Why is fascism evil, but Communism isn't?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by James Milibanter
1. Socialism isn't bad, it's done more for the people than any other political movement.
2. National Socialism is only socialist by name, it's just purely fascism which is nationalism and authoritarianism by nature which leads to racism and oppression naturally.
3. Communism is the belief that all people are equal and should be free from oppression, all industry should be owned by the people for the people and no one should be better off than anyone else. This is ultimately a good thing, it is the moral thing.
4. If the OP meant Stalinism then I'd concede that yes that's just as bad as Fascism. But Communism, no matter what side of the spectrum you're on, whether or not you think it can be achieved, ultimately has good hearted values behind it whereas Fascism does not.
2. National Socialism is only socialist by name, it's just purely fascism which is nationalism and authoritarianism by nature which leads to racism and oppression naturally.
3. Communism is the belief that all people are equal and should be free from oppression, all industry should be owned by the people for the people and no one should be better off than anyone else. This is ultimately a good thing, it is the moral thing.
4. If the OP meant Stalinism then I'd concede that yes that's just as bad as Fascism. But Communism, no matter what side of the spectrum you're on, whether or not you think it can be achieved, ultimately has good hearted values behind it whereas Fascism does not.
Where has communism, in any form, turned out well at anytime? Name one time and place, Venezuela is the last best hope gone wrong. Cuba was the one before. It lasted but they didn't have much immigration of poor people seeking equality. Empirical evidence is always superior to theoretical.
Original post by viddy9
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.
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.
Which social science are you studying? I could learn what you perceive to be true in a month. You have opinions based on a narrative of history and distortion of the facts based on character traits that inform your value system. High compassion, low conciencousness in simplistic terms. This is enforced and enabled by professors and peers with simarlar worldview. Groupthink.
Scandinavian countries are capitalist social democracies. Norway being the wealthiest has huge natural resources that enables this.
Humans, just like all great apes, are hierarchical and this impulse is hard wired.
As to authoritarian, I'd take that over totalitarian.
Ps. This attitude is why Trump is President. America is built on individualism. The collectivist tribalists are trying to dismantle this in the name of social justice, which is a corruption of justice. Remember the soviets had good intentions. 100 million dead.
Original post by Spandy
Communism has its ups and downs
Mostly downs. There really hasn't been a single successful communist regime. By contrast there have been a handful of relatively successful fascist regimes, that didn't descend into mass slaughter and total economic basket casery. The Falangist regime in Spain and Estado Novo regimes of Portugal and Brazil are good examples. Argentina under Peron and the Justicialists too, which could arguably be described as a moderately fascist regime, certainly third positionist.
(edited 6 years ago)
I guess the thing is Communism is a pipe dream and something that cannot ever happen because of human factors. So when we say "communism" is bad we mean attempting it is bad. But there's a lot Marxist theory that makes bad proposals for people. It's incredibly authoritarian because it needs to seize everyone's wealth and redistribute it. It can also be argued that you'd get a lot less freedoms under it in terms of resources. You are just handed whoever is in control hands it to you. And how do you stop someone at the top pulling fingers corrupting it?
Having said that, I don't really know what fascism is. I associate it with dictators, but a lot of them are different. I mean, they aren't all universally in favour of dispensing all disabled people right? The Nazis used socialism.
Google calls it "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce ". So what makes it different to communism? Surely communism needs control of industry, opposition (which would be anti-communist), and commerce (you know so everyone gets the same).
Basically all anyone's told about fascists or Nazis is they kill lots of people based on race or ethnic identity, are a dictatorship, kill people opposed to this, seize their assets and ... what? What exactly do they do? Didn't they invest in loads of social programmes and industry? It sounds like "being a fascist" is a short term evil but the long term you just establish a social regime. I mean other than killing all ethnic minorities and gays (which weren't like then) what exactly would the society be like for normal living? Is it about the sense of national identity or racial identity?
Is it the case that fascism = communism + ethnic identity?
Having said that, I don't really know what fascism is. I associate it with dictators, but a lot of them are different. I mean, they aren't all universally in favour of dispensing all disabled people right? The Nazis used socialism.
Google calls it "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce ". So what makes it different to communism? Surely communism needs control of industry, opposition (which would be anti-communist), and commerce (you know so everyone gets the same).
Basically all anyone's told about fascists or Nazis is they kill lots of people based on race or ethnic identity, are a dictatorship, kill people opposed to this, seize their assets and ... what? What exactly do they do? Didn't they invest in loads of social programmes and industry? It sounds like "being a fascist" is a short term evil but the long term you just establish a social regime. I mean other than killing all ethnic minorities and gays (which weren't like then) what exactly would the society be like for normal living? Is it about the sense of national identity or racial identity?
Is it the case that fascism = communism + ethnic identity?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Falcatas
Fascism is a left wing ideology. Individuals are not important only the collective is.
Facism doesn't fit in the left wing, right wing political spectrum as it demonstrates hardline beliefs from both ends of the spectrum.
Original post by ArchetypallyJung
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.
I've spoken to one of my old lecturers quite a few times regarding this. Generally speaking most capitalist societies never view a distinction between Feudal Societies (the monarchy part is irrelevant) and Capitalist societies.
Realistically most features of a Capitalist society were already present and we both eventually agreed the distinction is a feature of marx to highlight the rise of consumerism in his own weird way.
Original post by Snagprophet
I guess the thing is Communism is a pipe dream and something that cannot ever happen because of human factors. So when we say "communism" is bad we mean attempting it is bad. But there's a lot Marxist theory that makes bad proposals for people. It's incredibly authoritarian because it needs to seize everyone's wealth and redistribute it. It can also be argued that you'd get a lot less freedoms under it in terms of resources. You are just handed whoever is in control hands it to you. And how do you stop someone at the top pulling fingers corrupting it?
Having said that, I don't really know what fascism is. I associate it with dictators, but a lot of them are different. I mean, they aren't all universally in favour of dispensing all disabled people right? The Nazis used socialism.
Google calls it "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce ". So what makes it different to communism? Surely communism needs control of industry, opposition (which would be anti-communist), and commerce (you know so everyone gets the same).
Basically all anyone's told about fascists or Nazis is they kill lots of people based on race or ethnic identity, are a dictatorship, kill people opposed to this, seize their assets and ... what? What exactly do they do? Didn't they invest in loads of social programmes and industry? It sounds like "being a fascist" is a short term evil but the long term you just establish a social regime. I mean other than killing all ethnic minorities and gays (which weren't like then) what exactly would the society be like for normal living? Is it about the sense of national identity or racial identity?
Is it the case that fascism = communism + ethnic identity?
Having said that, I don't really know what fascism is. I associate it with dictators, but a lot of them are different. I mean, they aren't all universally in favour of dispensing all disabled people right? The Nazis used socialism.
Google calls it "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce ". So what makes it different to communism? Surely communism needs control of industry, opposition (which would be anti-communist), and commerce (you know so everyone gets the same).
Basically all anyone's told about fascists or Nazis is they kill lots of people based on race or ethnic identity, are a dictatorship, kill people opposed to this, seize their assets and ... what? What exactly do they do? Didn't they invest in loads of social programmes and industry? It sounds like "being a fascist" is a short term evil but the long term you just establish a social regime. I mean other than killing all ethnic minorities and gays (which weren't like then) what exactly would the society be like for normal living? Is it about the sense of national identity or racial identity?
Is it the case that fascism = communism + ethnic identity?
Communism tends to be Authoritarian not because of the redistribution of wealth, instead more of a rather rational fear of counter revolutions. Revolutions themselves tend not to be successful because most of the time it's done by middle class individuals who see themselves as educated enough to run the state. Generally speaking they are but they lack the experience to do so and often exile or execute those who do have experience. Those with experience who are kept often have sympathies with the old status quo and as such will be kept under a watchful eye.
The most famous revolutions, such as the french and russian revolutions, resulted in paranoid governments who didn't want to lose their power in this manner. History has also show how reactionary forces often to raise arms against them and they are often very conscious of this. This ultimately, in frances case eventually ended in about 50-60 years of war and major domestic upheaval with the end state not really being in the image that the original revolutionaries intended.
The final kicker, is the fact communist governments know all the tricks in the book in regards to revolutions and are also very aware these same tricks could be used against them.
In regards to what fascism actually is compared to Communism simply look at another phrase used to describe it. National Socialism. National Socialism is created with the intention to use socialisation to increase that individual nations economy and living standards for it's people. Also this often means an intention for a growth in power, status etc etc. The racial or ethnic element often results from this, but not always. Many fascist countries never really had elements of Racial or Ethnic discrimination, not at least in the manner many people think of when you think of the term fascism. The Portuguese Estado Novo were a prime example of this.
Communism does also often revolve around ethnic and racial lines when they see some of these groups as enemies of the state. However the main difference here is communism ultimately sees ethnicity and race as social constructs that need to be destroyed. Communism ultimately wants a universal communist state. However the realities of the world often results in communism borrowing features from capitalism and national socialism to simply survive.
So for the TLDR version of what fascism actually is:
Fascism = National Socialism
Communism = Global Socialism
Original post by ArchetypallyJung
Which social science are you studying? I could learn what you perceive to be true in a month. You have opinions based on a narrative of history and distortion of the facts based on character traits that inform your value system. High compassion, low conciencousness in simplistic terms. This is enforced and enabled by professors and peers with simarlar worldview. Groupthink.
That's some pretty impressive armchair speculation, there. I am not studying a social science, nor do I know of the political views of my professors. My "peers" have varied political views. As for my personality traits, you're pretty inaccurate there, too.
Original post by ArchetypallyJung
Scandinavian countries are capitalist social democracies. Norway being the wealthiest has huge natural resources that enables this.
Scandinavian countries have a nice mixture of socialism and capitalism. All countries are mixed-market economies (aside from, say, North Korea and Cuba), and most political debates today are about how far we should move along the scale from socialism to capitalism.
Original post by ArchetypallyJung
As to authoritarian, I'd take that over totalitarian.
Obviously. I'd take libertarian over authoritarian, personally. Fascism is authoritarian, communism (in its theoretical sense) is libertarian.
Original post by ArchetypallyJung
Ps. This attitude is why Trump is President. America is built on individualism. The collectivist tribalists are trying to dismantle this in the name of social justice, which is a corruption of justice. Remember the soviets had good intentions. 100 million dead.
I am not a communist (until we achieve a post-scarcity society). In my view, individualism is important, and the explosion of identity politics and associated tribalism (from all parts of the political spectrum) is indeed a dangerous thing, and may be a factor in explaining Trump's rise to power.
My point was simply that fascism is an inherently evil ideology, whereas communism isn't. I was talking about the ideologies themselves.
The Soviets didn't kill 100 million people; Stalin killed 6-9 million people, according to the latest evidence. One need not inflate the horrors of 20th Century socialist regimes.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by DanB1991
Neither fascism nor communism are inherently evil. I found out the other day some of my core political beliefs are pretty much 30-50% of fascist theory.
However we have the very had example of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy who pretty much make any further fascist movements taboo. The only difference with communism is the fact it was never "defeated" as such, also they where our allies during the largest war in the history of mankind, one of which that gave many western nations a feeling of moral superiority over many area's of the world.Also communism still is in effect still the main political party of many countries such as russia and you still have single party politics in china.
However we have the very had example of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy who pretty much make any further fascist movements taboo. The only difference with communism is the fact it was never "defeated" as such, also they where our allies during the largest war in the history of mankind, one of which that gave many western nations a feeling of moral superiority over many area's of the world.Also communism still is in effect still the main political party of many countries such as russia and you still have single party politics in china.
I know this old and someone’s probably already said but both Russia and China are state capitalism not communism. Cuba is probably the closest example of communism there is
When facism came, it came in a pure form hence why even traces of it are considered evil.
Original post by By Any Means
Look at the death tolls of various Communist regimes around the world.
Actually not all communist regimes are criminal
Original post by By Any Means
Why do these crimes go ignored while everything is about the Nazi's?
Why do these crimes go ignored while everything is about the Nazi's?
The main reason is because the west fought a war vs. Nazis, so there is a stronger emotional connection, plus Hitler is much more 'fun' to watch than Stalin, because this lunatic is one of the most grotesque personas that ever existed.
Original post by By Any Means
Let us not forget that the Nazi's were even framed for crimes like Katyn massacre that was by the Soviets.
Let us not forget that the Nazi's were even framed for crimes like Katyn massacre that was by the Soviets.
Why do you revisionists name the Katyń so often, while it was nothing in comparision to total number of Nazi victims?
Stalin and Mao were killing mainly their own people. Hitler was killing
The Katyń massacre was commited on Polish officers, but the Soviets killed only 350 000 Poles till the death of Stalin in 1953.
The Nazis killed 6 millions of Polish citizens, of which half were Polish-Jews, and half were Poles
I don't really like the distinction between the Polish-Jews, and the rest of Poles, because the two nations were rather integrated, both spoken the same language, and many Jewish people had typical Polish surnames. The only difference for many was they were going to a different building to pray, but often a church and a synagogue were just next to each other, like, both in a market place, or both next to a castle.
Original post by By Any Means
Communist symbol should be more offensive than any Swastika given how many suffered because of it.
Communist symbol should be more offensive than any Swastika given how many suffered because of it.
How would you like to measure it? A person carrying a red flag should be slammed 20 mln times, and a person wearing a swastika, should be slammed "only" 6 mln times?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Snagprophet
Is it the case that fascism = communism + ethnic identity?
Is it the case that fascism = communism + ethnic identity?
In this case, the correct name of Hitler's ideology tells it well: nationalistic-socialism.
The Nazism allowed more individualism and private business, than the Bolsheviks (who allowed almost none), but targeted other nations as enemy, while Bolshevism targeted national, traditional and religious sentiments. While the Nazis considered that particular nations must be destroyed, the Bolsheviks considered that particular classes and national sentiments must be destroyed, but not any nations in particular.
However both countries had quite similarly ran economies, especially at the late years of the war, and both had no respect for the regulatory and informative function of money and prices.
It isn't known by everyone, that long before the WWII, both the German Nazis, and the Italian fascists printed money without cover. If not the war, and state-ran war economy, both would have fall into economical crisis sooner or later.
Original post by Zxyn
I know this old and someone’s probably already said but both Russia and China are state capitalism not communism. Cuba is probably the closest example of communism there is
When facism came, it came in a pure form hence why even traces of it are considered evil.
When facism came, it came in a pure form hence why even traces of it are considered evil.
State capitalism even as a concept relies on what end of the communist spectrum you're on, right or left. Trotsky himself rejected that the USSR was ever state capitalism seeing capitalism needs the bourgeois otherwise it's simply not capitalism. The communist right itself rejects the entire concept. Maio and Maoist though seem themselves as not State Capitalist but did see the USSR as such after 1956 and China after the mid 1970's.
Also other camps see State Capitalism as the final life stage of Capitalism and provides the tools for ending capitalism for good. Hell the Terms State Capitalism and State Socialism can ever be interchangeable!
State Capitalism can exist within a communist country and still be seen as a pretty pure form of Communism. Although arguably true communist states don't really exist, at most they're socialist but that's by the by. Many people would even argue, even at a base ideological level socialism and communism always were in reality state capitalism.
I'm also not sure you can claim facism came in it's base form but communism didn't, especially seeing the difference between the different types of facism were far more extreme than you ever saw in the communist sphere.
No, that idea is wrong. Communism at it's heart is not about pushing the poor up it's about bringing the wealthy down. The gulags in Russia amd the engineered famines in The Ukraine, and China were not
Original post by ArchetypallyJung
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.
A big factor of the French Revolution was to do with the monarchy not be able to coexist with the rising capitalist mode of production. So he/she were correct.
Original post by QE2
When used to facilitate oppression, suppression of dissent and opposition, and violent expansionism, they both are.
It's not a competition.
It's not a competition.
I'd add that those characteristics are inheret to fascism. Where as they are not to communism.
(edited 6 years ago)
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 ?
