Turn on thread page Beta

Why is communism not as socially stigmatised as fascism? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    You are completely wrong as many have already pointed out.

    Communism is not just about economics, although they point a lot of emphasis on that.

    Fascism is not the same thing as oppression which is what you are basically implying.

    Here is a wikipedia article which discusses what fascism is.

    Most of the confusion is due to the left using the word "fascist" against anyone who disagrees with them, including social democrats.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jono.B)
    It's not a myth. The movie "Che" is a prime example, depicting Che Guevara as a hero and freedom fighter, when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Many don't realise how he brutally murdered his opponents as soon as the revolution was over, no, instead they wear him on their t-shirts! He was an evil man, yet you still have the film industry glorifying him. This is just one example.
    I find the t-shirts ot be quite ironice and would wear one because of that. che a communist now has his image used to make money in a capitalist economy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cap'n)
    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.
    The Soviet Union was a revolutionary body led by the working class that eradicated bourgeoise control of industry and society. It was anti-reactionary and antagonised elements hostile to the ideology throughout its life. All elements of bourgoise thought were stamped out and replaced with a new revolutionary workers culture. In this sense it is entirely communist.

    If many modern Communists today just looked at the design of the USSR's society & economy, ignorant of what this actually led to in reality, they would probably strongly agree with it. Do Communists agree with universal education up to the university level? Yes. Do they agree with universal healthcare? Yes. Do they agree with worker control of industry and equality in wages? Yes. Do they agree with market operation of prices? No. Do they agree with liberal courts? No.

    It's only opposed because it was an ugly totalitarian monster.

    I agree on Council Communism.

    I'm more understood about libertarian communism, social democracy and marxism-leninism than actually marx himself, but all these are all valid socialist beliefs. In my opinion, any ideology that follows the (1) Labour Theory of Value, (2) the Exploitation Theory of Interest, the (3) Theory of Surplus Value and (4) Dialectical Materialism simultaneously is some form of Socialism regardless of whether it's a democracy or a dictatorship. (Although they do have to be revolutionary or advocate some form of revolution at some point.) I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable approach as those five things ultimately classify Socialism completely accurately.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    You are confusing authoritarianism and fascism. A fascist state is necessarily authoritarian, but an authoritarian state is not necessarily a fascist state.
    The Soviet Union was authoritarian and communist - the combination of these aspects characterise Stalinism. Nazi Germany was authoritarian, but not communist - it mixed state control of industry with big business.

    It seems like you are thinking of a 2-D political map, and thinking that since communism and what is traditionally called fascism, are both socially authoritarian they are both fascist states.
    This is just a misunderstanding of the word fascist.

    Not to mention there are other differences between Stalinism and true Fascism, which are not represented simply as economic left-right and social/personal freedom, such as the reactionary/revolutionary differences pointed out above.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    I've told you why you're wrong twice but you have totally ignored me. I'll repeat it: Communism is a revolutionary ideology. The Soviet Union was a revolutionary body. Fascism is a reactionary ideology. Almost all fascist states, regardless of how they've come to power, have been reactionary.

    Again, your definition of Communism is wrong. Communism isn't just about "spreading the wealth around", it's about removing class hierarchies in society.

    Your definition of fascism is wrong. Fascism is an ideology that places the nation or the people above the individual. So it applies to society, economics, everything, it is entirely all-encompassing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    No. While Marx believed that the economic structure of a state determined its political structure, he was far more interested in the relations of power between those sold labour and those who bought it than he was in economic calculations.

    Not only does your simplistic analysis of Marxism miss out most of its goals, the one goal that you put forward, the equal spread of money, is actually wrong. Communism doesn't seek to redistribute money, it seeks to abolish it, along with all private property. It's a political philosophy: in the commune system, Marx proposes how a communist society should govern itself. It's a theory of history: Marx holds that communism is the end stage of history at which oppressive power relations are abolished forever. Marxism isn't so much a theory of economics as it is a theory of freedom, and the fact that you've reduced it to "the equal spread of all money" shows that you know very little about it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Why are communist logos fashion statements and the swastika a hate symbol? Because one won and the other lost. Do you think the swastika would be banned if Hitler won the war, I doubt it somehow.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Because fascists kill specific people with a purpose, whereas communists kill indiscriminately through incompetence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    The Soviet Union was a revolutionary body led by the working class that eradicated bourgeoise control of industry and society. It was anti-reactionary and antagonised elements hostile to the ideology throughout its life. All elements of bourgoise thought were stamped out and replaced with a new revolutionary workers culture. In this sense it is entirely communist.
    You're right that the Soviet Union was born out of communist ideology, but communism refers to the stateless society after the transition state. I think it's more accurate to see the Soviet Union as a transition state that centralised power and got stuck (as I believe is inevitable). And describing the Soviet Union as wholly revolutionary is a bit strange: in it's later years, it was far more a reactionary state than a revolutionary one.

    If many modern Communists today just looked at the design of the USSR's society & economy, ignorant of what this actually led to in reality, they would probably strongly agree with it. Do Communists agree with universal education up to the university level? Yes. Do they agree with universal healthcare? Yes. Do they agree with worker control of industry and equality in wages? Yes. Do they agree with market operation of prices? No. Do they agree with liberal courts? No.

    It's only opposed because it was an ugly totalitarian monster.

    I agree on Council Communism.

    I'm more understood about libertarian communism, social democracy and marxism-leninism than actually marx himself, but all these are all valid socialist beliefs. In my opinion, any ideology that follows the (1) Labour Theory of Value, (2) the Exploitation Theory of Interest, the (3) Theory of Surplus Value and (4) Dialectical Materialism simultaneously is some form of Socialism regardless of whether it's a democracy or a dictatorship. (Although they do have to be revolutionary or advocate some form of revolution at some point.) I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable approach as those four things ultimately classify Socialism completely accurately.
    I actually agree with all of this. Perhaps there's been some confusion about what I've been trying to do. I don't seek to defend the Soviet Union, or communism: I'm not quite sure what I'd class myself as politically, but I have a liberal streak a mile wide. Certainly not any kind of communist. I just dropped in to clear up what I see as some misunderstandings about communism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Due to the fact that in the Western states there is a greater awareness of fascism than communism, mainly because Occidental Europe faced it directly,fighting Germany and Italy in WWII, having communist Russia as an ally.

    Living in a former communist country, I can say that most people here tend to picture communism as far worse than fascism, simply because they faced it directly. Therefore, it's a matter of perspective.
    Offline

    9
    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).

    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."
    Not advocating parliamentary democracy is not equivalent to supporting the concept of dictatorship. Similarly, dictatorship in the sense that Communist states such as the Soviet Republic degenerated into (simply an oligarchy) was not the true meaning of the word 'dictatorship' as employed by Marx. Marx's idea of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' was only ever intended to mean overthrowing the control of the bourgeois State, not control by one person as implied with fascism. As such, communism is inherently less anti-democratic than fascism, and so less abhorrent to (hopefully) the majority.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cap'n)
    You're right that the Soviet Union was born out of communist ideology, but communism refers to the stateless society after the transition state. I think it's more accurate to see the Soviet Union as a transition state that centralised power and got stuck (as I believe is inevitable). And describing the Soviet Union as wholly revolutionary is a bit strange: in it's later years, it was far more a reactionary state than a revolutionary one.
    Well ok, but a Communist is somebody who advocates the creation of the stateless society after the transition state, no? And a Communist [state] can be either a transition state aiming for the stateless society or the stateless society itself.

    Wikipedia briefly describes "Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state"; I mean, ok, using wiki isn't always a particularly great idea but it demonstrates the point here. Fascist regimes hark back to the glory of the nation, or the glory of institutions that have been or are being attacked. Revolutionary states seek to impose new institutions and to move a country in a new direction, often one radically against those that Fascists seek to preserve. It depends, I think. Race based fascism is often more revolutionary than reactionary (i.e. Nazism) but simple authoritarian fascism is usually largely reactionary. Communism is always looking for the overthrow of the capitalist system everywhere and so it is still always revolutionary.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They're both bullshi*, utopia if followed perfectly but of course that's never gonna happen- for that to happen all human beings would pretty much need to be inert and "the same". Quite simply the best way ideology to follow especially when you're in a position of responsibility (e.g. President, headmaster) etc. is not Liberalism, Communism or Fascism, it's pragmatism. If I'am the British PM, I'll continue with liberal democarcy because in a country like Britain it works. In Somalia, I'll be much more authoritarian, killing miscreants, banning media which publishes stuff against the government, introducing harsh punishments just to bring a semblence of peace and control to the war torn nation.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Unless you're rich or oppose any policy, drilled-in opinion or propaganda.

    Oh, and in the case of Stalin, Jewish.
    :awesome:

    The answer's rather simple - Stalin's mustache > Hitler's, there ends the debate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Not advocating parliamentary democracy is not equivalent to supporting the concept of dictatorship. Similarly, dictatorship in the sense that Communist states such as the Soviet Republic degenerated into (simply an oligarchy) was not the true meaning of the word 'dictatorship' as employed by Marx. Marx's idea of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' was only ever intended to mean overthrowing the control of the bourgeois State, not control by one person as implied with fascism. As such, communism is inherently less anti-democratic than fascism, and so less abhorrent to (hopefully) the majority.
    How do you respond to this; "In my opinion, any ideology that follows the (1) Labour Theory of Value, (2) the Exploitation Theory of Interest, the (3) Theory of Surplus Value and (4) Dialectical Materialism simultaneously is some form of Socialism regardless of whether it's a democracy or a dictatorship. (Although they do have to be revolutionary or advocate some form of revolution at some point.) I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable approach as those four things ultimately classify Socialism completely accurately."?

    If a state or person fulfills all these criteria, what stops them from being a Communist? If they do fulfill them all but aren't a Communist, what are they?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    They're both bullshi*, utopia if followed perfectly but of course that's never gonna happen- for that to happen all human beings would pretty much need to be inert and "the same". Quite simply the best way ideology to follow especially when you're in a position of responsibility (e.g. President, headmaster) etc. is not Liberalism, Communism or Fascism, it's pragmatism. If I'am the British PM, I'll continue with liberal democarcy because in a country like Britain it works. In Somalia, I'll be much more authoritarian, killing miscreants, banning media which publishes stuff against the government, introducing harsh punishments just to bring a semblence of peace and control to the war torn nation.
    How is fascism utopia if followed perfectly...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    There is a lot of ignorance in this thread. :rolleyes:

    Fascism and Communism are simply two sides of the same coin. That is the simple truth. Think about it.
    Offline

    11
    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.
    This is all incorrect. Marx never advocated anything like Soviet Union or the GDR as the model of the dictatorship of the proletariat. What did he base his model on? The Paris Commune. The features of this included grassroots democracy, federalism, accountable representatives who were subject to quick recall by their constituents if they were not happy with their performance. He never advocated a "totalitarian" transition state at all. His opposition to parliaments was not an opposition to democracy, it was an opposition to democracy for the bourgeois, which is what parliaments were at the time.

    Now you might very well argue that totalitarianism and terror are inherent in societies which try to implement this change, but if you think Marx would be happy with the USSR or the GDR then you need to read more Marx.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    There is a lot of ignorance in this thread. :rolleyes:

    Fascism and Communism are simply two sides of the same coin. That is the simple truth. Think about it.
    Yep.

    The only difference between fascism and communism is that the former wants total power to be given to one person, and the latter wants total power to be given to a committee.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    :awesome:

    The answer's rather simple - Stalin's mustache > Hitler's, there ends the debate.
    :yes:

    Wait... does that mean Charlie Chapman was an evil dictator too?! :eek:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,475

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.