Communism or Fascism Watch

GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 years ago
#41
(Original post by Raventtt)
Everyone on this thread is absurd. Communism and Fascism are not comparable. Communism is comparable to Neo-Liberalism. Fascism is comparable to Anarchism. Communism and Neo-Liberalism are Models of society, Fascism and Anarchism are belief systems.
Although you've arrived with a unique point of view, how in any way are neoliberalism (market fundamentalism) and communism comparable? If anything, communism is a utopian view of society more comparable and not too dissimilar to anarchism.
0
reply
Ruth199
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 years ago
#42
communism
0
reply
StewieDevry
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 years ago
#43
Most people misunderstand Fascism to a great extent. In real fascism, there is no prejudice against anyone or any thought or racial superiority. Most label the evil Nazis as fascist when in truth they were national socialists with prejudice and hate. In fascism, there is a free, competitive market but a business is only allowed to operate freely and receive government support it the business supports the country's people and government. Communism just does not work at all. And because of misunderstanding, fascism is branded as something completely different than it is.
1
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 years ago
#44
(Original post by StewieDevry)
Most people misunderstand Fascism to a great extent. In real fascism, there is no prejudice against anyone or any thought or racial superiority. Most label the evil Nazis as fascist when in truth they were national socialists with prejudice and hate. In fascism, there is a free, competitive market but a business is only allowed to operate freely and receive government support it the business supports the country's people and government. Communism just does not work at all. And because of misunderstanding, fascism is branded as something completely different than it is.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism - prejudice is inherent in nationalism, as is racial superiority.




Fascism is a totalitarian, bloodthirsty ideology. Communism is the opposite.
1
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 years ago
#45
Fascism please.
0
reply
MachinesCradle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 years ago
#46
Both are systems made for animals: communists take and give nothing in return; fascists piss to mark their territory. However, strength, order and hierarchy is preferable to idealistic nonsense so I choose fascism.
0
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 years ago
#47
(Original post by MachinesCradle)
Both are systems made for animals: communists take and give nothing in return; fascists piss to mark their territory. However, strength, order and hierarchy is preferable to idealistic nonsense so I choose fascism.
Believing that fascism could ever achieve a peaceful world and maintain order when it is driven by chauvinism and expansionism is far more idealistic than believing in a society based on equality.
0
reply
MachinesCradle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 years ago
#48
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Believing that fascism could ever achieve a peaceful world and maintain order when it is driven by chauvinism and expansionism is far more idealistic than believing in a society based on equality.
I believe in equality but a stateless, classless, moneyless society would never work.
0
reply
PurpleNerple
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 years ago
#49
oh god, what an awful question
probably fascism
at least the economy won't be totally destroyed
my human rights would already be imaginary so at least I'd be wealthier under fascism if anything at all
0
reply
TheTree0fDeath
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 years ago
#50
Communism doesn't necessarily have to be about human rights abuses. It's in theory possible for a communist democracy it's just because of Stalin and Mao etc. communism has a bad rap. Communism has actually lead to an improved quality of life in places like Cuba and whilst it remains fundamentally flawed as an economic model, is still better than fascism, which basically defines a country run by a tyrannical dictator whose viewpoints are the epitome of evil.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 years ago
#51
(Original post by MachinesCradle)
I believe in equality but a stateless, classless, moneyless society would never work.
Why?
0
reply
MachinesCradle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 years ago
#52
(Original post by DMcGovern)
Why?
Read about the Paris Commune and you'll see.
0
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 years ago
#53
(Original post by MachinesCradle)
Read about the Paris Commune and you'll see.
I know about the Paris Commune. That wasn't an example of communism, it was an example of socialism. The state still existed in the communes: it was not the 'bourgeois state', it was a 'proletarian semi-state' which would've withered away to communism. Read The State and Revolution, it explains the example of the Paris Commune very well.

The Commune was a living example of a socialist state. But the Communards didn't do enough to secure their position in two ways, Lenin identifies in TS&R.

The first was that the Communards "stopped half way... led astray by dreams of ... establishing a higher [capitalist] justice in the country ... such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over".

Secondly, he thought their "excessive magnanimity" had prevented them from "destroying" the class enemy. For Lenin, the Communards "underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war; and instead of uniting the communes in launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May."
0
reply
MachinesCradle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 years ago
#54
(Original post by DMcGovern)
I know about the Paris Commune. That wasn't an example of communism, it was an example of socialism. The state still existed in the communes: it was not the 'bourgeois state', it was a 'proletarian semi-state' which would've withered away to communism. Read The State and Revolution, it explains the example of the Paris Commune very well.

The Commune was a living example of a socialist state. But the Communards didn't do enough to secure their position in two ways, Lenin identifies in TS&R.

The first was that the Communards "stopped half way... led astray by dreams of ... establishing a higher [capitalist] justice in the country ... such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over".

Secondly, he thought their "excessive magnanimity" had prevented them from "destroying" the class enemy. For Lenin, the Communards "underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war; and instead of uniting the communes in launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May."
Exactly. If communists can't operate a pure socialist state in one city for more than three months they are not going to get anywhere close to their post-scarcity utopia.
0
reply
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 years ago
#55
The theory of communism is far more attractive than that of facism, shocking to see how many people chose facism.
1
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 years ago
#56
(Original post by MachinesCradle)
Exactly. If communists can't operate a pure socialist state in one city for more than three months they are not going to get anywhere close to their post-scarcity utopia.
I would've agreed if it were the people who decided they didn't like it or it collapsed as a result of economic shortcomings. It wasn't the Paris Commune's ideology which was its downfall, it was the French army killing over 200,000 people. Like I already said, it failed because the Communards didn't do enough in that situation to secure their position militarily.
0
reply
MachinesCradle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 years ago
#57
(Original post by DMcGovern)
I would've agreed if it were the people who decided they didn't like it or it collapsed as a result of economic shortcomings. It wasn't the Paris Commune's ideology which was its downfall, it was the French army killing over 200,000 people. Like I already said, it failed because the Communards didn't do enough in that situation to secure their position militarily.
What makes you think people who believe in a decentralised libertarian system would ever be able to mount a successful mililtary defence? You cannot use Stalin as an example because that was "not true socialism."
0
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 years ago
#58
(Original post by MachinesCradle)
What makes you think people who believe in a decentralised libertarian system would ever be able to mount a successful mililtary defence? You cannot use Stalin as an example because that was "not true socialism."
It would actually be centralism, nor would it be libertarian, to some extent - a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is.

I'll quote Lenin:
"Now if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the entire nation, to the whole of society, won't that be effective centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?"
0
reply
MachinesCradle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 years ago
#59
(Original post by DMcGovern)
It would actually be centralism, nor would it be libertarian, to some extent - a revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is.

I'll quote Lenin:
"Now if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the entire nation, to the whole of society, won't that be effective centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?"
You cannot kill all of the political opponents in one revolution. That's not how things work. As soon as the state is gone it's game over.

Also, you have far too much faith in the workers to manage everything effectively. Hierarchies exist for a reason.
0
reply
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 years ago
#60
(Original post by MachinesCradle)
You cannot kill all of the political opponents in one revolution. That's not how things work. As soon as the state is gone it's game over.

Also, you have far too much faith in the workers to manage everything effectively. Hierarchies exist for a reason.
That's not what it refers to. That is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Read up on Marxist theory and you won't be so dismissive. Marx spent the majority of his life writing it as did Engels and countless later Marxists, you don't think they thought of that?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,763

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have grade requirements for your sixth form/college?

At least 5 GCSEs at grade 4 (65)
14.16%
At least 5 GCSEs at grade 5 (70)
15.25%
At least 5 GCSEs at grade 6 (90)
19.61%
Higher than 5 GCSEs at grade 6 (185)
40.31%
Pass in English and Maths GCSE (21)
4.58%
No particular grades needed (28)
6.1%

Watched Threads

View All