Why is fascism evil, but Communism isn't?

u wot

Hitler was the most anti-realpolitik leader going. What sort of idiot starts war on two fronts?

Hitler was the most anti-realpolitik leader going. What sort of idiot starts war on two fronts?

Look at the death tolls of various Communist regimes around the world. Why do these crimes go ignored while everything is about the Nazi's? Let us not forget that the Nazi's were even framed for crimes like Katyn massacre that was by the Soviets.


Is this the biggest double standard in history?

Communist symbol should be more offensive than any Swastika given how many suffered because of it.

Look at the death tolls of various Communist regimes around the world. Why do these crimes go ignored while everything is about the Nazi's? Let us not forget that the Nazi's were even framed for crimes like Katyn massacre that was by the Soviets.

Is this the biggest double standard in history?

Communist symbol should be more offensive than any Swastika given how many suffered because of it.

of couse communism is evil - communism *is* fascism - left wing fascism. I'd rather right wing fascism than left wing fascism.

No, it's not a double standard, because a communist society is a stateless, classless society without any form of currency.

Only two communist societies, therefore, have ever been implemented on a large scale - the Ukrainian Free Territories in the 1920s and the Spanish anarchist regions in the 1930s. The communist society in the Ukrainian Free Territory was destroyed by the Soviet Union, whilst the communist societies in Spain were destroyed by the combined forces of the fascists, the Stalinists and the Western capitalists during the Spanish Civil War.

The communist symbol is simply about the idea of promoting the right of working people not to be exploited by the rich and powerful, and promoting greater equality and less inequality. Most people - virtually all people who believe in morality - see this idea, to various extents, as a benign one at the very least.

The Nazi symbol, by contrast, represents the promotion of right-wing values such as social hierarchies to an extreme extent, and also represents the racist, nationalist and anti-disabled sentiments behind the Nazi system as well. Racism, nationalism and the extreme promotion of social hierarchies are irrational, primitive viewpoints.

To conclude: communism is acknowledged to be a nice idea which was often adopted by not so nice people. Nazism is acknowledged to be a terrible, evil idea which was adopted by terrible, evil people.



It's astonishing the amount of times I have to do this, but no, it's not.

Fascism is an inherently authoritarian ideology. Communism is an inherently libertarian ideology, as a communist society is one that is stateless, amongst other things.

A communist society is also inherently socialist, because the means of production are under common ownership.

Socialism itself, however, can be more authoritarian, i.e. Scandinavian state socialism that exists today, extreme state socialism (20th Century dictatorships), or more libertarian, i.e. communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and so on.

Communism is just as evil as fascism. It preys on people's hopes and insecurities about their lot in life, buttering them up with a lot of fantastical promises of a future utopia. The reality is, it's simply another means that allows psychopathic elitists to rise to completely unaccountable positions of power, control all wealth and resources, dominate and run society like a giant battery farm, and live like kings at the expense of everybody else. It's a big scam, and all the major communist leaders of history were nothing but a bunch of con artists who never had any intention of creating any kind of utopia.

Even Marx himself was an elitist, ideologically dishonest, dick, who never worked a day in his life, abused and exploited his hard working friends and family, all while hypocritically pontificating about the evils of exploitative capitalism, and advocating for a system that makes it even easier for an elite to exploit everybody else.

It's sad that so many people still cannot see this poisonous ideology for the sham that it is.

You are forgetting to mention Marxism which holds that we need a dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. some form of authoritarian control) to get to a communist society.

This is what people mean when they refer to communism because it is the form of communism that has had the most influence.

Also communism is not acknowledged to be a nice idea. Perhaps by you but a large part of humanity thinks it is a bad idea or even a downright evil idea.

Also I like how you just called the people who adopted communism "not so nice". "Not so nice" is being a bit rude or never giving to charity, not murdering millions and creating totalitarian states.

It's astonishing the amount of times I have to do this, but no, it's not.

Fascism is an inherently authoritarian ideology. Communism is an inherently libertarian ideology, as a communist society is one that is stateless, amongst other things.

A communist society is also inherently socialist, because the means of production are under common ownership.

Socialism itself, however, can be more authoritarian, i.e. Scandinavian state socialism that exists today, extreme state socialism (20th Century dictatorships), or more libertarian, i.e. communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and so on.

Even Marx himself was an elitist, ideologically dishonest, dick, who never worked a day in his life, abused and exploited his hard working friends and family, all while hypocritically pontificating about the evils of exploitative capitalism, and advocating for a system that makes it even easier for an elite to exploit everybody else.

It's sad that so many people still cannot see this poisonous ideology for the sham that it is.

You are forgetting to mention Marxism which holds that we need a dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. some form of authoritarian control) to get to a communist society. This is what people mean when they refer to communism because it is the form of communism that has had the most influence.

I do know that "communist" in the more specific sense is anarchic, but in my opinion, nobody is going to apply the term "communism" to that kind of society, because in all of the places where communism has been attempted, it has been under a very socialist (authoritarian/left wing fascism) government, and the state never, or was never meant to, whither away. whenever you attempt to implement marxist communism (socialism transitioning into communism/anarcho-collectivism), human nature will always cause authoritarianism/socialism to be the status quo, so it is sometimes pointless to make these kinds of distinctions UNLESS you are specifically referring to anarchism where the term with inherit a more libertarian meaning.

I reject your premise, because communism - actual communism - has been attempted on a large-scale in at least two cases: in the Ukrainian Free Territories and in a good proportion of Spanish regions during the Spanish revolution which occurred during the Spanish Civil War.

As George Orwell described, when talking about the Spanish communist societies:

"Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master... I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for...so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine."

And, as Leval summarises:

"Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other."


Therefore, my opinion is that people should use terms correctly, because 'anarchist' is often completely misunderstood and so is 'communist', meaning that the only real term left-libertarians can actually use is 'libertarian socialist'. Whilst the term is adequate - socialism is about common ownership of the means of production, meaning that it can exist in the form of state socialism (i.e. in mixed-market economies such as Scandinavia, or in full such as in the extreme Soviet Union) or libertarian socialism, I'd rather people just used terms correctly.

okay then whatever you say mate, I don't really have the time to read through all this

I would judge fascism to be an evil worldview because it usually involves the idea that one ethnicity or nationality is intrinsically better than the others. I would not judge communism to be an evil worldview because at bottom, its core principles and motivations are good, and in theory, I think it could bring about a lot more happiness than our current capitalist system. I would consider the millions killed or left to starve in the name of communism to be victims of human imperfection rather than communism itself - the result of us not setting up a communist system properly. I would also concede that, the human condition being what it is, it may not be possible to make communism work.

Communism is evil. The communists obsession with egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.