NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that alot of Democrats call Republicans "fascists" and that alot of Republicans call Democrats "communists". This put a rather bizarre question in my head. If the only two parties you could vote for were a Fascist party and a Communist party, which would you support? And why?

Well, assuming that whatever party I voted for remained true to it's ideals once in power, I would vote communism.

Well, assuming that whatever party I voted for remained true to it's ideals once in power, I would vote communism.

Ya, the elected parties usually don't do that, do they? :(

Go Communism! I belive that it would be much less of a headache to have a Communist government. Plus i despise fascists....

Being that I am a Communist, I'll vote for the Communists.

In actual practice both communism and fascism are almost identical. State ran and control over all aspects of public life. The only real difference I see is the role of religion. Communism makes the state the religion and Fascism will pick a religion that can be controlled by the state.

In actual practice both communism and fascism are almost identical. State ran and control over all aspects of public life. The only real difference I see is the role of religion. Communism makes the state the religion and Fascism will pick a religion that can be controlled by the state.

I think maybe you have a rather scued understanding of the two ideologies...

I'd grab a sledgehammer and kill 'em all.

I'd grab a sledgehammer and kill 'em all.

So you'd be a Facist/Republican?

I think maybe you have a rather scued understanding of the two ideologies...

maybe, but in practice, (because parties never play according to their promises) these two create the same effect from the point of view of the people living in it.

(ref russia and germany of course, before WW2)

Neither system works in the long run, because Communism assumes people are infallible, while Fascism assumes they are completely fallible.

So you'd be a Facist/Republican?

:D rofl

Neither system works in the long run, because Communism assumes people are infallible, while Fascism assumes they are completely fallible.

An all-encompassing and totaly meaningless statement. Well done.

Fascism and Communism the same? Grow up man, no one beleives that Hannah Arendt bullshit anymore. The Totaliatarian model in just US cold war PROPAGANDA.

Fascism is extreme nationalism and often racism

Communism is exceptance of all nations and races and an equal distribution of goods and opportunities (in theory of course).

Communism as elaborated by Marx, Lenin and most other thinkers hasn't even existed yet. The Soviet Union was a socialist state with a communist ethos. It wasn't Communism itself.

Given that the US are the biggest bunch of fascists in the world right now, you'd have to bote Communist wouldn't you?

I wouldn't vote for either, because although i support the ideals of communism, the marxist path involving the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is wrong, because once you get a dictator in there, no matter what else he is, he won't want to step down when they are ready for true communism. And besides, history has shown that the countries that were 'communist' weren't really getting ready for true communism, which is, in my understanding, complete economic equality via the abolishment of private property, and public ownership of all goods.

Neither system works in the long run, because Communism assumes people are infallible, while Fascism assumes they are completely fallible.

i don't think commucism assumes everyone is infalible, just the people running the show. which is the same for democracy. Communism seeks to have everything controled by the group because it understands how fallible the common man is.

Fascism seeks to have everything controled by the ruling party because it knows how falible the common man is.

from the point of view of the common man, the effect is the same.

Communists. If you're going to have authoritarianism, you might as well have equality with it. Of course, this is again assuming that they'd do what they said in their manifesto, and assuming that this is Stalinite Communism, as opposed to Liberal/Anarcho-Communism, in which case Communism all the way.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

Well, not voting would probably just let the fascists take control...so I would have to vote for the Communists, just to keep the fascists out of power.

Of course, I would then leave my country (if I still could!)

I wouldn't vote for either, because although i support the ideals of communism, the marxist path involving the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is wrong, because once you get a dictator in there, no matter what else he is, he won't want to step down when they are ready for true communism. And besides, history has shown that the countries that were 'communist' weren't really getting ready for true communism, which is, in my understanding, complete economic equality via the abolishment of private property, and public ownership of all goods.


I agree with you.

I think maybe you have a rather scued understanding of the two ideologies...
Ideologies are one thing actual practice as we know it is another.
Overheated sense of nationalism, controlled economy both price controls and production controls, small minority running the state in the best interest of the people. Which is it fascism or communism?

Vote for the fascists and run.

everyone knows that Facism is just the people at the top who get everything, whereas the people at the bottom get nothing. Meanwhile Communism is everyone getting hardly anything. Which actually IS a lot like the basic values of Republicans/Liberals now that I think about it. Huh. How about that.

Ideologies are one thing actual practice as we know it is another.
Overheated sense of nationalism, controlled economy both price controls and production controls, small minority running the state in the best interest of the people. Which is it fascism or communism?

Well, seeing as how Communism is not characterised by an "overheated sense of nationalism" I would have to say you are describing fascism.

I wouldn't vote for either, because although i support the ideals of communism, the marxist path involving the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is wrong, because once you get a dictator in there, no matter what else he is, he won't want to step down when they are ready for true communism. And besides, history has shown that the countries that were 'communist' weren't really getting ready for true communism, which is, in my understanding, complete economic equality via the abolishment of private property, and public ownership of all goods.

Communists today see the mistakes that they have taken in the past. Most of us look down upon straight Marxism, Leninism, etc. as being a wrong path.

In fact, the American Communist Party is very liberal know and democracy is one of the things we hold dearest.

maybe, but in practice, (because parties never play according to their promises) these two create the same effect from the point of view of the people living in it.

(ref russia and germany of course, before WW2)
Thanks Essell- that was my point

Fascism and Communism the same? Grow up man, no one beleives that Hannah Arendt bullshit anymore. The Totaliatarian model in just US cold war PROPAGANDA.

Fascism is extreme nationalism and often racism

Communism is exceptance of all nations and races and an equal distribution of goods and opportunities (in theory of course).

Communism as elaborated by Marx, Lenin and most other thinkers hasn't even existed yet. The Soviet Union was a socialist state with a communist ethos. It wasn't Communism itself.

Given that the US are the biggest bunch of fascists in the world right now, you'd have to bote Communist wouldn't you?

Equal distribution of good and oppurtunities? Communism allows no oppurtunity, shunts personal ability, and develops good based on stringent need and not want (ie the arts, philosophy, individualism take a backseat to grain and collectivism)

The United States is the worlds biggest fascists? Utter lie and you know it.
Walk the talk, or don't talk at all

As for who i would vote for, neither. I would immeadiately set up a resistance program and fight for the individual, inalienable rights, and economic oppurtunity

Well, if the question is Hitler vs. Stalin, I'd vote for Hitler. At least you knew what kind of people he was throwing in death camps. With Stalin you could never be too sure.


both forms of government, regardless of leader, are evil and will eventually lead to dictatorships.

I'd vote for communism because the whole parameter o fascism is xenophobia. While communism in the real world is hardly any better, I'm Jewish, and I would rather have my religion stamped out instead of being murdered because of it.

I'm Jewish
There are other forms of fascism besides Nazism

For instance, Soviet Russia and North Korea all persecute Christians, and they are socialists

by the way, democracy is bad too. The United States is a Republic, NOT a democracy.

Thomas Jefferson would slap you for calling the United States a democracy.

The United States is the worlds biggest fascists? Utter lie and you know it.
Walk the talk, or don't talk at all

stop flaming and explain.
A lot of people think the USA is close to fascist principles, if you don't then explain why.

Or don't talk at all.

BTW, if the USA didn't write fascist laws then the current rediculous level of law suits wouldn't be possible.

oyu can't realy compare fascism and communism.

fascism is the flavor of ultranationalistic dictatorship that was in effect in germany and italy before/during ww2.

communism is an ideology, or even an utopia, that propagades the basic values of christianity, e.g. equality, civil rights, governement works FOR citizens, not the other way round and many more.

Equal distribution of good and oppurtunities? Communism allows no oppurtunity, shunts personal ability, and develops good based on stringent need and not want (ie the arts, philosophy, individualism take a backseat to grain and collectivism)

The United States is the worlds biggest fascists? Utter lie and you know it.
Walk the talk, or don't talk at all

As for who i would vote for, neither. I would immeadiately set up a resistance program and fight for the individual, inalienable rights, and economic oppurtunity

As I quite clearly stated 'in theory'. First and foremost Communism is a thoery. And as I'm at pains to emphasise Communism (as elaborated by Marx et al) in a modern context hasn't yet existed - so how can any valid assessment be made?

And as Solaranea said the fundamental flaw with Marxism/Leninsm is the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I grant you, the US comment was tongue-in-cheek, however they are the biggest bunch or murdering bastards since 1945.

stop flaming and explain.
A lot of people think the USA is close to fascist principles, if you don't then explain why.

Or don't talk at all.

BTW, if the USA didn't write fascist laws then the current rediculous level of law suits wouldn't be possible.

Wait, if we didn't have so much legal freedom, we wouldn't be fascists anymore? Good one :D

Fascist principles? Such as: Religious Tolerance, Cultural Pluralism, Capitalism, Republicanism (governmental theory not the party), and Elections.

Damn, we must be fascists! :eek: :rolleyes:

Wait, if we didn't have so much legal freedom, we wouldn't be fascists anymore? Good one :D

the law suites don't come from legal freedom, they come from civil restrictions.

you must do this, you must not do that,

by the way, democracy is bad too. The United States is a Republic, NOT a democracy.
Represenative Democracy not republic. A republic would mean that the states would have some real power to control the Federal government. The American Civil War ended any real power the states had by ending seccession.

As I quite clearly stated 'in theory'. First and foremost Communism is a thoery. And as I'm at pains to emphasise Communism (as elaborated by Marx et al) in a modern context hasn't yet existed - so how can any valid assessment be made?

And as Solaranea said the fundamental flaw with Marxism/Leninsm is the concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I grant you, the US comment was a tongue-in-cheek, however they are the biggest bunch or murdering bastards since 1945.

Deaths due to Communism
Afghanistan: 1,500,000 deaths (Not counting Afghan War)
Africa: 1,700,000 (Not counting Western Operations in Africa)
Cambodia: 2,000,000 (Not counting US interdiction)
China: 65,000,000 (Not counting Japanese takeover)
Eastern Europe: 1,000,000 (Not counting WW2)
Latin America: 150,000 (not counting US interdctions into Latin America)
North Korea: 2,000,000 (Not counting Korean War)
USSR: 20,000,000+ (not counting WW2 casualties)
Vietnam: 1,000,000+ (not counting Vietnam War casualties)

Wait, if we didn't have so much legal freedom, we wouldn't be fascists anymore? Good one :D

Fascist principles? Such as: Religious Tolerance, Cultural Pluralism, Capitalism, Republicanism (governmental theory not the party), and Elections.

Damn, we must be fascists! :eek: :rolleyes:

They're the founding principles of America, as written in the declaration of independance. That doesn't necessarily mean that people's current values and attitudes are the same.

the law suites don't come from legal freedom, they come from civil restrictions.

you must do this, you must not do that,

So if someone gets their children killed from neglect or a man breaks his leg because of bad construction or if a compnay ships a faulty product, then no one should be blamed?

by the way, democracy is bad too. The United States is a Republic, NOT a democracy.

please explain to me the difference between
res publice = reign of the people
and
dimos krataei = the people rule



@American LibertyStates:
you are still taking socialism as communism.
(or better: your twisted idea of socialism)

Thomas Jefferson would slap you for calling the United States a democracy.
The US is a democratic republic. A straight democracy for a country the size of the US would not work. And, no, I think Jefferson would be very proud of America today (with the exception of the USA Patriot Act)

They're the founding principles of America, as written in the declaration of independance. That doesn't necessarily mean that people's current values and attitudes are the same.

So you know SOME Americans that have differing views, which are their interpretations of the Constitution

Just out of curiosity... why would any of you want to live in a true communist state. Isn't the point to get rid of as much individuality as possible in the name of equality? What would be the point of life? You would end up doing more work and getting less reward.

At least in a Fascist state there is the possibility of advancement. I mean would you rather be a slave in heaven or a general in hell...

"Represenative Democracy not republic. A republic would mean that the states would have some real power to control the Federal government. The American Civil War ended any real power the states had by ending seccession."

somewhat true, i agree. However, democracy means no higher power than the people: 'rule by majority'. In a democracy, we could all vote to take your computer, and since the majority of us probably want it, we would vote to take it and have the power to do so. In a Republic, or whatever you want to call it, some rights (life, liberty, property) are protected (through the Constitution in the US). Or rather I should say are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.

They're the founding principles of America, as written in the declaration of independance. That doesn't necessarily mean that people's current values and attitudes are the same.
I'd say that religious tolerance, cultural pluralism, capitalism, and deomcratic republicanism ON THE WHOLE are still very much alive and kicking today

Thomas Jefferson would slap you for calling the United States a democracy.
Yeah and he would not let anyone but a white male who owned land vote.

Deaths due to Communism
Afghanistan: 1,500,000 deaths (Not counting Afghan War)
Africa: 1,700,000 (Not counting Western Operations in Africa)
Cambodia: 2,000,000 (Not counting US interdiction)
China: 65,000,000 (Not counting Japanese takeover)
Eastern Europe: 1,000,000 (Not counting WW2)
Latin America: 150,000 (not counting US interdctions into Latin America)
North Korea: 2,000,000 (Not counting Korean War)
USSR: 20,000,000+ (not counting WW2 casualties)
Vietnam: 1,000,000+ (not counting Vietnam War casualties)

Sometimes you get the feeling that you could say something to someone a 1000 times and they still wouldn't listen.

As I said earlier, Communism in a modern context hasn't yet existed. So your silly and biased analysis really isn't worth much.

I guess I could list the 21 countries the US has bombed since 1945 and the associated death tolls, but I guess you'd ignore that too.

I think Jefferson would be proud too, I wasn't saying that he'd be pissed that the US is no longer a democracy. He'd be upset you called it that in the first place. He fought for the unalienable rights of the individual which are unprotected under true democracy.

Deaths due to Communism
Vietnam: 1,000,000+ (not counting Vietnam War casualties)

Capitalism and the oppression of the Vietnamese people killed 4,000,000 Vietnamese. Ho CHi Minh was loved by his people, and Eisenhower stated that if the United Nations let Vietnam vote that Ho Chi Minh would have won by 80%.

Capitalism has forced millions of people into poverty (consequently killing), including the 815 million people that are starving in this world right now.

He fought for the unalienable rights of the individual which are unprotected under true democracy.
Exactly. True democracy would have no purpose for government. It is as idealistic as fascism or communism/socialism. Like I said before, America is a democratic republic--a representative government where the representatives are elected by the people.

@Indigo Carmine:
well, that is (more or less;)) socialism.
communism is about equal opportunities, if you work more, you can get more, but you would not want to have more in a true communist state, because that is the mentality needed to make communism work.
(and that's also why it does not and will never ;))


Deaths due to Communism
Afghanistan: 1,500,000 deaths (Not counting Afghan War)
Africa: 1,700,000 (Not counting Western Operations in Africa)
Cambodia: 2,000,000 (Not counting US interdiction)
China: 65,000,000 (Not counting Japanese takeover)
Eastern Europe: 1,000,000 (Not counting WW2)
Latin America: 150,000 (not counting US interdctions into Latin America)
North Korea: 2,000,000 (Not counting Korean War)
USSR: 20,000,000+ (not counting WW2 casualties)
Vietnam: 1,000,000+ (not counting Vietnam War casualties)

death due to communism: some thousand martyrs killed in Nazi conzentration camps and even more murdered, sorry, "executed", during McCarthy-era.
there still was no communism, you are talking about socialism.

and I don't even bother starting with US murders(I'm just going to say... Hiroshima, Dresden, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak, just to give you an ideam what I'm talking about)

Yeah and he would not let anyone but a white male who owned land vote.


As compared to what, no one?!?! Cuz that's who could vote before the Founding Fathers of America. Dammit, nothing pisses me off more than someone demeaning the name of the guys who give you(if you live in the US) or changed the world to allow you to vote, own property, practice your own religion, etc. wherever you live.

Exactly. True democracy would have no purpose for government. It is as idealistic as fascism or communism/socialism. Like I said before, America is a democratic republic--a representative government where the representatives are elected by the people.

Right, sorry if I came across as not agreeing with you. I was probably yelling at someone else. I'm glad we agree, it's good to hear another voice of reason here.

Sometimes you get the feeling that you could say something to someone a 1000 times and they still wouldn't listen.

As I said earlier, Communism in a modern context hasn't yet existed. So your silly and biased analysis really isn't worth much.

I guess I could list the 21 countries the US has bombed since 1945 and the associated death tolls, but I guess you'd ignore that too.
What do you mean by "modern context"? The 70-80's are fairly modern.

As I said earlier, Communism in a modern context hasn't yet existed. So your silly and biased analysis really isn't worth much.

Quote from 2100: "true communism has never existed, they've always turned out to be dictatorships"

Quote from 2200: "true communism has never existed, they've always turned out to be dictatorships"

Quote from 2300: "true communism has never existed, they've always turned out to be dictatorships"


communism will never work. It gives too much power to a centralized government. That's why the US has so many levels of government, decentralized power. Too much power corrupts.

i strongly believe in republic communism, if such a thing exists, and i also believe that most religions, christianity in the lead, are vile attempts to brainwash and have people following lies, so such people should be out of the country. communism doesn't mean much in terms of government, it is only a system of economy

Exactly. True democracy would have no purpose for government. It is as idealistic as fascism or communism/socialism. Like I said before, America is a democratic republic--a representative government where the representatives are elected by the people.
somehow I get the feeling americans have a destinct different way of using these terms than europeans o.O


@Marshall: nowadays communists know that socialism is not the right way to get to communism, so the "modern" way of communism has not been tried yet.

As compared to what, no one?!?! Cuz that's who could vote before the Founding Fathers of America. Dammit, nothing pisses me off more than someone demeaning the name of the guys who give you(if you live in the US) or changed the world to allow you to vote, own property, practice your own religion, etc. wherever you live.
English land holding men had been voting for a very long time before the American Revolution. Property rights went back past the Magna Carta. The only thing the Founding Fathers did was start the Age of Revolution that swept Europe in the 1800's.

What do you mean by "modern context"? The 70-80's are fairly modern.

I mean as opposed to a primitive communism that may have existed in early types of human organisation.

I agree, the 70-80s are fairly modern, but the point is that Communism (as elaborated by Marx et al) did not exist in the 70-80s. States resembling Socialism admittedly did.

communism doesn't mean much in terms of government, it is only a system of economy
are you really shure of that? o.O

communists and capitalists had disagrements, mostly because of capitalism's disrespect of human birthrights, but they are not opposites.
communism IS in fact about governement.

So if someone gets their children killed from neglect or a man breaks his leg because of bad construction or if a compnay ships a faulty product, then no one should be blamed?

those are fine.

If someone burns their leg on hot coffee because they dropped it they should claim no one told them it was hot?

If someone trips and breaks their ankle in a shop they should sue the shop, when it was their own child they trippled over?

As Thomas Jefferson said "never examine legislation is light of the good it will do if properly administered, examine it in light of the evil it will create if improperly administered"

so much of american law is written like a good idea, just like a lot of fascism.
in practice both allow for great errors in justice.

written like a good idea, just like a lot of fascism.

fascism was a good idea?
what did you like the most of all the good stuff Hitler and Mussolini did?

Quote from 2100: "true communism has never existed, they've always turned out to be dictatorships"

Quote from 2200: "true communism has never existed, they've always turned out to be dictatorships"

Quote from 2300: "true communism has never existed, they've always turned out to be dictatorships"


communism will never work. It gives too much power to a centralized government. That's why the US has so many levels of government, decentralized power. Too much power corrupts.

There wouldn't be a 'centralized government' in a Communist society. There wouldn't even be a state. Again this is all theory. Look at Lenin's State and Revolution.

There would be a centralized government under the Dictatoship of the Proletariat, that's what the Soviet Union was in theory. However, the point of the Marxist/Leninist model is that the Dictatroship was a necessary step before advancing to Communism itself. Of course it never got there - hence it has never existed.

fascism was a good idea?
many you should read a book about ww2...

the principle, not the practices..
just like america and communism!!

Okay, time to establish the fascist argument.

First, the most prominent difference between fascism and communism is that communism believes in the individual over the whole, while fascism believes in the opposite.

Second, communism relies on the notion that man can consciously ignore his baser tendencies, which is absolute lunacy. Fascism recognizes man for his flaws, and corrects them by exploiting those flaws, or rendering them entirely irrelevent.

Third, communism relies on a vision of an ultimately classless society. This too, is pure lunacy. You may take away all political and material advantages, but people will always have jealousy as an emotion. Society at its core is a social stratification. As long as we have friends, we will have enemies. This is my biggest contention with the communist dogma.

Fourth, a stable fascist country (however oxymoronic as that may seem) would be able to make an unbelievable amount of progress in any one direction it wishes. By ignoring or nullifying all social issues through faith in the state, it is able to move forward much quicker and more efficiently. Of course, this is an ideal fascism, much like an ideal communism, which is damn near impossible to achieve.

Specifically, Soviet Russia was and North Korea is communist, not socialist, no matter what North Korea may say about itself. There's a big difference, especially the tenet of communism that advocates atheism, that is demonstrated in each form of government.

So, ultmately, this debate comes down to one thing: is the Greater Good more important than the combined Individual Good?

Being a fascist, I would agree with the former. Communism will always fall to anarchy or dictatorship so long as humans have emotions. The government can never be left in the hands of pure emotion like it is in communism. The idea of pure social and material equality is unrealistic and "utopian". Fascism works toward specific goals and sweeps aside the otherwise neverending arguments of society by creating a centrally strong and respectable state. As horrible as it may seem, this is exactly what Hitler did. He swept aside all social issues without much consideration, and still managed to unify the country through nationalism and a twisted form of national racism based on untrue facts of prior events. Do not judge fascism by Hitler's actions, judge it by its realistic view of mankind's strengths and weaknesses. Instead of trying to acquiesce to all of man's emotions, it harnesses that power for a more realistic cause.

I'll end by opening my argument to all of the criticism I'm sure is waiting out there. I love a good ideology debate.

the principle, not the practices..
just like america and communism!!

the principle was to form a group of ultra-right (well, I have to use the term) fascists, who seize the power in a democratic state and create a dictatorship.

that's what Mussolini did and that's what Hitler copied.
(all that racism and war etc. started afterwards, Hitler hated Jews and communists for some strange reasen nobody knows, allthough some say he got a sexual desease from a jewish whore when he was still in austria, other say his father was jewish and a communist)

I hate communism more than I hate Fascism. At least with Fascism you know who the conspiracy theorists are blaming everything on ;)

Your argument about Communism is loaded with so many inaccuracies that I'd spend the rest of evening arguing with you.

All I'll say is that Communism is not about making everyone the same or equal it's aobut providing human beings with equal opportunites to develop into greater individuals.

Communism is exceptance of all nations and races and an equal distribution of goods and opportunities (in theory of course)..

Need we say more.. It's a a damn nice looking theory, but till someone puts it into reality effectively...well...:)

Id vote for Fascists.

Communists have an even worse track record than Fascists do. They've killed more people and taken property away from people.

Fascism allows you to own your own home or business,class collaboration, worship whatever religion you like, were the first to introduce enviromentalism.

Communism takes away your right to own your own home or business and worship whatever god you like. If you attempt to so this you are a class enemy who needs to be purged(killed off)

Fascism isnt as bad as some people think. Some people think Hitler was a Fascist but this isnt true. He only incorpoated aspects of Fascism to appeak to wider audience. Hitler was the only so-called Fascist that was 'racist'

Fascism is defined as extreme nationalism. Nothing wrong with that.

Communism on the other hand brings death and poverty to the nation it reigns over.

If I had to choose I would pick fascism in a heartbeat.

@Meritocratic Australia:
"Communists have an even worse track record than Fascists do. They've killed more people and taken property away from people."
do you realy want to say that communists have killed 60 Million people?
I don't think that left-wing terrorist have even killed a hundred-thousenth of that.

"Fascism allows you to own your own home or business,class collaboration, worship whatever religion you like, were the first to introduce enviromentalism."
not the fascism that was in effect in germany and italy.(wich is the ONLY fascism)

"Communism takes away your right to own your own home or business and worship whatever god you like. If you attempt to so this you are a class enemy who needs to be purged(killed off)"
no, the (socialistic) dictatorship in the ussr did that, not communism.

"Fascism isnt as bad as some people think. Some people think Hitler was a Fascist but this isnt true. He only incorpoated aspects of Fascism to appeak to wider audience. Hitler was the only so-called Fascist that was 'racist'"
hahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mussolini invented fascism("fasci di combatimente"), Hitler copied it.
yes, Mussolini wasn't a racist, but all german fascists were/are racists.



First, the most prominent difference between fascism and communism is that communism believes in the individual over the whole, while fascism believes in the opposite. fascism is Fuehrer over whole, communism is all equal

Second, communism relies on the notion that man can consciously ignore his baser tendencies, which is absolute lunacy. Fascism recognizes man for his flaws, and corrects them by exploiting those flaws, or rendering them entirely irrelevent.
our race has to be cleansed from all evil kremlin-jewish flaws... ;)

Third, communism relies on a vision of an ultimately classless society. This too, is pure lunacy. You may take away all political and material advantages, but people will always have jealousy as an emotion. Society at its core is a social stratification. As long as we have friends, we will have enemies. This is my biggest contention with the communist dogma.
you are right, it can't work, but we can still recognised what would be perfect and try to improve what we have.

Fourth, a stable fascist country (however oxymoronic as that may seem) would be able to make an unbelievable amount of progress in any one direction it wishes. By ignoring or nullifying all social issues through faith in the state, it is able to move forward much quicker and more efficiently. Of course, this is an ideal fascism, much like an ideal communism, which is damn near impossible to achieve.
with ideal communism you would have the same effects...


Specifically, Soviet Russia was and North Korea is communist, not socialist, no matter what North Korea may say about itself. There's a big difference, especially the tenet of communism that advocates atheism, that is demonstrated in each form of government.
it's the other way round, they are socialists, but pretend to be communists


So, ultmately, this debate comes down to one thing: is the Greater Good more important than the combined Individual Good?
communism is both, fascism is the Good of a small group.

Being a fascist, I would agree with the former. Communism will always fall to anarchy or dictatorship so long as humans have emotions. The government can never be left in the hands of pure emotion like it is in communism. The idea of pure social and material equality is unrealistic and "utopian". Fascism works toward specific goals and sweeps aside the otherwise neverending arguments of society by creating a centrally strong and respectable state. As horrible as it may seem, this is exactly what Hitler did. He swept aside all social issues without much consideration, and still managed to unify the country through nationalism and a twisted form of national racism based on untrue facts of prior events. Do not judge fascism by Hitler's actions, judge it by its realistic view of mankind's strengths and weaknesses. Instead of trying to acquiesce to all of man's emotions, it harnesses that power for a more realistic cause.
you are right, communism does not and will never work.
but that is still no excuse to be a fascist...

I'll end by opening my argument to all of the criticism I'm sure is waiting out there. I love a good ideology debate.
and I invite you to do the same. :)

Fascism is defined as extreme nationalism. Nothing wrong with that.
nationalism is a part of fascism, but fascism also means dictatorship at it's worst.

Communism on the other hand brings death and poverty to the nation it reigns over
no, if communism was passible, it would be great for society, but it isn't

...not about making everyone the same or equal it's aobut providing human beings with equal opportunites to develop into greater individuals.

In response to Bungles:

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of Karl Marx or Charles Fourier, but all communist ideologies were developed out of social class anxiety and were meant as a solution to social stratification. The idea of communism is to create a commune (hence the name) which supplies all people with the same materials and goods so that material and political possessions are not to be bargained with or dominated by another group. You yourself said that it's about creating equal opportunites, that is exactly what I was saying (or intended to say, at the very least, depending on how it was recieved). Marx's Manifesto was entirely directed at eliminating the capitalists and creating a one class society , or one without class confrontation, levelling the playing field. But to do this, you have to make everyone materially and politically equal, as those two things define social status and are the hallmarks of the powerful capitalists of the days of yore.

However, the early communist utopias (both real and fictional) all gave each citizen a permanant residence with a fixed income of basic necessities. Communism is not about giving every person a chance to succeed (if success is what you're indeed getting at by "greater individuals"). I'm going to assume from now on that you meant a spiritual or intellectual development, both of which can be envied.

If you meant by "develop" as growing intellectually, then you are correct. It was designed to eliminate social strife so that more pressing problems could be dealt with, like international issues, science, and the arts.

And in your next rebuttal, I'd like to hear all of the holes in my argument you believe you have found, and there are probably many.

Ok, time for my rebuttal against N3RV.
Mussolini began his political career as a communist. He eventually switched over to a more suitable stance after disagreeing with many communist actions of the time and became obsessed with Imperial Rome (notice all his most vigorous and nationalistic speeches are in landmark Rome sites).

Communism is based on universal equality. Who preserves equality? A higher being? A special class? The people themselves? This is where I was coming from when I stated its dependence on man denying his emotions and nature. If everyone (disregarding emotion) or no one is the state, then communism works. However, realisitically, we've seen what happens when a small group sets up communism, it doesn't like letting go. And N3RV, as much as I respect your argument, do not refer to a fascist leader as a Fueher. We are trying to create a logical view of each side here, let's try to refrain from using obviously provacative and negatively viewed terms. This association is exactly where most of anti-fascism originates.

And again, N3RV, by saying that fascism negates these flaws, I meant that they are persuaded to no longer be concerned with a certain issue, or simply less so. Once again, please don't bring the history of either side into it. I don't want to bring up Stalin's Purges. And I understand I used Hitler as an example in my first post, and I realize it opened a door that is better left closed. I'd prefer an ideology debate with as little history or fact involved.

In reference to your hope that we can recognize our flaws and work towards perfection. You stated right before that the perfect communism isn't possible, so the closer we get, or the harder we work, we will always result in a tyranny, a revolution, a democracy, a tyranny, a revolution, the cycle of governments. Even if we accept this, we will still be doomed to repeat each portion of the cycle, because you admitted that the flaw in the system was real. This single flaw will always result in the downfall of this (or basically any other, including a fascist type that neglected to divert emotion) type of government.

Your contention with my fourth point was unnecessary. "Of course, this is an ideal fascism, much like an ideal communism..." I'll elaborate on that. I meant that they both arrive at the same ends, their means differ, as do the order of their ends (ie scientific value and order of discovery, etc).

Your contention with my argument about the CCCP and North Korea is debatable, so I'm not going to elaborate on this one unless you specifically want me to. It gets into a historical fact debate. Ugh.

Your next contention about communism valuing the Greater Good and the Good of the Individual. If communism, like described by so many before, is based off of offering the opportunity to become a greater individual, what happens when this ambition and growth interferes with another's chance at growth? Would you curb the successful one's rights or abilities? You can't because that is choosing only one side. If you allow all citizens the ability to purse their ambitions you would have created a society in which the Big Dog rules. This isn't the communism you describe. On the other hand, if you limit everyone's rights so that they can all become equally as great, but not relatively as great as others in a non-communist government, you would create a for the Good of the Individual, but on the same token, at the expense of the Individual. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. One way or another, communism favors the individual. If it did, it would favor both sides of every issue. That's why that question of values has no absolute answer and has not had one for the span of human history.

I've jumped into the water now. The sharks shouldn't be too far off.

@Meritocratic Australia:
"Communists have an even worse track record than Fascists do. They've killed more people and taken property away from people."
do you realy want to say that communists have killed 60 Million people?Nope Communists collectively have killed 200 Million people and this is a ducumented fact.

"Fascism allows you to own your own home or business,class collaboration, worship whatever religion you like, were the first to introduce enviromentalism."
not the fascism that was in effect in germany and italy.(wich is the ONLY fascism)Even Nazi Germany allowed Freedom of Religion, home and business ownership, enviromental controls. Hitler made it illegel to hunt dear. Also Peronist Argentina, Francos Spain and Chiang Kai-Sheks Taiwan were Fascist Nations.

"Communism takes away your right to own your own home or business and worship whatever god you like. If you attempt to so this you are a class enemy who needs to be purged(killed off)"
no, the (socialistic) dictatorship in the ussr did that, not communism. Wrong again. Maoist China killed 20 Million of its own people trying to purge all of the class enemies.

"Fascism isnt as bad as some people think. Some people think Hitler was a Fascist but this isnt true. He only incorpoated aspects of Fascism to appeak to wider audience. Hitler was the only so-called Fascist that was 'racist'"
hahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mussolini invented fascism("fasci di combatimente"), Hitler copied it.
yes, Mussolini wasn't a racist, but all german fascists were/are racists.Also Mussolini didnt invent Fascism. Giovanni Gentile and Segio Panunzio did. It was supposed to be an exportable idelology that any Nation could adopt. National Socialism was only meant for Germany. Even Hitler said this.

I've noticed that alot of Democrats call Republicans "fascists" and that alot of Republicans call Democrats "communists". This put a rather bizarre question in my head. If the only two parties you could vote for were a Fascist party and a Communist party, which would you support? And why?

Communist of course

I wanted to point out that there is a distinct difference between Fascism and Nazism, and though Nazism can perhaps be considered a fascist ideology, Nazi Germany was somewhat an exception to the rule. Spain, for example, was a fascist state, and was indeed the longest surviving of the fascist states (Franco died in 1975, I believe, and only then was a democratic regime restored). Franco did alot of good for Spain, rebuilding its economy from the ground up, keeping it out of the war, even getting it into NATO. I would hazard a statement that Fascism isn't always atrocious, that in cases such as this it may even be considered "good". In contrast, I fail to find a similar example in Communist history. Just some thoughts and ramblings...

I wanted to point out that there is a distinct difference between Fascism and Nazism, and though Nazism can perhaps be considered a fascist ideology, Nazi Germany was somewhat an exception to the rule. Spain, for example, was a fascist state, and was indeed the longest surviving of the fascist states (Franco died in 1975, I believe, and only then was a democratic regime restored). Franco did alot of good for Spain, rebuilding its economy from the ground up, keeping it out of the war, even getting it into NATO. I would hazard a statement that Fascism isn't always atrocious, that in cases such as this it may even be considered "good". In contrast, I fail to find a similar example in Communist history. Just some thoughts and ramblings...

Yes but to the zionist drones that run our country fascism = jewhater and as a result fascism will probably never be taken seriously as it will be hated by the ignorrent masses who dislike this political ideology for reasons that ultimately are completely false(false accusations made by zionists to deter people from this political movement) and so I guess America will stay a weakening and corrupt bi-party dictatorship which caters the needs of foreign lands(israel) and selfish corporate interests....and still has the nerve to call itself a democracy.

Yes but to the zionist drones that run our country fascism = jewhater and as a result fascism will probably never be taken seriously as it will be hated by the ignorrent masses who dislike this political ideology for reasons that ultimately are completely false(false accusations made by zionists to deter people from this political movement) and so I guess America will stay a weakening and corrupt bi-party dictatorship which caters the needs of foreign lands(israel) and selfish corporate interests....and still has the nerve to call itself a democracy.

I don't know about the USA, but I would assume you are correct in your assumption that Fascism has not future in America. I must tell you though that Fascism is gaining in popularity in Europe, specificaly as a reaction to the materialist nature of the European Union. There is actually a pan-European organization which promotes the concept of a "European Confederation of Nations", sovereign European nations under Fascist regimes which would maintain some form of economic and military partnership. This new idea is most popular in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and, to a lesser degree, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, and Austria. I once read an article by a leftist, "The Shadow of Fascism Looms Over Europe", or something like that, which claims that one out of ten Europeans are declared Fascists. He then continued on to write that "neo-Fascism" seems to be most popular in France, where supposedly one out of four University students are declaredly Fascist. So ya, if you consider yourself a Fascist, have hope, all is not yet lost. ;)

'Communism' matches my political POV more than the American Democrats. More than the British Labour Party, or the Canadian Liberal Party.

Go political Left!

I don't know about the USA, but I would assume you are correct in your assumption that Fascism has not future in America. I must tell you though that Fascism is gaining in popularity in Europe, specificaly as a reaction to the materialist nature of the European Union. There is actually a pan-European organization which promotes the concept of a "European Confederation of Nations", sovereign European nations under Fascist regimes which would maintain some form of economic and military partnership. This new idea is most popular in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and, to a lesser degree, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, and Austria. I once read an article by a leftist, "The Shadow of Fascism Looms Over Europe", or something like that, which claims that one out of ten Europeans are declared Fascists. He then continued on to write that "neo-Fascism" seems to be most popular in France, where supposedly one out of four University students are declaredly Fascist. So ya, if you consider yourself a Fascist, have hope, all is not yet lost. ;)

Lets hope if Europe sneezes a fascist revolution then America will catch a fascist cold....if you know what I mean ;)

Lets hope if Europe sneezes a fascist revolution then America will catch a fascist cold....if you know what I mean ;)

I think the problem with American fascism is that it identifies too much with Nazism and Aryanism, which is obviously discrediting. Everytime I come into contact with a Canadian or American fascist, it always boils down to a confrontation over race. He/she says "the Aryan race", I ask for a definition, and have never actually been provided with one. American fascists, it would seem to me, cling to an old racial doctrine which is flawed in its context and confusedly exclusivist. If you got a group of 12 skin heads together, for example, half would tell you that Italians are Aryans, the other half would tell you that they're "greasers" or "mongrels". In Europe, Fascism functions on the basis of cultural identity, i.e, "we are the people of nations which have a common route in the Latin, Roman, or Chrisitian civilization". Fascism functions not on the basis of supremacy, but on the basis of a distinct, shared cultural and civilizational indentity. In America, Fascism seems to be anti rather than pro, and suffers from an undefined position of what is right and what is wrong. There are anti-Christian fascists, Identity fascists, Anglo-Saxon Exclusivists, etc, etc, all sharing a vague concept of race which by definition leads to organized hate and is therefore unavoidably illegal. Is it any wonder that there is no serious Fascist opposition in America?

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia would just do a write-in vote. If, however, he had to vote for one or the other, he'd probably choose the Fascists. At least in the Fascist ideology, they only take everything away from you and leave you to starve if they decide that it's for the good of the state - as opposed to Communism, where they take everything away from you and leave you to starve on general principle.

I would support the fascists because that's the only one of thos 2 that would abolish bureaucracy. Althought I don't like a Fascist Rascistic regime