NationStates Jolt Archive

What are our views on the failure of both this ideologies? Or do you think that actually they haven´t disapeared and still linger nowadays?

Communism failed because the system it imagined was impossible to implement; it didn't take in to account human nature and this ultimately doomed it to failiure.

Fascism wasn't implemented on a large scale, and so it's hard to tell how it failed other than by it's nations' defeat in WWII.

They both failed, or are failing because they are both too extreme and only cater to the needs of the eccentric who thrieve off extreme believes. The majority, regardless of political beliefs, are usuallt moderate.

Communism Attempted to change Human nature.

the USSR failed because it wasn't communist

Communism failed because the system it imagined was impossible to implement; it didn't take in to account human nature and this ultimately doomed it to failiure.

Your "human" nature is not my nature....comrade.

:p

And yes, PM is correct.

the USSR failed because it wasn't communist
What was it, then,if anything but communist?

Oh did someone already divorce the concept of communism from the USSR already? Yes they did. Sigh... while we're at it, democracy and free market capitalism have never existed either so no one can judge them.

What was it, then,if anything but communist?
It was more Fascist than Communist.

Oh did someone already divorce the concept of communism from the USSR already? Yes they did. Sigh... while we're at it, democracy and free market capitalism have never existed either so no one can judge them.

You know that is a very good point, technically even in America we are not pure capitalist or pure free market, with so much strict regulation of the "Free Market" we never gave it a chance.

Communism never failed. It has never succeeded either. True communism has never been reached.

What was it, then,if anything but communist?

The USSR came about because of a socialist revolution that was hijacked and turned into a state that oppressed workers and drove a military machine for profit - state capitalism.

Oh did someone already divorce the concept of communism from the USSR already? Yes they did. Sigh... while we're at it, democracy and free market capitalism have never existed either so no one can judge them.

The failures of the USSR are important for communists to note, but they don't destroy the idea. Representative democracy following the French Revolution had a similar fate, considering Robespierre and Napoleon, but the idea was not forgotten and eventually the concept came about.

Simply put: Both suggest maximimum use of force is good for the people, and, in case you haven't noticed, force tends not to. ;)

Communism NEVER actually failed because it was never used in it's pure form. The USSR and China were/are not communist.
And fascism desn't work because it's a dictatorship.

What was it, then,if anything but communist?the communism of lenin, never tried. the leaders of ussr (mainly stalin) use his name to take it into different areas. as I understood it, the ideal of the communism was much like the NS left-wing utopia.

Communism failed because humans are intrinsically evil and self-centered, therefore a society which relies on goodwill alone is doomed to falter and inevitably collapse.


Fascism failed because Germany and Italy had their bums kicked.

So please define communism before we all get profoundly confused, if were not already, you have to be specific... :confused:

Oh, and Fascism failed because the Allies beat the Fascist countries. Without the way, Fascism would have lasted a very long time in Germany, but maybe not Italy...

If by communism, you mean Marxism, it failed mainly because it was not well-thought out in places. Stalin and Mao, in particular, took at advantage of the vagueness of many of Marx's ideas (dictatorship of the proletariat, for example) and used them to justify their régimes.

Fascism, well, it was just plain bad.

Communism has failed because it did not take into account human nature (as said previously). The explination of this is that humans, by nature, are selfish. Moderate capitalism is the best form of government to allow for the most positive expression selfishness. That is hard work in order to achieve personal gain. Is this system perfect? NO, of course it isn't, but it's the best that has existed so far.

Communism has failed because it did not take into account human nature (as said previously). The explination of this is that humans, by nature, are selfish.

But as i've said, your "human" nature is not my nature. This reasoning is wrong. I would rather cooperate with my fellow human than compete.

But as i've said, your "human" nature is not my nature. This reasoning is wrong.

Human nature includes all of the aspects of humanity, good and bad.

But as i've said, your "human" nature is not my nature. This reasoning is wrong. I would rather cooperate with my fellow human than compete.

If I were to open a door to a room full of gold coins and told you to take as much as you wanted, how much would you take?

If I were to open a door to a room full of gold coins and told you to take as much as you wanted, how much would you take?



I would bind you and force you to carry them all out to the bank for me, while I whipped you :D

If I were to open a door to a room full of gold coins and told you to take as much as you wanted, how much would you take?

All of it. And what I would do with it is self explanatory.

But as i've said, your "human" nature is not my nature. This reasoning is wrong. I would rather cooperate with my fellow human than compete.

The thing is, capitalism allows for both natures to exist. Capitalism doesn't inherently assume any particular thing about humanity (although in order to justify it such assumptions are sometimes made). Capitalism is about letting human nature (whatever it may be) do it's own thing.

Communism allows only for collectivist human nature.

there has yet to be a truly communist state stalin and mao took a shit all over marx and trotsky's ideals as for fascism that just pissed off the people

Human nature includes all of the aspects of humanity, good and bad.

Okay...but I, being a communist, do not believe in individual gain at the expense of others. Therefore, a tendency towards selfishness is not part of the human condition as a whole.

All of it. And what I would do with it is self explanatory.

Please, explain.

Communism never failed. It has never succeeded either. True communism has never been reached.
Of course you are aware that people that advocate fascism can make that same remark?

Okay...but I, being a communist, do not believe in individual gain at the expense of others. Therefore, a tendency towards selfishness is not part of the human condition as a whole.

Yes, but that's the main roadblock to the success of communism; there are selfish people who aren't going to do their fair share but expect the same as everyone else, or want unjust power over others, and that will doom any system that relies on altruism to failure. Until that negative aspect of our nature is eliminated, egalitarian systems will fail.

The thing is, capitalism allows for both natures to exist. Capitalism doesn't inherently assume any particular thing about humanity (although in order to justify it such assumptions are sometimes made). Capitalism is about letting human nature (whatever it may be) do it's own thing.

Communism allows only for collectivist human nature.

Capitalism doesn't, actually. The very nature of charity in a capitalist society means that you are penalised for having a collectivist nature. How many people would give a billion dollars to charity, if they had it spare? Irrelevant, because the nature to do so would prevent you from having a billion dollars in the first place.

Sorry...I'd really like to get into a more coherent argument here, and defend my beliefs some more, and I will make more replies tomorrow...but it's 5AM here, and I need to be up in the morning. Why do all of the threads like this crop up around this time? :p

Okay...but I, being a communist, do not believe in individual gain at the expense of others. Therefore, a tendency towards selfishness is not part of the human condition as a whole.

Capitalism isn't about gain at anyone's expense. Any gain anyone makes involves properly compensating someone for any expenses involved, thus nullifying them.

Tell me, have you read Thomas More's Utopia?

Please, explain.

Put it to the use of the community, of course.

Capitalism doesn't, actually. The very nature of charity in a capitalist society means that you are penalised for having a collectivist nature. How many people would give a billion dollars to charity, if they had it spare? Irrelevant, because the nature to do so would prevent you from having a billion dollars in the first place.

Sorry...I'd really like to get into a more coherent argument here, and defend my beliefs some more, and I will make more replies tomorrow...but it's 5AM here, and I need to be up in the morning. Why do all of the threads like this crop up around this time? :p

Bill Gates is currently the richest man in the world and also one of the biggest individual contributors to charity in the world.

Capitalism doesn't, actually. The very nature of charity in a capitalist society means that you are penalised for having a collectivist nature. How many people would give a billion dollars to charity, if they had it spare? Irrelevant, because the nature to do so would prevent you from having a billion dollars in the first place.

Sorry...I'd really like to get into a more coherent argument here, and defend my beliefs some more, and I will make more replies tomorrow...but it's 5AM here, and I need to be up in the morning. Why do all of the threads like this crop up around this time? :p
Well, thats because all the brainy european guys always show up at this time :p

What are our views on the failure of both this ideologies? Or do you think that actually they haven´t disapeared and still linger nowadays?

Both failed because the central tenet of all authoritarianism is flawed.

Communism (practical implementations of communism, not wonderland-worker's-paradise-never-been-reached communist utopia) and fascism both assume that people in general are unfit for making decisions about themselves and their lives. They both assume that left to it's own devices, humanity would succumb to it's own greed, stupidity, or other defects and suffer because of it.

Thus it is reasoned that people in general require strict government andf regulation to protect them from themselves. So far, so good (it's morally objectionable, but so far it seems workable and necessary).

However, this is where the theory trips up. If we conceed that people are unfit for self-governance, we must also conceed that they are unfit to govern other people. Government is made of people, and by giving people power over other people, we run the great risk of having the effects of that unfitness or incompetence spreading over the people being governed as well as those governing.

Fascists were right, people are stupid. Communists were right, people are greedy. Then they put stupid, greedy people in charge of everyone in order to remedy the problem.

i think they both failed because their forms of government were both based on ultimate control of their citizenry. to control huge masses of people requires incredible wisdom or incredible cruelty. they both opted for cruelty. no government based on cruelty can succeed for long. the larger the population, the shorter the government will be.

But what of fascism? Does anyone believe that if Germany and Italy hadn´t gone amok in a expansionist campaign and loose to the Allies, fascim-in-power would have survived to this day?

Bill Gates is currently the richest man in the world and also one of the biggest individual contributors to charity in the world.
he made his furtune thanks to stealing patient from others, and make people pay him huge amounts for his patients. I don't call it collective nature.

Bill Gates is currently the richest man in the world and also one of the biggest individual contributors to charity in the world.


if i was that rich so would i, donations are great for tax writeoffs.

What are our views on the failure of both this ideologies? Or do you think that actually they haven´t disapeared and still linger nowadays?

Communism is not based in reality. It goes against human nature to identify with people you don't know, or have reason not to identify with. Just take a look at how many people in Red States complain about their tax money being stolen by liberals, an event that is particularly ironic when those are the states most supported by taxes levied in Blue States. Their actual complaint is that they want their money to help themselves.

Communism teaches the abolition of the nation state for the sake of a global worker's government. But even if such a condition could be realized, you would eventually find that the workers who produce the most lucrative goods (gold miners, computer manufacturers etc.) would start wondering why they're being treated as equals of the mere stock clerks and deliverymen. Civil unrest would ensue, and a new capitalist regime would assert itself as soon as the rich workers were successful. They might not be successful the first time, but it will play itself out in cycles of stability -> discontent -> revolution -> new stability until one of those cycles produces a new stability in which the rich are in charge.

Facism has a similar flaw. It can only establish itself as a reaction to communism because the elites and the more affluent workers are afraid that they'll be made equal to, or even subordinate to, the blue collar people. Once that fear has been averted the otherwise elites start to realize that they have been made equal to the workers, because under fascism all are equally powerless before the leader.

People, men at least, like a system with a heirarchy. It gives them the hope (however slim that it might be) that they can improve their lot in life. It gives them something to aspire to. Fascism and Communism take both of those things away.

he made his furtune thanks to stealing patient from others, and make people pay him huge amounts for his patients. I don't call it collective nature.

But he's spending his furtune on charity. He's now giving it to patients.

Both failed because the central tenet of all authoritarianism is flawed.

Communism (practical implementations of communism, not wonderland-worker's-paradise-never-been-reached communist utopia) and fascism both assume that people in general are unfit for making decisions about themselves and their lives. They both assume that left to it's own devices, humanity would succumb to it's own greed, stupidity, or other defects and suffer because of it.

Thus it is reasoned that people in general require strict government andf regulation to protect them from themselves. So far, so good (it's morally objectionable, but so far it seems workable and necessary).

However, this is where the theory trips up. If we conceed that people are unfit for self-governance, we must also conceed that they are unfit to govern other people. Government is made of people, and by giving people power over other people, we run the great risk of having the effects of that unfitness or incompetence spreading over the people being governed as well as those governing.

Fascists were right, people are stupid. Communists were right, people are greedy. Then they put stupid, greedy people in charge of everyone in order to remedy the problem.
Well, actualy fascism ideologes developed the elite theory, purpoting that, being most of the population unfit to govern themselves, a restrict number of individuals would conduct the task of governance.

he made his furtune thanks to stealing patient from others, and make people pay him huge amounts for his patients. I don't call it collective nature.

Patents. The only way you can steal patients is with an ambulance and HMO fraud.

But what of fascism? Does anyone believe that if Germany and Italy hadn´t gone amok in a expansionist campaign and loose to the Allies, fascim-in-power would have survived to this day?
i dunno. ww2 seems to have so utterly discredited fascism that no one has really tried it again. i dont think an extreme fascism like the nazis had could survive. they were too cruel to their general population.

how italy ever went fascist is such a mystery to me that i cant imagine it outliving mussolini if he had survived ww2. are there a people less suited to being fascists than the italians of today?

i think they were as doomed as the USSR was. (although it would depend to some extent on the circumstances that led to them lasting past ww2 eh?)

Both failed because the central tenet of all authoritarianism is flawed.

Communism (practical implementations of communism, not wonderland-worker's-paradise-never-been-reached communist utopia) and fascism both assume that people in general are unfit for making decisions about themselves and their lives. They both assume that left to it's own devices, humanity would succumb to it's own greed, stupidity, or other defects and suffer because of it.

I know it's been said a lot, but it's true and bears repeating. Stalinism was not communism. Communism shares a root word with community for a reason. Communism made the unrealistic assumption that people are capable of running their government. Because people are so incapable of running their own government, at least on the level of a state, they leave it open to predation by authoritarian politicians. Also, a system of government that has, as it's goal, the elimination of politicians from the political process, ends up with the same problems as a medical industry run by accountants and lawyers.

The USSR failed because of an authoritarian government that excluded the experts from the decision making (for much the same reason the Bush's policies are such failures). Communism failed because it left the government open to the exploitation of such a figure by excluding experts from the political process.

Well, actualy fascism ideologes developed the elite theory, purpoting that, being most of the population unfit to govern themselves, a restrict number of individuals would conduct the task of governance.

Exactly. But because they were right about most of the population being stupid, they didn't realise that they were giving some stupid people power over everyone, stupid or otherwise.

Rap e th e sodomisin g heretic s !

But he's spending his furtune on charity. He's now giving it to patients.

I also heard that he's planning on leaving only about a tenth of a percent of his fortune to his children. The rest is going to charity.

The stock market's going to be a roller-coaster the day Bill Gates bites it.

Rap e th e sodomisin g heretic s !

Wouldn't this involve sodomizing them?

I know it's been said a lot, but it's true and bears repeating. Stalinism was not communism. Communism shares a root word with community for a reason. Communism made the unrealistic assumption that people are capable of running their government. Because people are so incapable of running their own government, at least on the level of a state, they leave it open to predation by authoritarian politicians. Also, a system of government that has, as it's goal, the elimination of politicians from the political process, ends up with the same problems as a medical industry run by accountants and lawyers.


Yeah, I understand that true communism has never been achieved. It's never been achieved because the route towards it gives stewardship over the population to a potentially stupid or greedy leader or leaders.


The USSR failed because of an authoritarian government that excluded the experts from the decision making (for much the same reason the Bush's policies are such failures). Communism failed because it left the government open to the exploitation of such a figure by excluding experts from the political process.

That's pretty much what I mean. Any system which allows a few people to strictly govern many is prone to the incompetence or stupidity of those in charge.

Exactly. But because they were right about most of the population being stupid, they didn't realise that they were giving some stupid people power over everyone, stupid or otherwise.

I've always argued that that's probably the biggest benifit of republican government. It will attempt to screw the people at every opportunity every bit as much as a monarchy or oligarchy, but at least it will be very inefficient at it.

It's the dollar-cost-averaging of government. It may be slow to do anything good, but most of the time it will be doing something bad, and you want that to happen slowly.

Yeah, I understand that true communism has never been achieved. It's never been achieved because the route towards it gives stewardship over the population to a potentially stupid or greedy leader or leaders.

On the other hand, communist clubs could get together, pool their money, start up their own corporations and use the funds to buy businesses that they run themselves.

The articles of incorporation would stipulate that once the corporation reaches a certain size, it will be split in three. Two companies that are similar to the original, and a third company that is a subsidiary of the other two whose sole purpose is administrative tasks delegate from the parent companies. Provided they managed to run their businesses well, and repeat the process often enough, they could establish a communist reality under a capitalist government. Although, I suppose that would technically be socialist, because there was no violence to establish it, unless a fascist response arose and the government attempted to force the cooperative ventures to sell out to rich individuals. But in that case, the cooperative could buy into one of those private mercenary companies, like Blackstar or CACI.

I know it's been said a lot, but it's true and bears repeating. Stalinism was not communism. Communism shares a root word with community for a reason. Communism made the unrealistic assumption that people are capable of running their government. Because people are so incapable of running their own government, at least on the level of a state, they leave it open to predation by authoritarian politicians. Also, a system of government that has, as it's goal, the elimination of politicians from the political process, ends up with the same problems as a medical industry run by accountants and lawyers.

The USSR failed because of an authoritarian government that excluded the experts from the decision making (for much the same reason the Bush's policies are such failures). Communism failed because it left the government open to the exploitation of such a figure by excluding experts from the political process.
What you are saying is that we could get rid of the democratic process altogether...in a free election, the people will most probably choose not the right man for the job, but the one who knows how to best take advantage of
electoral tricks...hence, we should adopt a process of nomination of experts to take up the task og governing the nation, as if we leave it to the election proccess, we might wind up with a diletante only apt at confounding the electorate...

The USSR came about because of a socialist revolution that was hijacked and turned into a state that oppressed workers and drove a military machine for profit - state capitalism.



The failures of the USSR are important for communists to note, but they don't destroy the idea. Representative democracy following the French Revolution had a similar fate, considering Robespierre and Napoleon, but the idea was not forgotten and eventually the concept came about.
Those two incidents together prove that violent revolution inevitably leads to totalitarianism.

Before someone mentions it, the American Revolution wasn't so much a revolution as it was a war of colonial Independence, which is a very different thing.

Communism did not fail because of human nature, etc. Many nations of the world pushed to be communist post 1917, but they didnt fail because of human nature, lazy people, people unwilling to be working certain jobs, etc. They failed because:

A.Economics
1. They had to military compete with the capitalists, putting large amounts of money into things that didnt go back into society.
2. They started out at low-wealth levels. Communism is supposed to start in high-wealth places, not low level ones. Though to be fair, Stalin did bring the USSR up an incredible level, before ww2.
3. Bad areas in general. Communism sprouted up where people were unhappy because the whole country was poor, etc etc. Sharing the wealth didnt bring much wealth around. Nations that are back to capitalism, are still doing pretty badly(though they arent under pressure, explained next)

B. Outside Pressure
1. Communism was fought against by the capitalist states, from the IWW, to the russian revolution, to the dissolvement of the USSR. Instead of being allowed to try to grow, the wealthy western states put high pressure on all communist states.
2. This lead, again, to the communist states being forced to create militaries comparable to high wealth nations, which they couldnt afford to compete with.


Please, dont just spout complaints about communism, and say they lead to its failure. In the faux-communist nations of the 20th century, the people did work hard, and did pretty well for what they started with.

What you are saying is that we could get rid of the democratic process altogether...in a free election, the people will most probably choose not the right man for the job, but the one who knows how to best take advantage of
electoral tricks...hence, we should adopt a process of nomination of experts to take up the task og governing the nation, as if we leave it to the election proccess, we might wind up with a diletante only apt at confounding the electorate...

Sadly the only governments I know of that did this with fidelity were Technocratic Japan and Vichy France. Both of which were fascist. Imperial China had government of appointed well-educated elites, but they were essentially liberal arts majors, not really specialized experts.

I think that the best way to do things is, or rather, the least dangerous, is to simply have a government that is internally contentious. The American government was fairly well designed in that regard, although the voting system is too simplistic (I favor the Australian). I think perhaps that a big improvement on our own government would be to introduce direct election of the cabinet. If these guys had to run on their merits do you think we'd have elected Colon Powell, a military general, to be our chief diplomat, and a chemical salesman to be our chief military official?

Those two incidents together prove that violent revolution inevitably leads to totalitarianism.

Before someone mentions it, the American Revolution wasn't so much a revolution as it was a war of colonial Independence, which is a very different thing.

If those lead to totalitarianism, then I guess thats an argument for totalitarianism. Totalitarianism in France lead to Napoleon, which did great things for france. In Russia, it lead to the amazingly quick industrialization of the USSR.

America, on the other hand, slowly industrialized, and didnt really change much from Britain, except it industrialized later.

If those lead to totalitarianism, then I guess thats an argument for totalitarianism. Totalitarianism in France lead to Napoleon, which did great things for france. In Russia, it lead to the amazingly quick industrialization of the USSR.

America, on the other hand, slowly industrialized, and didnt really change much from Britain, except it industrialized later.

There is a place for totalitarianism. When a country is unstable and undersupplied a totalitarian government is needed to set things straight. But it's like lying in traction. It may help spare the nation from a near fatal injury, but it's not conducive to long term health.

As the nation gets its strength back then the despot will either gradually cede some of his power to others (probably elites who are pretty powerful in their own right) or else he will face another revolution.

Most dictators are actually smart enough to start ceding that power, because it's cheaper than simply fielding a constant occupying army to keep the provincials in line. The problem comes when other, richer, countries are willing to foot the bill for maintaining absolutism. One of the most shameful facts of American foreign policy is that we are all too often the creditors of those dictators.

There is a place for totalitarianism. When a country is unstable and undersupplied a totalitarian government is needed to set things straight. But it's like lying in traction. It may help spare the nation from a near fatal injury, but it's not conducive to long term health.

As the nation gets its strength back then the despot will either gradually cede some of his power to others (probably elites who are pretty powerful in their own right) or else he will face another revolution.

Most dictators are actually smart enough to start ceding that power, because it's cheaper than simply fielding a constant occupying army to keep the provincials in line. The problem comes when other, richer, countries are willing to foot the bill for maintaining absolutism. One of the most shameful facts of American foreign policy is that we are all too often the creditors of those dictators.

Wow. For once, someone replies to me in an intelligent manner, and I completely agree with them. High-five! :P

As the nation gets its strength back then the despot will either gradually cede some of his power to others (probably elites who are pretty powerful in their own right) or else he will face another revolution.


History doesn't really support this. Revolutions generally come because the government fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens. Issues of power and liberty come to be an issue after the revolution begins and partisans look to harness it for political ends. See the Russian and French Revolutions. The only exceptions that come to mind are those that are religious in nature, i.e. the English and Iranian revolutions.

History doesn't really support this. Revolutions generally come because the government fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens. Issues of power and liberty come to be an issue after the revolution begins and partisans look to harness it for political ends. See the Russian and French Revolutions. The only exceptions that come to mind are those that are religious in nature, i.e. the English and Iranian revolutions.

To say that those Revolutions were religious in nature is like saying the animosity between Yankee fans and Mets fans is based on a preference for pinstripes or solids.

The real revolution in England was the drafting of the Magna Charta. That was where England established the idea of mixed government and checks and balances. Once Cromwell was out of the picture the English government went right back to a mixed government of Aristocracy and Representation without another civil war. The debacles in Iran were exactly the sort of situation I was talking about with America proping up dictators.

Yes, France was the opposite of the pattern I mentioned, but had so many ups and downs that you could argue either pattern. They had a democraticly elected totalitarian government in the 50's, then they had a weak ineffectual representative government for a while and then they had a fairly strong, almost authoritarian (relative to its immediat predecessor). Oddly enough, that weak ineffectual government owed its creation and its destruction to the same guy.

Japan followed the pattern I mentioned. The emperor's power dissolved to symbolic status, and several Samuri abolished the Shogunate and replaced it with a (partially) elected government.

When the Samosa government in Nicaragua lost US support it fell quickly, even though Nicaraqua supported a fairly well off middle class. When the Contras started fighting against the Sandanista government it took a very hardline authoritarian stance. When the US stopped supporting the Contras (because the Iran-Contra scandal broke the news) and they were unable to keep bringing the same force to bear, the Sandanista government brought counter revolutionary figures into the elections which started a government that, by Nicaraguan standards, has been both stable and democratic. Granted, they were too weak to fight anymore at that point, but they had their authoritarian war machine in place, and if they had the money they'd probably have tried to keep it going.

Imperial China may have retained authority in the central government, but there was a de facto representative government (just like there was de facto capitalism even though the emperor claimed ownership of everything in China) because appointed mandarins recruited their staffs from the locals. When the Manchu took over the empire they used force to "pacify" every disrupted part of China, but quickly brought native Chinese into all levels of government." The communist party may begin to cede power soon, but they've been in "developing nation" status for the last 80 years and only capitalist for about 20, so it will be a while before the government will have the incentive to reduce funds for its military.

The real revolution in England was the drafting of the Magna Charta. That was where England established the idea of mixed government and checks and balances. Once Cromwell was out of the picture the English government went right back to a mixed government of Aristocracy and Representation without another civil war. The debacles in Iran were exactly the sort of situation I was talking about with America proping up dictators.


Now wait a minute. The Magna Carta was 100s of years before the revolution.
And while it wasn't a "revolution" per se, it did occur because the government (i.e. the king) was unable to fulfill its function (which was, at the time, pretty much just waging war). Revolutions happen because governments are weak, not because they are oppressive. When people are sufficiently repressed, revolutions are almost unheard of.

how italy ever went fascist is such a mystery to me that i cant imagine it outliving mussolini if he had survived ww2. are there a people less suited to being fascists than the italians of today?

a significant portion of the italian population never really got over fascism. and fascist groups have continued to have close ties to certain parts of the italian state apparatus, particularly the police and military - they've been useful whenever the state felt the need to conduct a bit of terrorism to blame on the commies.

Both failed because the central tenet of all authoritarianism is flawed.

Communism (practical implementations of communism, not wonderland-worker's-paradise-never-been-reached communist utopia) and fascism both assume that people in general are unfit for making decisions about themselves and their lives. They both assume that left to it's own devices, humanity would succumb to it's own greed, stupidity, or other defects and suffer because of it.

Thus it is reasoned that people in general require strict government andf regulation to protect them from themselves. So far, so good (it's morally objectionable, but so far it seems workable and necessary).

However, this is where the theory trips up. If we conceed that people are unfit for self-governance, we must also conceed that they are unfit to govern other people. Government is made of people, and by giving people power over other people, we run the great risk of having the effects of that unfitness or incompetence spreading over the people being governed as well as those governing.

Fascists were right, people are stupid. Communists were right, people are greedy. Then they put stupid, greedy people in charge of everyone in order to remedy the problem.


How about communists that acknowledge that people are greedy bastards? Like myself? What is my communitarian solution to greed and excessive power? Democracy, of course. By having one selfish person to fight against another selfish person, some compromise in the middle must be met, and both parties walk away happy. Democratic communitarianism does not leave out the selfishness option, it just makes it so that each community needs to make exchanges to get their selfish needs met. Think capitalism's exchange of goods without private property rights (which allow these goods to fall into the hands of one person instead of the collective)

What are our views on the failure of both this ideologies? Or do you think that actually they haven´t disapeared and still linger nowadays?
Yes, I thought Fascism was dead up until about 1980. Then it re-invented itself and pupated in the perfect host - the USA.

It's hatching now.

I know it's been said a lot, but it's true and bears repeating. Stalinism was not communism. Communism shares a root word with community for a reason. Communism made the unrealistic assumption that people are capable of running their government. Because people are so incapable of running their own government, at least on the level of a state, they leave it open to predation by authoritarian politicians. Also, a system of government that has, as it's goal, the elimination of politicians from the political process, ends up with the same problems as a medical industry run by accountants and lawyers.

The USSR failed because of an authoritarian government that excluded the experts from the decision making (for much the same reason the Bush's policies are such failures). Communism failed because it left the government open to the exploitation of such a figure by excluding experts from the political process.


I find I disagree with you (in some respects), but I must admit, you're a bit smarter than the average poster. Kudos to you!

Communism never failed. It has never succeeded either. True communism has never been reached.

you are both correct and incorrect... Marxist communism.. which i assume you are pawning off as "True" communism was never reached because of its monumental failor.. it was a revolutionary thought.. but a thought based on predictions.. predictions which never materialized. The ideology of Marxist communism in fact did fail because of the adaptablitiy of Capitalism. Given todays enviornment, pure Marxist communism is all but unattainable.

To the main question at hand. Facisim only failed because those who led it were overly ambious... and in Hitlers case, rather insaine. Today we might well be all speaking German had he chose to destroy Britian before invading the Soviet Union. Facisim is quite an effective political style feeding on easy impluses of nationlism to strengthen itself.

its simple really communism and fascism (well the one's that have appeared)

the U.S.S.R

failed because its dictatorship government which made it a superpower and defeated the Nazi's couldn't win in peace with the west because though it may of been good building the nations economy quickly and stopping protests it fell into stagnation due to policy's that were anti-economic and anti-scientific im sure if nukes didn't exist the U.S.S.R would of won a WW3 in Europe due to its government being suited to the environment whereas the democracy's would of collapsed in a long war

Fascism

Hitler lost his gambles in defeating England and Russia im sure if they would of worked we would (if we were allowed to debate) be talking about why democracy fell

What are our views on the failure of both this ideologies? Or do you think that actually they haven´t disapeared and still linger nowadays?

Communism was impossible as a system.. looks okay on paper, but totally impossible.

Secondly, one common misperception. Fascism existed until 1975 in Europe. It is what Spain was ruled for four decades. If Franco had a different successor other then King Juan Carlos, Spain may be very different today.

Facisim only failed because those who led it were overly ambious... and in Hitlers case, rather insaine. Today we might well be all speaking German had he chose to destroy Britian before invading the Soviet Union. Facisim is quite an effective political style feeding on easy impluses of nationlism to strengthen itself.

nah. fascism was a disaster internally as well as externally. they couldn't make the trains run on time; they just closed down any paper that reported otherwise.

Now wait a minute. The Magna Carta was 100s of years before the revolution.
And while it wasn't a "revolution" per se, it did occur because the government (i.e. the king) was unable to fulfill its function (which was, at the time, pretty much just waging war). Revolutions happen because governments are weak, not because they are oppressive. When people are sufficiently repressed, revolutions are almost unheard of.

But governments can only keep that sort of thing up for so long before they run out of money. The need for repression eventually makes a government weak.

That was why France had to let Algeria go, and that was officially part of France, not just a colony. It's cheaper to bribe people into pacivity than to browbeat them into it. The US understanding that simple fact is what prompted our strategy in overthrowing the Sandanistas. As soon as we got involved with the Contras we planned a terrorist bombing, and the "success" of it was to cause the Sandanistas to become repressive.

Fascism failed for two reasons. For one, it made too many enemies, both within and without. The most destructive war in human history was fought against the fascist states because they desired to start them. And consider this: the nuclear bomb, while used on Japan, was also intended for Germany should they still be in the war. They were never used since. Doesn't that give you a feel of the hatred generated?
The second was that it rotted society. At Germany's military height in WWII, it had an economy, but it lost vitality. The Jews, who were actually great bankers and scientists, were actively exterminated. In fact, by 1943, a fourth of the German economy was simply French tribute. A military police replaced the courts by the war, and most freedoms vanished. And of course, they were just simply irrational. It even got to the point where, when Germany was clearly loosing, Berlin did not divert troops from concentration camps to the front line, as they wished to accelarate the killing. A lot of what I said, btw, can apply to Japan, too, perhaps moreso.
As for communism, it is stated over and over again. But I had a little epiphany. Karl Marx said that communism resulted in a battle between capital and labor, where labor won. But he also said that in order for it to manifest itself, all other conflicts must be gone, which capitalism would do. There'd be no nations, religiions, or anything else that may divide the loyalties of people: just capital and labor. The 19th and 20th centuries were not like this, but with globalization, the 21st century may be. I'm not endorsing communism. In fact, I detest the idea. But I find it interesting to think that, in the next few decades, a communist society may not only be possible, but perhaps it may even be inevitable.

Communism was impossible as a system.. looks okay on paper, but totally impossible.

except that communism in a wide sense is probably one of the most historically common systems, and the longest lived.

Communism was impossible as a system.. looks okay on paper, but totally impossible.

Secondly, one common misperception. Fascism existed until 1975 in Europe. It is what Spain was ruled for four decades. If Franco had a different successor other then King Juan Carlos, Spain may be very different today.
Actually, that isn´t true. Franco´s Spain was not fascist. Although at the beginning there were many fascist-like organizations supporting the Junta de Burgos and the nacionalist side (like the Falange of Primo de Rivera) Fascism as a ideology never dominated Spanish society or Spain´s state apparatus. One must not use words loosely: Fascism is a clear-cut ideology. Its best distinctive features are: refusal of the western-style liberal democracy, which denied as a whole everything we associate with a democracy, such as free elctions, free speech, etc; a rabid anti-rationalism, that is, a adamant atack on all rational theory of governement as fascism associated this with democracy; a virulent hate- speech against capitalism (Mussolini was, in the early days of his carrer, a staunch defender of radical socialism); a over-the-top glorification of instinct over rationality; a general atack on all classic social intitutions, such as the church and what fascists saw as the decadence of the comunity due to a prevalent burgeois mentality.
The fascists were indeed revolutionaries in their own right. They seeked the destruction of the old regime, with its points of support, as the church and capitalist regime. Franco couldn´t be more different. He was a solid Roman Catholic, cherished capitalism and never meant to overthrow the old society to erect something tottaly different. Bopth communism and fascism sought a New Man and a New Order; Franco (as his portuguese neighbour, Salazar) simply tried to mantain conservative authoritarian regimes, where classical hierarchical system could survive under a paternalistic governement that let capitalism follow its course.

except that communism in a wide sense is probably one of the most historically common systems, and the longest lived.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this, with a few verifiable examples.

except that communism in a wide sense is probably one of the most historically common systems, and the longest lived.
I don't think it was. The first communist government was, of course, Russia's. When it fell, so did most of the rest. Even today, China, while calling itself communist, is not. A communist government would find it heresy that private property existed, let alone owned by a foreigner. I guess the only real holdouts are a few Asian dictatorships (plus Cuba) that try to find an excuse to keep power.
Anyhow, notice how communism is even attempted on a large scale only by order of government bureaucrats. Other systems are much more organic. The longest surviving organic one I can think of is a traditional economy, where professions go from one generation to the next, and the children never move far from their birthplace. That lasted eons.

Communism failed because the system it imagined was impossible to implement; it didn't take in to account human nature and this ultimately doomed it to failiure.

Fascism wasn't implemented on a large scale, and so it's hard to tell how it failed other than by it's nations' defeat in WWII.

It seems to me that Red China, although it still calls itself communist, has in effect reinvented (rediscovered?) fascism, with its now extensive private enterprise now subject to tight state control.

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini

I don't think it was. The first communist government was, of course, Russia's. When it fell, so did most of the rest. Even today, China, while calling itself communist, is not.
arg... once again, the USSR was state-capitalist totalitarian bullshit that came out of the bolshevik revolution. they wanted communism, they called it communism, but stalin et al just rode on the back of this to create the evil reigime that it was.
as with China. Mao did precisely the same - furthering his own ego and power in the name of communism, while not giving two shits for the ideology

to reiterate: there has yet to be a truly communist country in the world. in fact, communism is an international doctrine and the idea of a "communist country" is kind of nuts, with regard to theoretical (true) communism

Perhaps you could elaborate on this, with a few verifiable examples.

the idea is generally called 'primitive communism' and it was almost certainly the social and economic system of all of our ancestors. it has been observed operating in cultures all over the world up to the present, and the archeaological evidence shows (indirectly, of course) that the same sort of social and economic egalitarianism has been around essentially from the beginning.

It seems to me that Red China, although it still calls itself communist, has in effect reinvented (rediscovered?) fascism, with its now extensive private enterprise now subject to tight state control.

they don't call the system they are operating communism. they call it "socialism with chinese characteristics"

the idea is generally called 'primitive communism' and it was almost certainly the social and economic system of all of our ancestors. it has been observed operating in cultures all over the world up to the present, and the archeaological evidence shows (indirectly, of course) that the same sort of social and economic egalitarianism has been around essentially from the beginning.
I thought that this is what you were talking about.

The difference is that these cultures were loosely organized into family groups by blood ties. They were and are sometimes fairly large family groups based on complex kinship systems, but they are still families. The competition between clans or tribes for resources was always fierce and bloodthirsty. In addition, the authority and power within these groups was hardly egalitarian, and the elder males tend to have an inordinate amount of power.

The USSR came about because of a socialist revolution that was hijacked and turned into a state that oppressed workers and drove a military machine for profit - state capitalism.



The failures of the USSR are important for communists to note, but they don't destroy the idea. Representative democracy following the French Revolution had a similar fate, considering Robespierre and Napoleon, but the idea was not forgotten and eventually the concept came about.

The "Soviet Russia Is Not TRULY Socialist" school refuses to acknowledge anywhere where its ideas have been attempted. Soviet Socialism is thus exonerated from fault by denying that it ever really existed. :mp5:

Franco (as his portuguese neighbour, Salazar) simply tried to mantain conservative authoritarian regimes

by overthrowing the republic and not reinstating the former monarchy?

where classical hierarchical system could survive under a paternalistic governement that let capitalism follow its course.

so what was the sindicato vertical then?

But what of fascism? Does anyone believe that if Germany and Italy hadn´t gone amok in a expansionist campaign and loose to the Allies, fascim-in-power would have survived to this day?

Actually yes. From 1922 to 1935, Italy was tolerated, even admired, by many in Britain and France. Had Italy not turned anti-Semitic and expansionist (or had it restricted it's expansionism to just Ethiopia and Albania and not allied with Hitler) Europe might have tolerated Mussolini until he died of old age.

Which leads to the question whether totalitarian regimes like fascism and communism NEED external enemies to make war upon, to give the state it's raison d'etre???

arg... once again, the USSR was state-capitalist totalitarian bullshit that came out of the bolshevik revolution. they wanted communism, they called it communism, but stalin et al just rode on the back of this to create the evil reigime that it was.
as with China. Mao did precisely the same - furthering his own ego and power in the name of communism, while not giving two shits for the ideology

And the very fact that the pattern repeated itself in two large nations (many more, counting all the various smaller satellite nations) ought to tell us something about the reality of the ideology. I really don't care what the ideology calls itself, by its fruits we shall know it.

:mp5: :sniper:

I thought that this is what you were talking about.

The difference is that these cultures were loosely organized into family groups by blood ties. They were and are sometimes fairly large family groups based on complex kinship systems, but they are still families.

only in the most general and metaphorically extended idea of 'family'. and so what?

The competition between clans or tribes for resources was always fierce and bloodthirsty.

not so much, no. certainly not always. and again, so what?

In addition, the authority and power within these groups was hardly egalitarian, and the elder males tend to have an inordinate amount of power.

no. they are the most egalitarian societies we know of; they are the textbook example egalitarian societies. secondly, nobody exercised any real power - some may be granted more authority on the basis of knowledge, but not power to enforce their will.

so about that primitive communism thing...

common property rather than private property? check
generalized reciprocity rather than wage labor and markets? check
egalitarian social organiztion rather than hierarchical? check

yup, that be primitive communism says i.

And the very fact that the pattern repeated itself in two large nations (many more, counting all the various smaller satellite nations) ought to tell us something about the reality of the ideology. I really don't care what the ideology calls itself, by its fruits we shall know it.

you mean states that based their revolutions of the example of stalinism? hey, what do you know? when you aim for stalinism, you get... stalinism. shock and awe, man, shock and awe.

How about communists that acknowledge that people are greedy bastards? Like myself? What is my communitarian solution to greed and excessive power? Democracy, of course. By having one selfish person to fight against another selfish person, some compromise in the middle must be met, and both parties walk away happy. Democratic communitarianism does not leave out the selfishness option, it just makes it so that each community needs to make exchanges to get their selfish needs met. Think capitalism's exchange of goods without private property rights (which allow these goods to fall into the hands of one person instead of the collective)

A democracy with a ban on property would almost instantly vote itself some stuff and the right to keep it as property. Especially since your premise was that people are really greedy.

by overthrowing the republic and not reinstating the former monarchy?



so what was the sindicato vertical then?
Franco overthrew the republic and restablished monarchy.
I dont see the relevance of the "sindicato vertical"
Please elaborate

What was it, then,if anything but communist?
socialist, just like the nazis.

Communism failed because the system it imagined was impossible to implement; it didn't take in to account human nature and this ultimately doomed it to failiure.

Fascism wasn't implemented on a large scale, and so it's hard to tell how it failed other than by it's nations' defeat in WWII.

so your saying that facism would work if it germany was not defeated and spain was not in a civil war :headbang:

What are our views on the failure of both this ideologies? Or do you think that actually they haven´t disapeared and still linger nowadays?

Both were extreme forms of government. They would have collapsed on themselves later anyway.

The simple answer? The U.S. didn't like'em!!!

The answer I actually put a thought to:

Communism is a nice idea but will never work 'cause people tend to not like being all equal and you always needed someone to supervise the equality at the expense of human rights which renders it impossible to work in the longterm.

Fascism is a bad idea to start with, especially nazism, because it is based on the principle that people are not equal and the weaker should be ruled (or worse) by the stronger at the expense of human rights which renders it impossible to work in the longterm.

so your saying that facism would work if it germany was not defeated and spain was not in a civil war :headbang:

It would work; that doesn't mean I agree with or support fascism, but it was the Second World War that ended its influence outside of Franco's rule in Spain (which lasted until 1975!). If we hadn't stopped them in WWII, they'd still be in power.

Franco overthrew the republic and restablished monarchy.

so who was the king of spain from 1936 to 1975?

I dont see the relevance of the "sindicato vertical"
Please elaborate

franco had the economy reorganized on fascist lines. that is the relevance. he didn't just let capitalism do it's thing - even when he let the neoliberal have a crack at things.

arg... once again, the USSR was state-capitalist totalitarian bullshit that came out of the bolshevik revolution. they wanted communism, they called it communism, but stalin et al just rode on the back of this to create the evil reigime that it was.

To a large extent, you are right. I believe that it is precisly because of the nature of communism that Stalin, Mao, and all the other meanies got to power. But I do believe that Cambodia was the closest to pure communism one has ever gotten.