Why is fascism evil, but Communism isn't?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SeaPony
Oh the Liberal Tories are just being held back by their backbenchers which still care about Britain. Trust me Cameron is the biggest elitist leftist you could ever meet it is all a show to please the backbenchers.
OK........
Both evil
Original post by quentinhamilton
Both evil
But how come the one that is more acceptable has killed more people than the other?
Communism has its ups and downs, see China and North Korea.
Or for that matter, the states of Kerala and West Bengal in India.
Finally, coming from a family of Marxists, I would say that communism itself isn't evil. Its just that communist ideas are incompatible with the world today (like capitalist ideas were incompatible in the world 300 years ago, leading to the French Revolution and all). Both are complementary to each other and should be used in tandem to ensure continuous growth.
(Please don't look upon Communism as the Kim Jong or Pol Pot regime)
Or for that matter, the states of Kerala and West Bengal in India.
Finally, coming from a family of Marxists, I would say that communism itself isn't evil. Its just that communist ideas are incompatible with the world today (like capitalist ideas were incompatible in the world 300 years ago, leading to the French Revolution and all). Both are complementary to each other and should be used in tandem to ensure continuous growth.
(Please don't look upon Communism as the Kim Jong or Pol Pot regime)
Original post by James Milibanter
1. I'd argue that it's the opposite, it leads to more people being capable due to state education (product of socialism) and such to be able to go out and become wealth generators which therefore helps the economy.
4. While this is true of communism (as I have said, I'm not a communist) this is not true of the libertarian strains of socialism.
4. While this is true of communism (as I have said, I'm not a communist) this is not true of the libertarian strains of socialism.
>I'm not a communist
For someone who sings such high praise of the ideology, I find that very hard to believe.
Original post by HigherMinion
>I'm not a communist
For someone who sings such high praise of the ideology, I find that very hard to believe.
For someone who sings such high praise of the ideology, I find that very hard to believe.
I'm libSoc, other end of the spectrum. I like the principle, just not the practice.
Original post by James Milibanter
If the state isn't deciding the curriculum then the school is. Either way, the child will rarely ever learn what he wants to unless he does it by himself which he would be able to do in a socialist country or in a "free society".
The workers are the ones generating wealth, the entrepreneurs are the ones that hire the workers. Your oversimplification of these things doesn't help your case a socialist state can give anyone the opportunity to become an entrepreneur/worker/wealth generator.
No not everyone profits. Unless there's some form of wealth distribution or some form of equality of opportunity then the wealth/profits will be concentrated at the top of society and shared between a select few.
And wrong again. Here's one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
The workers are the ones generating wealth, the entrepreneurs are the ones that hire the workers. Your oversimplification of these things doesn't help your case a socialist state can give anyone the opportunity to become an entrepreneur/worker/wealth generator.
No not everyone profits. Unless there's some form of wealth distribution or some form of equality of opportunity then the wealth/profits will be concentrated at the top of society and shared between a select few.
And wrong again. Here's one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
No the entrepreneur who has created the business that creates wealth. Same would go for factories.
Where did the factory come from in the first place?
Murdering priests and property owners is hardly libertarian.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Falcatas
No the entrepreneur who has created the business that creates wealth. Same would go for factories.
Where did the factory come from in the first place?
Murdering priests and property owners is hardly libertarian.
Where did the factory come from in the first place?
Murdering priests and property owners is hardly libertarian.
Alright, well check my signature, click on spoilers and then click on the bottom right link.
Communism could be a very, very 'nice' system, were it to be implemented properly.
Original post by James Milibanter
Alright, well check my signature, click on spoilers and then click on the bottom right link.
You don't seem to have one?
Original post by WhisperingTide
You don't seem to have one?
Check my first post on this page.
Original post by James Milibanter
Alright, well check my signature, click on spoilers and then click on the bottom right link.
Kings seize power by conquest and violence.
Business owners do not. They convince people to work for them or give them money on a voluntary basis. Both sides profit which is why the deal was made.
If a worker agrees to do X for a certain amount of money it is because he values that money more than his labour. The business owner values the workers labour more than amount of money he pays.
Original post by Falcatas
Kings seize power by conquest and violence.
Business owners do not. They convince people to work for them or give them money on a voluntary basis. Both sides profit which is why the deal was made.
If a worker agrees to do X for a certain amount of money it is because he values that money more than his labour. The business owner values the workers labour more than amount of money he pays.
Business owners do not. They convince people to work for them or give them money on a voluntary basis. Both sides profit which is why the deal was made.
If a worker agrees to do X for a certain amount of money it is because he values that money more than his labour. The business owner values the workers labour more than amount of money he pays.
That should be how it works, but that works about as well in practice as communism does.
Original post by Falcatas
Kings seize power by conquest and violence.
Business owners do not. They convince people to work for them or give them money on a voluntary basis. Both sides profit which is why the deal was made.
If a worker agrees to do X for a certain amount of money it is because he values that money more than his labour. The business owner values the workers labour more than amount of money he pays.
Business owners do not. They convince people to work for them or give them money on a voluntary basis. Both sides profit which is why the deal was made.
If a worker agrees to do X for a certain amount of money it is because he values that money more than his labour. The business owner values the workers labour more than amount of money he pays.
But worldwide, the business owners would resort to hooliganism to increase their profit-share (Humans are naturally greedy)
Because fascism is the right-wing and communism is the left-wing.
Original post by Protégé
That's a result of humans, I don't believe Communism encourages the slaughter of people. 
Neither does fascism at a base level.
However using real life examples both forms have used the slaughter of people as a means to an end.
Original post by Achilles96
Because fascism is the right-wing and communism is the left-wing.
Fascism is a left wing ideology. Individuals are not important only the collective is.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
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.
I sincerely hope that you either do not gain any sort of power or authority over anybody or grow up out of your, at best, impractical beliefs.
Communism isn't inherently evil, is as true as any system being not evil. A system is judged by the oncequences of that system. Communism killed, tortured and maimed millions due to discrimination. It pitted groups against each other.
Fasism was developed by Mussolini who was a devout Marxist Socialist that adapted the theory.
Hitler further developed it due to hatred of Jews due to him being denied tenancy of Jewish owned property in Vienna, which then manifested in him unfairly scapegoating them for the Weimar Republics catasphrophic affects due to the Armistice agreements being so harsh on Germany.
Goebels was quoted in the New York Times in 1924 (ish) saying Hitler's philosophy was an adaptation of Marxist theory.
The point being they are collectivist and you are judged by your group identity, not your individual traits. That is why both systems became, and in communism, continues to be, murderous and oppressive.
Capitalism is only the financial system of a country, nothing more.
It runs alongside free market system of trade in which people are free to us and sell products and services to each other freely, with government functioning as arbitrator through courts, police etc and representatives asking sure their constituents are free to do so and not unduly oppressed.
Then social democracy, which is more state run, the government takes a more activist approach as regards to redistribution of resources, regulation of the economy etc. It's individual at its core as it assumes the rule of law with everyone being equal in the eyes of the law hence the blindfold.
Individualism style systems work better than collectivist forms as the former you can associate with people on the basis of interest, the latter, you are designated your association. It's tribalism.
Individualism has been the best answer to the inherent human trait of tribalism and anything that stifles it ends up with evil ends.
The US and UK have a history of racism, as does every race on earth, but because they have been the most successful in recent history and their self acknowledgement of their transgressions has rendered fasism, of the racial Hitler variety, abhorrent.
Communism, however, has gotten a pass because it was the richer 'class' who were persecuted for the crime of being productive. This led to the starvation of millions because the productive people where dead or in gulags and the rest couldn't produce anywhere near the amount and the Party took the harvest to feed and trade with for themselves. This feeds into the 1% narrative, but that's because anti trust is not used as it was with Standard Oil in the late 19th early 20th centuries was.
Today, big government and big business is intertwined so antitrust goes nowhere and the welfare state disincentivies people who come to rely on it and so the same representatives buy off people's will to break up monopolies and cartels with welfare programmes. Quite a trick.
In conclusion whilst not evil in intent, both communism and fascism will always end in evil acts, unless you have a small homogeneous community with huge trust throughout the whole society. People will always agitate differences to gain power.
That's the best I can come up with at this moment It I hope it gets people thinking more.
Original post by Protégé
That's a result of humans, I don't believe Communism encourages the slaughter of people.
Communism encourages the slaughter of the 'wealthy' bourgeois who are 'oppressing ' everyone with their abnormal talent and hard work. It's just that it is not explicit. They don't care whether they are killed or their wealth taken.
What happens to Louis CK when you take all he's got, then goes to an open mic omedy gig and is a 1%er in 2-3 years again? So,eons who believes the leaders will inevitably take him out, which would be just as he is oppressing people again, he didn't learn his lesson. Social justice isn't blind. Quite the contrary. That's why it is as the mercy of human character flaws.
Same with most of the 1% which in a free market system is highly fluid. People get top jobs and lose them when they don't reach their targets. CEO' s don't last long. Then their children squander the wealth with their entitled attitude and ironically activist college lives and subsequent lack of any worth to human progress. It's the grandchildren who really suffer though. Do the research. Only the few like Bushes are documented. Clinton, well, Chelsea just married well. Has she earned her wealth through extraordinary talent. She is very unproductive but has brand recognition.
Original post by Spandy
Communism has its ups and downs, see China and North Korea.
Or for that matter, the states of Kerala and West Bengal in India.
Finally, coming from a family of Marxists, I would say that communism itself isn't evil. Its just that communist ideas are incompatible with the world today (like capitalist ideas were incompatible in the world 300 years ago, leading to the French Revolution and all). Both are complementary to each other and should be used in tandem to ensure continuous growth.
(Please don't look upon Communism as the Kim Jong or Pol Pot regime)
Or for that matter, the states of Kerala and West Bengal in India.
Finally, coming from a family of Marxists, I would say that communism itself isn't evil. Its just that communist ideas are incompatible with the world today (like capitalist ideas were incompatible in the world 300 years ago, leading to the French Revolution and all). Both are complementary to each other and should be used in tandem to ensure continuous growth.
(Please don't look upon Communism as the Kim Jong or Pol Pot regime)
The French Revolution wasn't precluded with capitalism. It was a Monarchy Feudal society. To get those mixed up is troubling as to your grasp of both history and economic systems.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
