Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why is communism not as socially stigmatised as fascism? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blu3j4yw4y)
    Communist dictators weren't awful people because they were communists. They just hid behind communism ideology, which is actually a pretty well-intented theory on its own. The main problem with communism is the fact it just doesn't work.
    This definitely isn't true. Marxist-Leninist ideology was not just something Stalin hid behind, it actively guided him to some of his most repressive excesses. Leninism is inherently extreme repression, authoritarianism and brutality.

    Most of them actually believed what they were doing was going to lead to a communist utopia. It was that zealous belief and "the end justifies the means" type thinking that led to such outrageous acts of terror and violence.

    Stalin and Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks are far more complex than simple, cynical power-grabbing dictators.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    Thought process when I heard 'NKVD'->Beria>Pure evil
    Yezhov was probably worse tbh.

    Oh, also check out Vasiki Blokhin - personally killed tens of thousands of people, which makes him one of histories biggest mass murderers (murders by his own hand - obviously people have ordered more deaths than this). He personally shot 7,000 people in one extended murder spree at Katyn. He later turned to drink, went absolutely ******* mental and committed suicide (apparently) as you can imagine.
    Offline

    2
    ..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because of leftist control over the cultural institutions and media.

    Another reason is that the USSR won WW2 and the non-communist left essentially won the Cold war.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    People who can't spell fascism are ******* retards.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    The countries where communism has had such an adverse effect, China, Soviet Republic etc, have not been examples of communism established in its intended sense. In effect, the regimes degenerated into dictatorship and are therefore closer to fascism than pure communism. Repression and subjugation are almost inevitable in fascism, thus fascism tends to recieve a 'bad press' as it were, more so than communism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    The countries where communism has had such an adverse effect, China, Soviet Republic etc, have not been examples of communism established in its intended sense. In effect, the regimes degenerated into dictatorship and are therefore closer to fascism than pure communism. Repression and subjugation are almost inevitable in fascism, thus fascism tends to recieve a 'bad press' as it were, more so than communism.
    this.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Because Communism is an economic term and Fascism is a social term?

    The communist societies being talked about in this thread WERE fascist societies. The two aren't even on the same scale.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    The countries where communism has had such an adverse effect, China, Soviet Republic etc, have not been examples of communism established in its intended sense. In effect, the regimes degenerated into dictatorship and are therefore closer to fascism than pure communism. Repression and subjugation are almost inevitable in fascism, thus fascism tends to recieve a 'bad press' as it were, more so than communism.
    Please establish where in classical Marxist ideology where Marx advocated democracy? Marxism-Leninism is an officially recognised branch of Communism. It follows orthodox Communist thinking. Marx and a great many non-Fabian Communists thought Parliamentary democracy to be a bourgeoise concept (and in some ways, it is).

    Democratic Socialism isn't the only form of Communism. There are dozens of others and there is no authority by which Democratic Socialists can say that "The Soviet Union wasn't Communist because it gives us a bad press."

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Because Communism is an economic term and Fascism is a social term?

    The communist societies being talked about in this thread WERE fascist societies. The two aren't even on the same scale.
    Nonsense. Communism advocates the reorganisation of the economy and society. So does Fascism. All political ideologies have an economic, social, and political element. Marxism Leninism is distinctly authoritarian, so is Fascism, but many existing Fascist societies -- possibly with the exception of National Socialist Germany (see what I did there?) are notably reactionary whereas all Communist societies have been absolutely revolutionary. You can't call Fascist Italy and Red Yugoslavia the same political ideology because one is reactionary and one is revolutionary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Because Communism is an economic term and Fascism is a social term?

    The communist societies being talked about in this thread WERE fascist societies. The two aren't even on the same scale.
    Go do some reading as you are clearly an idiot.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Go do some reading as you are clearly an idiot.
    Lol. If I'm wrong, feel free to discuss why I am, otherwise you haven't really got much of an argument. Then again...you believe in Patriotism :/ this is going to be a short discussion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Lol. If I'm wrong, feel free to discuss why I am, otherwise you haven't really got much of an argument. Then again...you believe in Patriotism :/ this is going to be a short discussion.
    Both communism and fascism have economic, social and political areas.

    It is not possible to be an inter-war Italian fascist and a communist at the same time, simples.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Lol. If I'm wrong, feel free to discuss why I am, otherwise you haven't really got much of an argument. Then again...you believe in Patriotism :/ this is going to be a short discussion.
    Go on then. How can the Soviet Union (a revolutionary entity) be Fascist (a reactionary ideology)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Please establish where in classical Marxist ideology where Marx advocated democracy? Marxism-Leninism is an officially recognised branch of Communism. It follows orthodox Communist thinking. Marx and a great many non-Fabian Communists thought Parliamentary democracy to be a bourgeoise concept (and in some ways, it is).
    The Civil War in France, by Karl Marx (among other works, but this is a good example). Not Parliamentary democracy, of course, but the commune system is actually a pretty democratic one: the leaders are elected through universal suffrage and are subject to the threat of recall at any time. The commune was Marx's favoured model of society both for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and for the communist end-state.

    Not that I'm a Communist. I think that the transition state is unworkable under the commune system: Marx's goals for the transition state, such as state control of all industry, transport, communication, and banking, and the creation of "industrial armies", would be impossible without a centralised state wielding vast power. Such a state would inevitably become antagonistic, and would not lead to stateless communism but rather to rampant authoritarianism and oppression. Lenin, Mao, Kim Il-sung etc, did indeed represent a corruption of Marxist theory, but it is a corruption made inevitable by applying Marxism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well personally i'm more of a socialist in outlook anyway and true communism,whilst impractical, isn't a bad ideology. Mauist communism was **** and nothing more than an idiot controlling a country through authoritarian means, stalinist communism was again heavy totalitarianist and was fundamentally flawed and different from purely theoretical communism.

    Facism is the other side which i don't support wholeheartedly however i would argue that facism isn't bad, nazism is and i believe there are fundamental differences between the two but because people think facist then think hitler it is more demonised then communism which you think china(present china isn't demonised in the way past germany is)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Because Communism is an economic term and Fascism is a social term?
    :lolwut: What?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cap'n)
    The Civil War in France, by Karl Marx (among other works, but this is a good example). Not Parliamentary democracy, of course, but the commune system is actually a pretty democratic one: the leaders are elected through universal suffrage and are subject to the threat of recall at any time. The commune was Marx's favoured model of society both for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and for the communist end-state.

    Not that I'm a Communist. I think that the transition state is unworkable under the commune system: Marx's goals for the transition state, such as state control of all industry, transport, communication, and banking, and the creation of "industrial armies", would be impossible without a centralised state wielding vast power. Such a state would inevitably become antagonistic, and would not lead to stateless communism but rather to rampant authoritarianism and oppression. Lenin, Mao, Kim Il-sung etc, did indeed represent a corruption of Marxist theory, but it is a corruption made inevitable by applying Marxism.
    As you say, Marx might theoretically propose that eventually we have a democracy under Communism, but he also theoretically proposes that before that time, States similar to the Soviet Union or East Germany are formed to protect the vanguard of the revolution, am I right? If I'm not, that's what Marxist thinkers later accepted. It's an evolution of an ideology, it's pathetic when Communists say "The Soviet Union wasn't Communism" simply because they don't want to face up to the fact that Authoritarianism goes hand in hand with some branches of Communism. As you say, Marx advocated a totalitarian transition state, and many people did actually believe that the Soviet Union was simply that; a transition state, and eventually, when the West crumbled to Communism, it would actually disappear and "Communism" would begin.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    :lolwut: What?
    How do people not get this?

    Communism is an economic term referring to the equal spread of all money is a wholly socialist state.

    Fascism is the authoritarian/totalitarian application of laws to restrict people and subvert people into oppression.

    The reason communist russia was because it applied leninism to communism. Leninism being the social application of marxism onto a political state which resulted in the inevitable backlash against oppresion/FASCISM.

    If I'm wrong, go ahead and tell me why.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Because history is written by the victors over the body of the losers.

    [quote=Samrout]because communism didn't discriminate who they killed[/url]

    Tell that to the Kulaks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    As you say, Marx might theoretically propose that eventually we have a democracy under Communism, but he also theoretically proposes that before that time, States similar to the Soviet Union or East Germany are formed to protect the vanguard of the revolution, am I right? If I'm not, that's what Marxist thinkers later accepted. It's an evolution of an ideology, it's pathetic when Communists say "The Soviet Union wasn't Communism" simply because they don't want to face up to the fact that Authoritarianism goes hand in hand with some branches of Communism. As you say, Marx advocated a totalitarian transition state, and many people did actually believe that the Soviet Union was simply that; a transition state, and eventually, when the West crumbled to Communism, it would actually disappear and "Communism" would begin.
    The concept of the vanguard party wasn't one of Marx's ideas (or at least I'm pretty sure it isn't, having read most of his major work and quite a few other bits and pieces). If I remember correctly, we have Lenin to blame for that. Marx actually believed that democratic communes should be used for the transition state as well as for communism: the problem is that his theory of what the transition state would be like clashes with his theory of what the transition state should do. He was far more democratic than many give him credit for, but his deterministic view of history (now proven false by history) allowed him to ignore the very real contradictions in his theory. The Soviet Union was certainly not communism, nor was it the transition state as Marx envisioned it (not just because it never transited anywhere). However, it was the inevitable result of applying his theory.

    Once you start reading beyond the Communist Manifesto (maybe you have already), he's actually a very interesting political philosopher. Although I still disagree with pretty much everything he wrote, I had a lot of my previous views of him shattered.

    On the other hand, I suspect that I'm not as well informed as you about later Marxist thinkers. Certainly Stalinism and Maoism are extremely authoritarian, choosing to resolve the contradictions of Marxism through state power, while Council Communism is (I believe) closer to Marx's ideas of the transitional state, but wouldn't have the necessary central power to bring about all of Marx's desired reforms.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.