NationStates Jolt Archive

however, is not, why not? Both are actually very much alike. Both came forth from socialism.

Both communism and fascism brought forth totalitarian states with one party rule and programmes of mass killing of either class opponents (communism) or racial enemies (fascism). Both relied on a massive repressive state police to keep track of enemies, both despised democracy, both ideologies were expansionist. Strangely enough, even though both killed millions, only one is hated and the other (communism) is not, and I disagree with that. Communism should be despised also.

The main differences between communism and fascism are that communism is internationalist while fascism put nationalism first. It can be argued that during WW II the Soviet Union became a fascist state.

Fascism and communism are very much alike, and only have a few differences.

The man who 'founded' fascism was Mussolini, an extreme left wing socialist so radical that the socialist party threw him out. He founded his own party with a radical socialist programme which, quite unusual for socialism, was also a strong nationalist party. Hitlers NSDAP platform contained radical socialist ideas, added to the nationalist and racist elements.

The USA defeated both ideologies in the 20th century, and also defeated imperialism. For years, socalled monarchs ordered their military to seize and occupy other peoples land and steal the riches (examples: Britain in India, Holland in Indonesia, Spain in South America, Belgium in the Congo, France in South east Asia etc....).

You are aware, of course, that nearly everyone will (quite rightly) point out that the USSR wasn't communist, it was Stalinist, which, as you point out, was closer to Fascism.

Have fun.

You are aware, of course, that nearly everyone will (quite rightly) point out that the USSR wasn't communist, it was Stalinist, which, as you point out, was closer to Fascism.

Have fun.
was about to say...

Both communism and fascism brought forth totalitarian states with one party rule and programmes of mass killing of either class opponents (communism) or racial enemies (fascism).

Wrong, that was Stalinism, fascism that called itself Communism.

Both relied on a massive repressive state police to keep track of enemies, both despised democracy,

Not necessarily, communism is an economic model, not a political one.

both ideologies were expansionist. Strangely enough, even though both killed millions, only one is hated and the other (communism) is not, and I disagree with that. Communism should be despised also.

Communism is dispised. Why else do americans call extream socialists 'commies'?

The main differences between communism and fascism are that communism is internationalist while fascism put nationalism first. It can be argued that during WW II the Soviet Union became a fascist state.

Exactly though, the Russian governments, aside fromthe last ones, were all dictatorships of one kind or another.

Fascism and communism are very much alike, and only have a few differences.

The man who 'founded' fascism was Mussolini, an extreme left wing socialist so radical that the socialist party threw him out. He founded his own party with a radical socialist programme which, quite unusual for socialism, was also a strong nationalist party. Hitlers NSDAP platform contained radical socialist ideas, added to the nationalist and racist elements.

Meh.

The USA defeated both ideologies in the 20th century, and also defeated imperialism.

Defeated? Ya, well, I know people who beleive that facism is the only sure-fire form of government. I also know several Communists. There has never been a truly communist nation in the world.

For years, so called monarchs ordered their military to seize and occupy other peoples land and steal the riches (examples: Britain in India, Holland in Indonesia, Spain in South America, Belgium in the Congo, France in South east Asia etc....).

The collapse of Imperialism was due to stress on nations after WWII, caused by, guess what? Facism. So facism defeated Imperialism. And those monarchs were not so-called, they actually were. And btw, even after Britain became a democracy, they retained thier 'imperial' holdings.

Most countries that call themselves Communist are nothing of the sort. Marxist communism was supposed to happen in highly industrialized countries, where factory workers and the like get sick of being dominated. These workers were supposed to then rise up and make everyone equal. But look at the so-called communist countries that exist today. Cuba is a far cry from being industrialized, and so is most of China.

They have extremely different origins, for one thing - fascism grew from the Italian Futurist movement of the turn of the century. The Futurists came from any number of different walks of life, but they agreed that it was time to destroy all ties with the organic, baroque past and embrace the modern world of mass production. There are architectural illustrations for Futurist projects that I have seen that look - well...'futuristic', even for the present-day. I can still recall reading part of the Futurist Manifesto, something about 'crushing the flimsy past under the bootheel of the machine', or somesuch. Very elitist. Very dehumanizing. Very frightening.

Communism was widely practiced (without being referred to as such) in small, closed communities all across Europe for centuries. The Seigneuries and other Monastic holdings were effectively Communistic. When Marx and Engels penned the Communist Manifesto, they were reacting to glaring social disparities brought on by the Industrial Revolution. They were responding to the actions, or willfull inactions, of people very much like the nascent Futurists - those possessing the means of mass production, those who wished to destroy the past and dehumanize the populace in the name of some horrific and terribly stratified 'future'.

You won't get me to agree that they're the same thing at all. Not without a great deal more persuasion.

was about to say...

Indeed. It's quite sad, really, that people are unaware of the difference...

Indeed. It's quite sad, really, that people are unaware of the difference...

Or are aware, but desperately try to make their own ideology sound fine.
"It's ok, we only killed 22 million."

whichever system kills the most people, it's all about the ideals those systems promote....after all, it depends upon the people belonging to the system......Hitler was Austrian, but no modern-day Austrians or Germans believe in the eradication of the jews. He was also right-wing, but not all right-wing modern-day people believe in the eradication of the jews! no matter how extreme my example, the same applies for any system in the world; you can't stereotype everybody belonging to a political belief.

You are aware, of course, that nearly everyone will (quite rightly) point out that the USSR wasn't communist, it was Stalinist, which, as you point out, was closer to Fascism.
Correct, and also fascism is not Nazism and is not racist on its own.

I love how everyone is quick to point out that communism isn't the same as Stalinism, but no one else is leaping to point out that Fascism isn't the same as Naziism.

I love how everyone is quick to point out that communism isn't the same as Stalinism, but no one else is leaping to point out that Fascism isn't the same as Naziism.
the post above you did

Also, since when was fascism "Universally Despised" Last I checked, Italy, Spain and Japan are still part of the known universe.

You are aware, of course, that nearly everyone will (quite rightly) point out that the USSR wasn't communist, it was Stalinist, which, as you point out, was closer to Fascism.

Have fun.

my point was, with a few exceptions, communism and fascism, even in theory, are more or less the same.

Marx preached eradication of all but the workers class. Hitler preached eradication of all 'non-Volkisch elements'.

You should change your question to read, "Which ... is worst?"

..since we're comparing three different items, not two.

hehe

Carry on.

Most countries that call themselves Communist are nothing of the sort.

more importantly, no countries have ever claimed to be operating under communism in the present tense. every single one of them never claimed more than being socialist, with the aim of one day getting to communism.

my point was, with a few exceptions, communism and fascism, even in theory, are more or less the same.

care to even try to justify that position?

my point was, with a few exceptions, communism and fascism, even in theory, are more or less the same.

Marx preached eradication of all but the workers class. Hitler preached eradication of all 'non-Volkisch elements'.

Fine. Nuclear hellfire for the lot of them.

Marx preached eradication of all but the workers class. Hitler preached eradication of all 'non-Volkisch elements'.

Marx preached for the classless, equal society, while Hitler preached for aryan supremacy over other races. No, that's not the same thing.

my point was, with a few exceptions, communism and fascism, even in theory, are more or less the same.

Marx preached eradication of all but the workers class. Hitler preached eradication of all 'non-Volkisch elements'.
But...thats not fascism

the idea of communism itself isn't evil at all. I think it is the least evil ideology in the world of politics. Unfortunately, it is only an ideal and cannot really work as we saw in the USSR. Now on the other hand, the idea of Fascism really is evil and the regime the Nazis implemented was far more brainless than the communist (not Stalinist) regime.

Communism and facism, as we've seen them implemented in the world, both advocate stringent economic control by the government *and* social authoritarianism.

In my opinion, Marxism/Communism will almost always lead to totalitarian dictatorships. In order to set up the the classless scoiety, Marx calls for a dictorship of the proletariat. In my opinion, your deluding yourself, if you think that dicator and his cronies are ever going to give up that power when the time comes.

Mn.. all I'm gonna say about this topic is that Communism would be a good government if people would go through with it correctly >_>

In my opinion, it's probably the best government on paper...

In my opinion, Marxism/Communism will almost always lead to totalitarian dictatorships. In order to set up the the classless scoiety, Marx calls for a dictorship of the proletariat. In my opinion, your deluding yourself, if you think that dicator and his cronies are ever going to give up that power when the time comes.

That's one of the flaws with Marxism. But luckily Marxism isn't the be all and end all of Communism. There are other means to the same end.

And to previous posters, eradicating classes doesn't mean killing everyone else, it means breaking down barriers.

Mn.. all I'm gonna say about this topic is that Communism would be a good government if people would go through with it correctly >_>

In my opinion, it's probably the best government on paper...

with Communism, true communism, in which everyone is equal, there can be no government. I love the Communism Ideal, Marxism etc, but we have to accept that in our world, most leaders do not work to get to a position in government, to then give it, to make everyone equal. This is therefore a huge problem for Communism (one of many unfortunately), but still a great idea

With the way communism keeps everyone marching in line, there will always be the potential for people cutting. Its to easy to control the masses in a Communist gov't.

with Communism, true communism, in which everyone is equal, there can be no government. I love the Communism Ideal, Marxism etc, but we have to accept that in our world, most leaders do not work to get to a position in government, to then give it, to make everyone equal. This is therefore a huge problem for Communism (one of many unfortunately), but still a great idea

Exactly... that's why... people will never be able to inact a government such as communism.

As I said (in my opinion) Communism is the best on paper XD

But Communism is only achieved when the state withers away, so any "Communist state" is not Communist at all. At the very best they're in a transition state.

is this guy serious?

(that is directed towards the original poster)

I also love the Ideal on paper, I was merely saying true communism can never truly work on a large scale. Unfortunately there are governments, such as Stalinism, etc posing as Communism, when they couldn't be further away on the spectrum (Grrrr)

Stalinism is a result of Communism.

In my opinion, Marxism/Communism will almost always lead to totalitarian dictatorships. In order to set up the the classless scoiety, Marx calls for a dictorship of the proletariat. In my opinion, your deluding yourself, if you think that dicator and his cronies are ever going to give up that power when the time comes.

what's funny is that this is essentially what anarchist communists have been saying from the very start.

what's funny is that this is essentially what anarchist communists have been saying from the very start.
Eggzactly! But when people see or hear the word communist they automatically think of frumpy Marxists/Leninists or even worse, Stalin... Yes, state capitalism is communism, or even socialism...

I agree with the communists who think that the USSR was not communist. Marx wanted a democracy, so obviously the USSR was not communist. But as was stated before, Fascism is getting an unfair rap. If the USSR was not communist, than it makes perfect sense that that Germany was not Fascist. Fascism wants unity, so any racial policy is outside Fascism because it would create disunity. Hitler only dared to copy the marches, music and symbolism of Fascism to meet his ends,while Fascism believes itself to be an end that a society must maintain and not a tool to achieve anything specific. Fascism and Socialism are very much alike, when you consider the USSR as not being socialist. Fascism and Socialism share the same empathetic feelings towards life, and the desire for justice and proggress. They simply go about things differantly. Socialism discoverd the worlds problems and Fascism said "I'll fix them". Fascists rejected internationalism as a means towards problem solving because as cultures vary, people's needs and lifestyles vary. Thus it is important for people to solve their own problems. Fascism is not cold and mechanicle. Futurism was but one of it's many doctrines. It also appealed to mythicalism. Fascists reveled in the past as a comparison to their achievments now and in the future. The whole idea of Fasicst futurism was to achieve greater and greater things. While socialism thought society was going to stabilize at a final level, Fascism says life is always in flux, and can always be worse or better. Fascism sees the world as 'Organic and Spiritual' based on idealism. While it was anti-individualism, that doesn't mean it was against every individual. On the contrary, while Fascism valued the whole, it understood that the whole is only as good as each of it's parts.

Is your assertion based on The-Black-Book-of-Communism?

No matter, sounds similar and is well critised here.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-Black-Book-of-Communism

Even though the article's neutrality is disputed that's not the issue. After all I would dispute yours and mine probably.

Again I find that the over-riding problem with discussions of this nature [since, while I'm aware that Fascism doesn't inately demand the extermination of other races, I really don't care about that negative and insignificant tangent of a political and/or economic system] is that people insist on chipping in even though all they have to say is that, communism is a nice idea, but we know it won't work, because [something horribly vague about the supposed fact that it didn't work in the USSR]. Why bother to join a discussion to say something when you know nothing? Turn up to watch or to ask, I suppose; turn up to contribute if you have anything to contribute, of course; don't turn up to say the same thing time and again, especially when it in no way applies. I don't understand why anyone would bother to do that.

As to the original post, I can only assume that our friend has hit on the widely understood if slightly tenuous link between socialist economics and, uhm, national socialist economics. Well, okay then! Fascism is widely and rightly despised because even without the genocide, it still isn't really very friendly and appeals only to limited and primative aspects of human nature that don't really sit well in a global society. The only people who think that communism is contrary to human nature are the sort of people I mentioned in the first paragraph, and communism is -in contrast to fascism [though again I admit to some significant ignorance on that uninspiring theory]- relatively welcoming.

I just wish that people would stop saying that we know communism doesn't work because of [nonsense we've all heard before], as it's a gigantic waste of time and effort for all parties... much as I fear this post may be, while I ask myself why I bother...

Once again, Max Barry has all the answers.

From the NS FAQ:

"My nation is "the Free Republic of Bruteland," but the UN says I'm a dictatorship!

You can call your nation whatever you like, but it doesn't make it true. The UN categorizes nations based on their laws, not their names. Changing your name from "Dictatorship" to "Republic" (or anything else) has cosmetic value only."


The USSR could call themselves communist all they wanted, but they weren't...

yes, fascism and communism are very much alike, but they are mortally afraid of one another.

all these idealisms are the same: good in theory, bad in practice

Stalinism is a result of Communism.

see how much good can come from communism and fascism? they should make america canada and united kingdoms become stalinistic and it would be allot better in the world.

see how much good can come from communism and fascism? they should make america canada and united kingdoms become stalinistic and it would be allot better in the world.
Except for people whom the government decides not to like.

Is your assertion based on The-Black-Book-of-Communism?
That explains a lot...

That book is the biggest sack of crap some wannabe academic ever crapped out. :p

Communism is more evil Pop culture made it cool.
Shoots Pop Culture. :sniper:

A friend of mine in school said it best. Communism is Fascism applied to the economy. By this I mean the Russian/Chinese version of communism. This would not apply to "true communism." I would just label that unrealistic.

Stalinism is a result of Communism.

Just like General Pinochet was a result of Capitalism? :rolleyes:

however, is not, why not? Both are actually very much alike. Both came forth from socialism.

Both communism and fascism brought forth totalitarian states with one party rule and programmes of mass killing of either class opponents (communism) or racial enemies (fascism). Both relied on a massive repressive state police to keep track of enemies, both despised democracy, both ideologies were expansionist. Strangely enough, even though both killed millions, only one is hated and the other (communism) is not, and I disagree with that. Communism should be despised also.

The main differences between communism and fascism are that communism is internationalist while fascism put nationalism first. It can be argued that during WW II the Soviet Union became a fascist state.

Fascism and communism are very much alike, and only have a few differences.

The man who 'founded' fascism was Mussolini, an extreme left wing socialist so radical that the socialist party threw him out. He founded his own party with a radical socialist programme which, quite unusual for socialism, was also a strong nationalist party. Hitlers NSDAP platform contained radical socialist ideas, added to the nationalist and racist elements.

The USA defeated both ideologies in the 20th century, and also defeated imperialism. For years, socalled monarchs ordered their military to seize and occupy other peoples land and steal the riches (examples: Britain in India, Holland in Indonesia, Spain in South America, Belgium in the Congo, France in South east Asia etc....).
I think your having a laugh here. Fascism is evil, Communism hasn't been tried yet (don't confuse what went on in Russia as Communism, for when did Russia ever have autonomous communes running things?)
Finally, America didn't defeat Russia, international capitalism did and America is the present imperialist rogue nation.

The man who 'founded' fascism was Mussolini, an extreme left wing socialist so radical that the socialist party threw him out. He founded his own party with a radical socialist programme which, quite unusual for socialism, was also a strong nationalist party. Hitlers NSDAP platform contained radical socialist ideas, added to the nationalist and racist elements.
Your history's a bit screwed. The communist party in Germany at the time was the KPD, as well as several more radical Marixt parties. After the Reichstag fire of 1933, Göring set about destroying these parties. It is a widely held fallacy that the Nazi Party was socialist in anything but name: as Hitler said, the Nazi Party was founded on the concept of private ownership.

The USA defeated both ideologies in the 20th century, and also defeated imperialism. For years, socalled monarchs ordered their military to seize and occupy other peoples land and steal the riches (examples: Britain in India, Holland in Indonesia, Spain in South America, Belgium in the Congo, France in South east Asia etc....).

No, it didn't. Firstly, I think the USSR contributed more to Germany's defeat than America. Secondly, the USSR was state capitalist, not communist. Thirdly, it collapsed mainly due to its inner corruption.
As for imperialism...how did America defeat it? It is extremely arrogant to deny the work of such people as Gandhi in bringing down the British Empire. Also, globalisation is the latest incarnation of imperialism. Previously, imperialism was where raw materials were stolen from colonies and processed in the richer world; now, neo-colonialism (aka neo-liberalism, globalisation) is where raw materials may be taken from one LEDC, use labour in another, manage finances in an island tax haven, and have shareholders in an MEDC. This is partly to avoid the danger of currency crashes, and to maximise profits.