. It is why Nazi Germany maintained such a massive war machine in WWII, especially with the arrival of Alfred Speer in 1944. Even before then, however, German businessmen were quite indebted to Germany, and many were sock puppets, as much of the German industry and banks was Jewish owned.[quote]A massive war machine isn't necessarily contradictory to a capitalist society- just look at the military budget of modern America. Equally as the sourced quote says "Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !" In other words there was little day to day interference by the Nazis in the day to day running of businesses. I don't go as far as saying fascism and capitalism are the same thing- I think they're two distinct political ideologys. This does show however that it is quite possible for fascist goverments to coexist happily with capitalist businesses.
[quote]
As for Italy, I can't speak for that specifically. However, Mussolini was still anti-capitalist. It'd be a cold day in hell before he let an Ethiopian own a business in Ethiopia, or anything like that. And both, btw, had control of key industries.What about the quote "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power" sounds anti capitalist to you? The fact that a country has a policy of economic protectionism doesn't stop it being capitalist- modern America again. Equally the racism of Mussolini does not stop him being anti capitalist any more then it did Henry Ford. Capitalism is defined by dictionary.com as being

"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

(Emphasis mine) None of this is contradictory to the views of Mussolini about fascism being "a merge of state and corporate power".

I do agree with you that Leninism-Stalinism has some common factors with fascism- in particular hostility to independent working class associations and a hostility to true communism. Traits that they also share with capitalism.

If Lenin used the WW1 era Germany as an economic model for his goverment, surely the very economic basis of the Russian system was non-communist. Lenin's economic policy can better be described as "state capitalist" in that the means of production was in the hands of the party bureucrats as opposed to individual business owners. As you say Lenin didn't put the factories and farms in the hands of "the people" but the state which is directly opposed to all communist theorys. After all, Marx said that "the emancipation of the workers is the job of the workers itself" so Lenin was not a communist (and certainly not a Marxist) as he did not make any attempts to place control of the means of production in the hands of the workers. Equally Lenin's building of a strenghned state is anthema to true communism. The only essential difference between anarcho-communism and the Marxist variety is that anarchists believe that the state will disapear on the day of the revolution whereas Marxists believe it will start to unravel. Neither tradition calls for the increased state powers Lenin put into place.
He didn't realise that "the USSR was really this horrible place" during WW2, he'd already figured that out, if you read "Homage to Catalonia" you'll see many attacks on the politics of Stalin and the Spanish 'Communist' (actually Leninist-Stalinist) Party. But he was still happy to fight alongside the Marxist POUM, showing it was not communism he was opposed to but the Leninist perversion of it.
Perhaps that part on Orwell was true. However, the part that people fail to realize was that Lenin thought he was following communism. Indeed, there were some common traits between pure communism and the Soviet system: both had tight state controls, both, in theory at least, had communally owned enterprise. It's just that Lenin thought that the best way for enterprise to be communally owned was if the state held it in trust for the people. Mao Tsedong sums it up in his "Democratic Dictatorship" speach: he knows what's best for the people, and that he really was an embodiement of the people's wishes. This sounds like a far cry from real communism, but this is simply its logical progression. Besides, it's the closest major political system to communism, although fascism was also the same, I feel.
On 1984- are you aware it was originally called "1948" but his publishers wouldn't publish it with that title? In other words it was about the world around him not a prediction of the future. It's also interesting that their are three countries in 1984, mirroring the three tolitarian systems of fascism, Leninist-Stalinist and capitalist 'democracy'. And all three are shown to operate the same despite the supposed differences between them. The crucial scene in Animal Farm is the pigs trading with their supposed enemies the farmers. The farmers are obviously metaphors for capitalist countries, and this scene is a reference to the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Stalin and his supposed capitalist enemies. So Animal Farm is not an attack on true communism (the Karl Marx character Old Major is portrayed highly sympathetically)
And in Animal Farm, everything was working the way it was supposed to be for a while. Then came the fight between Snowball and Napoleon, or in rl, Trotsky and Stalin. It shows that communism can be too far manipulated.
And I do agree about that critical last scene, but my interpretation was that the farmers represented the absolute monarchs. Perhaps Farmer Jones was supposed to be Czar Nicholas II. He didn't have kind words for capitalism, of course, but thankfully, I can choose to disagree with him :).
As for 1984, I didn't get how they were nominally three systems. They all seemed like they were toltalitarian democracies, and that hysteria was shared by lots of authors. But I do have to agree that I find it ironic what FDR did. He brought democracy closest to being fascism, simply in order to save democracy. After all, more people left the country in the thirties than those coming in.
It wasn't true capitalism, however. The companies lived for the state. It is why Nazi Germany maintained such a massive war machine in WWII, especially with the arrival of Alfred Speer in 1944. Even before then, however, German businessmen were quite indebted to Germany, and many were sock puppets, as much of the German industry and banks was Jewish owned.[quote]A massive war machine isn't necessarily contradictory to a capitalist society- just look at the military budget of modern America. Equally as the sourced quote says "Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !" In other words there was little day to day interference by the Nazis in the day to day running of businesses. I don't go as far as saying fascism and capitalism are the same thing- I think they're two distinct political ideologys. This does show however that it is quite possible for fascist goverments to coexist happily with capitalist businesses.
What about the quote "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power" sounds anti capitalist to you? The fact that a country has a policy of economic protectionism doesn't stop it being capitalist- modern America again. Equally the racism of Mussolini does not stop him being anti capitalist any more then it did Henry Ford. Capitalism is defined by dictionary.com as being

"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

(Emphasis mine) None of this is contradictory to the views of Mussolini about fascism being "a merge of state and corporate power".
Even if it was a merger, it can't be called capitalism, or at least not with the fascist dictators in Japan, Italy, and Germany breathing down their necks. A merger of power, as Mussolini describes, contradicts the concept of private enterprise, and thus, capitalism in general. I admit that there is a lot that capitalist countries can do to lift their protectionist policies, but really, is the US government controlling every corporation? Do all corporations have to operate not at their board's discretion, but at the discretion of the president? That is where capitalism, the political variant, anyhow, departs from fascism and communism.
I do agree with you that Leninism-Stalinism has some common factors with fascism- in particular hostility to independent working class associations and a hostility to true communism. Traits that they also share with capitalism.
Then why did labor unions form? They formed because political capitalism was far more tolerant of worker movements. Perhaps labor unions were not controlling the board of directors for factories, and a few decades ago, they were controlled by the teamsters and were a safe haven for mafia money. But for a time, they did weild some power, especially in the thirties, when the minimum wage and many working condition laws came around. Capitalism didn't allow for itself to be subverted to any mob, including workers. But it did work better than the other two systems to incorporate workers' rights with a business strategy.

I didn't get this idea from the History Channel. I'm building this idea out of a thesis I read in a book, The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and the Free Market in the 21st Century by Michael Mandalbaum. He never explicitly linked the two, but he named similarities that were striking (but I alway suspected that they existed). I just went for the gold, and named some things he didn't.
I also wanted to say, for example, that this is why the Soviet-Nazi alliance early in WWII bloomed. The two hated eachother, but they realized that they could easily work together, because in practice, they were nearly identical. Of course, Hitler changed his mind.
In case if it helps you, btw, Dr. Mandalbaum is a senior fellow at the Concil on Foreign Relations :D.


nah i didn't mean to sound stupid or offencive, that just reminded me of something my cousin quoted off of that channel (he's one of those blind pride.. I mean, patriotic Americans). :confused:

nah i didn't mean to sound stupid or offencive, that just reminded me of something my cousin quoted off of that channel (he's one of those blind pride.. I mean, patriotic Americans). :confused:
They aren't a bad source, they just tend to exaggerate sometimes. But all in all, they are pretty accurate.