Communism and Fascism

[thegreekdog]

Nevermind Player... just trying to find out what makes these two brands of government so different theoretically and practically.

[6.57]

I agree. I'm not sure what you mean though.

Yes, good job... you pointed out the inconsistency between those two sentences. I'll be sending you a cookie in the mail shortly.

Fangyoo, but I have already consumed enough gloopy american dough in this thread alone.

It looks like england are gonna win the cricket, what? Giving them bloody aussies a good old english seeing to, eh chaps? what?

I went to public school myself, buggered me rotten, enjoyed it all the same, what?

[thegreekdog]

You're in England? I'll have to put the kaibosh on that cookie then my friend; international postage is too expensive.

[ahunda]

As the Wikipedia quotes in the opening post state: Fascism is an authoritarian & nationalist ideology, whilst Communism is about an "egalitarian, classless, or stateless society". With other words anti-authoritarian (egalitarian & classless) and internationalist (stateless). So they are clearly opposed to each other.

Note there are some similarities between the theories (especially the regarding the evils of class, capitalism, and individualism, as well as freedom). On a practical basis, there are striking similarities between fascist Germany and communist Russia.

There are some misunderstandings here: Fascism does not regard classes as evil, rather the opposite. It sees them as natural. Clear hierarchies & the strong leader are essential points in fascist ideology. Human society is often compared to a human body, where the head is the leader, who directs the rest of the body. Fascism does not oppose classes, it opposes "class conflicts".

Fascists dream of an ordered society with a strong government/leader, in which the different classes are content with their roles and work together towards the "greater good". Nation & race are usually used as the common denominator, that binds the people together (and separates them from other nations/races, with whom they are in competition).

Whilst Marxism was in many ways first an economical and only secondary a political concept, with a very extensive analysis & criticism of capitalist economics, fascist ideology has in fact very little to say about economics.

The fascist movements of the 20th century strove for a united people under the banner of nationalism. The nation was elevated to somewhat of a mythical/spiritual concept, that would unite the people and give meaning to their lives and their roles in (the class-) society, but also encompass the economical sphere, so that industry & business would work for the good of the nation. Fascists were not opposed to private ownership or a profit-driven economy per se, but to certain excesses of capitalism, mostly when the egoistical strive for riches was put above the good of the nation.

Whilst Marxs works were based on a scientific analysis of mechanisms in capitalist economies, the fascist ideology was in many ways highly irrational and based on a nation/race cult.

Communism today is usually associated with regimes like 20th centuries Soviet Union, that actually had very little in common with the original communist idea. In the beginnings, there were many different factions in the socialist movement, and the Marxists, that later came to dominate the socialist spectrum, were only one of them.

Some key-issues, that united all the socialist factions, were the strive for a classless society, in which there would be no exploitation of man at the hands of man, where everybody would have the same rights, and nobody would have power over his fellow man. With other words: Freedom. And equality (in the sense of equal rights & standing).

As both words communism & socialism imply, humankind was seen as a kind of family: "We are all together in this." As opposed to the capitalist "Everybody for himself and on his own". The capitalist principles of competition & profit were to be overcome and replaced by co-operation & solidarity.

And: In all socialist ideologies, including the Marxist brand, people were meant to govern themselves. The state was to be dissolved, all forms of formal authority & power abolished.

The main conflict in the socialist movement was, how to achieve their goals. The Marxists went with the approach of organising the workers in a communist party and, when the time was right, take over state power and start the process of forming the new society from above. This was seen as a necessary transition period, including the fight against the expected "counter-revolution" of the old elites, who were expected to fight to re-gain their old positions of power & privileges.

Libertarian socialists & anarchists were opposed to that idea. They feared, that by taking over the old hierarchies & power structures (i.e. the state), a new elite would be born, a new system of inequality & oppression. "Power corrupts". Thus the libertarians suggested to do away with the state & all the old institutions at once. The workers were to take direct control of their work-places & factories, and workers councils & committees to be formed to take care of administration, co-operation & planning.

Whilst the Spanish revolution, that were dominated by anarchist & libertarian socialists, was ultimately defeated by Francos fascists and never had a chance to develop a society based on its ideas, the Russian revolution succeeded. And the Russian Bolsheviks were Marxists, who then followed through with their authoritarian approach. Resulting in todays common perception as them & their politics being synonym for socialist/communist.

Anyway. To the original question: The simple fact is, that socialists & fascists were blood-enemies throughout the 20th century and fought each other all over the world. And this is indeed based in their opposed world-views and ideas. Fascism is the most authoritarian of all political ideologies, whilst Socialism wants to do away with all forms of authority. Even the Marxist ideology, that includes the authoritarian transition period of the "Dictatorship of the proletariat", has this as its end goal.

[thegreekdog]

Good post.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Note there are some similarities between the theories (especially the regarding the evils of class, capitalism, and individualism, as well as freedom). On a practical basis, there are striking similarities between fascist Germany and communist Russia.

you know nothing about communism

or fascism for that matter

[PLAYER57832]

Note there are some similarities between the theories (especially the regarding the evils of class, capitalism, and individualism, as well as freedom). On a practical basis, there are striking similarities between fascist Germany and communist Russia.

you know nothing about communism

or fascism for that matter

I think he does now.


I think one misunderstanding is using the term "Facist" as a synonym for "Totalitarian". Both were totalitarian. Also, Economically, each were planned economies. However, the ideology differs. Saying that Facism is like Communism is like saying that extreme fundamentalist Muslims and extreme fundamentalist Christians are alike. Superficially true, but not in any depth.

[thegreekdog]

Note there are some similarities between the theories (especially the regarding the evils of class, capitalism, and individualism, as well as freedom). On a practical basis, there are striking similarities between fascist Germany and communist Russia.

you know nothing about communism

or fascism for that matter

I'm rubber, you're glue...

Alternatively, you could elaborate, but you won't do that, so I refer to my first statement.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Note there are some similarities between the theories (especially the regarding the evils of class, capitalism, and individualism, as well as freedom). On a practical basis, there are striking similarities between fascist Germany and communist Russia.

you know nothing about communism

or fascism for that matter

I'm rubber, you're glue...

Alternatively, you could elaborate, but you won't do that, so I refer to my first statement.

why should i elaborate when your understanding of communism consists entirely of talking points like "they hate freedom"

maybe you should actually read some marx and think about how stalinism and maoism are different from communism

the same goes for your laughably simplistic conception fascism. one of the central tenants of a fascist system is corporatism, which while not lassiez-faire, is certainly not a repudiation of capitalism. just the opposite. and that's not even getting into the class issue inherent in fascism. ahunda's post on these points was very good, though it only scratches the surface, naturally.

you live in a world where every system that opposes your own narrow experience with capitalism is identical. you use wikipedia as a primary source and fail even to understand that. it is ridiculous and insane and until you take the time to learn a fucking thing, i have no interest in discussing the vagaries of political philosophy with you

[PLAYER57832]

Note there are some similarities between the theories (especially the regarding the evils of class, capitalism, and individualism, as well as freedom). On a practical basis, there are striking similarities between fascist Germany and communist Russia.

you know nothing about communism

or fascism for that matter

I'm rubber, you're glue...

Alternatively, you could elaborate, but you won't do that, so I refer to my first statement.

why should i elaborate when your understanding of communism consists entirely of talking points like "they hate freedom"

maybe you should actually read some marx and think about how stalinism and maoism are different from communism

the same goes for your laughably simplistic conception fascism. one of the central tenants of a fascist system is corporatism, which while not lassiez-faire, is certainly not a repudiation of capitalism. just the opposite. and that's not even getting into the class issue inherent in fascism. ahunda's post on these points was very good, though it only scratches the surface, naturally.

you live in a world where every system that opposes your own narrow experience with capitalism is identical. you use wikipedia as a primary source and fail even to understand that. it is ridiculous and insane and until you take the time to learn a fucking thing, i have no interest in discussing the vagaries of political philosophy with you

You did not like ahunda's post?

[SultanOfSurreal]

You did not like ahunda's post?

i said it was a very good post. it naturally only scratches the surface though because one post cannot hope to encapsulate all that communism and fasicsm mean. that's all.

[thegreekdog]

So, essentially what Sultan is saying is that no one understands either governmental ideology (except him apparently).

why should i elaborate when your understanding of communism consists entirely of talking points like "they hate freedom"

That's not my understanding. That's your understanding of me; because, as per usual, rather than debate or argue, you choose to attack the debator/arguer. I'm surprised you got through as much of high school as you apparently did. And they don't hate freedom, they hate dissent. In practical terms, despite being bitter enemies, both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany went out of their way to silence dissent, both before the war, during the war, and after the war (in the case of the Soviet Union). Further, my understanding of both communism and fascism were not evident in any of these posts except to say that they were fairly similar. I didn't say they were the same, I didn't use them in the context of calling Obama either of those things (because he's not), although I believe the president leans towards socialism.

maybe you should actually read some marx and think about how stalinism and maoism are different from communism

I've read Marx. His theories are different than the practical implications of communism, yes. If you read my posts, I've hedged that the practical application of communism is much different than the theories of socialism or communism. In fact, not to get off topic, but I would argue that Maoism is a lot more like fascism than Marxist socialism.

you live in a world where every system that opposes your own narrow experience with capitalism is identical. you use wikipedia as a primary source and fail even to understand that. it is ridiculous and insane and until you take the time to learn a fucking thing, i have no interest in discussing the vagaries of political philosophy with you

I don't live in that world. You apparently live in a world where anyone who thinks communism, in practical application, didn't work, is a moron (which, of itself, is insane). I don't use wikipedia as a primary source. I use my vast knowledge of European history as a primary source. However, because the people on this website, you included, are so insistent on "source" and "link," I chose wikipedia, which seems to be the library for all evidence on this website.

[Snorri1234]

His point is that there was never a practical application of communism on a grand scale. You simply can't point out sovjet russia or china as examples that prove communism fails since they're not actual correct applications. They didn't even start out that way.


Of course, you can easily argue that the reason it hasn't been implented on a grand scale is because it doesn't work.

[thegreekdog]

His point is that there was never a practical application of communism on a grand scale. You simply can't point out sovjet russia or china as examples that prove communism fails since they're not actual correct applications. They didn't even start out that way.


Of course, you can easily argue that the reason it hasn't been implented on a grand scale is because it doesn't work.

If that was his point, I agree with him. However, I believe his point was that he's smarter than the rest of us combined and that we should all just shut up (unless we agree with him).

[MrWainthrope]

I do not think that Communism or Fascism are workable methods of government in this century.


Democracy is the only answer.

[PLAYER57832]

You did not like ahunda's post?

i said it was a very good post. it naturally only scratches the surface though because one post cannot hope to encapsulate all that communism and fasicsm mean. that's all.

True, but was greekdog claiming to be an expert? I don't think so. I think he was opening a dialogue.
And, because he (or I) misused the terms in the past does not mean he/I will in the future. I like what you have to say many times, but in this case it seems like you are just attacking, not adding anything.

[SultanOfSurreal]

And they don't hate freedom, they hate dissent.

well that's entirely different

I've read Marx. His theories are different than the practical implications of communism, yes. If you read my posts, I've hedged that the practical application of communism is much different than the theories of socialism or communism.

if you've read marx you should realize that no nation has ever tried to institute communism. in every case where there's been a communist revolution, it has immediately been subverted by the bourgeoisie and used as just yet another means to subjugate the proletariat. marx talks about the danger of this very thing, by the way

you're asking the wrong question when you ask "can communism ever be practically implemented?" in this or another thread, sully points out something we recognize universally: communism works on a small scale. people share and work together to achieve common goals, because humans are inherently social animals. so we understand instinctively that the principles of communism are good and that they are acceptable to people generally. why then this conclusion by so many that it could never work in practice, on a large scale?

the real question is, "are the forces opposed to communism, the wealthy elite, too entrenched in modern society to ever allow the formation of a true communist state?" and to that, i am not cynical enough to say no. i am cynical enough to say that we may be hundreds of years off of that day though.

[PLAYER57832]

the real question is, "are the forces opposed to communism, the wealthy elite, too entrenched in modern society to ever allow the formation of a true communist state?" and to that, i am not cynical enough to say no. i am cynical enough to say that we may be hundreds of years off of that day though.

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

The key is always limits. The main reason communism cannot work on a large scale is that while it is possible to have a group of people more or less happy with the same level, same values, it gets harder with more people. The closest to that "ideaL" are perhaps the scandinavien countries, (but only close and only perhaps). And, they are historically among the most homogenous societies there are.

Many people just like to be better than those around them .. some do it through sports, some through various other achievements and some through economics.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

communism is not about turning everyone into identical robots, even though the mechanism of rewarding work is radically different.

and seriously, you of all people should know that we are nowhere near... whatever it is you seem to think modern america and europe are near. here in america the gulf between the well-being, happiness, and living conditions of the very poor and the very rich are staggering, as bad as they've ever been. we do have a sizable group in our society that marx would call petty-bourgeoisie -- the middle class. but they're basically wage slaves happy with the pittances their overseers find fit to provide them with. their well-being is on the wane, as well.

whether you like it or not, our system is entirely founded upon the exploitation of the labor of many for the benefit of the few. there is no way around it in any capitalist system, despite what apologists would have you believe. communism IS utopian, and i doubt it can be effectively instituted in one country, much less the world, at the time being, for reasons i alluded to earlier. socialism is a more realistic and attainable goal in today's society (which is why i laugh when people hurl "socialist" at obama as if it's an insult, though i'm sad to say he's nothing near it)

[Phatscotty]

---comunism sucks you are dumb-----

[SultanOfSurreal]

---comunism sucks you are dumb-----

---you are human filth and should jump off the nearest tall building-----

[thegreekdog]

First off, thanks for the serious reply Sultan. Needless to say I'm surprised.

Second off, I sort of agree with you. Most parts of the modern world aren't "ready" for communism, despite Marx's assertions that we were back in the 19th century. I don't know if that's because the "borgeouis" are too firmly entrenched or not. I think there's some human nature involved with it: jealousy, lust, greed, among other things. As I may have stated in another thread, I think in order for communism to work, nationalism must not exist; in other words, communism is a worldwide kind of theory. I think also, in addition to human nature, there are pitfalls with the nature of resources, namely that they are scarce and we have to fight over them. Perhaps in the future this won't be the case.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

communism is not about turning everyone into identical robots, even though the mechanism of rewarding work is radically different.

and seriously, you of all people should know that we are nowhere near... whatever it is you seem to think modern america and europe are near. here in america the gulf between the well-being, happiness, and living conditions of the very poor and the very rich are staggering, as bad as they've ever been. we do have a sizable group in our society that marx would call petty-bourgeoisie -- the middle class. but they're basically wage slaves happy with the pittances their overseers find fit to provide them with. their well-being is on the wane, as well.

whether you like it or not, our system is entirely founded upon the exploitation of the labor of many for the benefit of the few. there is no way around it in any capitalist system, despite what apologists would have you believe. communism IS utopian, and i doubt it can be effectively instituted in one country, much less the world, at the time being, for reasons i alluded to earlier. socialism is a more realistic and attainable goal in today's society (which is why i laugh when people hurl "socialist" at obama as if it's an insult, though i'm sad to say he's nothing near it)

I did not say we were there. However, in the late 70's to early 80's we had essentially eradicated hunger here in the US. Homelessness was essentially limited to those who, well really did "choose" that lifestyle by getting hooked on drugs, being lazy etc. (NOT completely, but for the most part). That is what I meant by "we were getting close".

Of course, in the US, this all began to reverse with Reagan. (Ironic, isn't it , that the better things got generally, the harder it got for those at the bottom?)

Even today, though in EUROPE, the difference between the wealthy and the poor is not that great, in terms of things that really matter like access to food, decent housing, healthcare, education, etc.

No, they are absolutely not communistic, but they are probably closer to Marx's real ideal than at any time in history since the hunter-gatherer days.

[MeDeFe]

I don't believe those are the only options. You can have differences in income and reward without necessarily forcing those around to be poor. In fact, I would argue we have been fairly close here, as is much of Europe.

communism is not about turning everyone into identical robots, even though the mechanism of rewarding work is radically different.

and seriously, you of all people should know that we are nowhere near... whatever it is you seem to think modern america and europe are near. here in america the gulf between the well-being, happiness, and living conditions of the very poor and the very rich are staggering, as bad as they've ever been. we do have a sizable group in our society that marx would call petty-bourgeoisie -- the middle class. but they're basically wage slaves happy with the pittances their overseers find fit to provide them with. their well-being is on the wane, as well.

whether you like it or not, our system is entirely founded upon the exploitation of the labor of many for the benefit of the few. there is no way around it in any capitalist system, despite what apologists would have you believe. communism IS utopian, and i doubt it can be effectively instituted in one country, much less the world, at the time being, for reasons i alluded to earlier. socialism is a more realistic and attainable goal in today's society (which is why i laugh when people hurl "socialist" at obama as if it's an insult, though i'm sad to say he's nothing near it)

I did not say we were there. However, in the late 70's to early 80's we had essentially eradicated hunger here in the US. Homelessness was essentially limited to those who, well really did "choose" that lifestyle by getting hooked on drugs, being lazy etc. (NOT completely, but for the most part). That is what I meant by "we were getting close".

Of course, in the US, this all began to reverse with Reagan. (Ironic, isn't it , that the better things got generally, the harder it got for those at the bottom?)

Even today, though the difference between the wealthy and the poor is not that great, in terms of things that really matter like access to food, decent housing, healthcare, education, etc.

No, they are absolutely not communistic, but they are probably closer to Marx's real ideal than at any time in history since the hunter-gatherer days.

Almost 25% of all income in the USA go to the richest 1% of the population. People having a roof (of sorts) over their head, getting (tax-payer funded) healthcare when they're close to death and turn up in ER, and going to schools that, to put it mildly, have not fared too well in international comparisons does not a nation close to communism make.

[thegreekdog]

In all seriousness, was there a time in history where there was a nation "close to communism?"