I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Fascism is worse, because as Kori said, it can actually work.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)
It depends on the respective example. Not all fascist (or Nazi) regimes were the same and equally horrible, neither were all communist/socialist dictatorships.
Take for example Germany: Nazi Germany 1933-1945 was much worse and much more murderous than communist East Germany 1949-1990. The former murdered millions, the latter "only" silenced the opposition and killed a few dozen people at the Berlin Wall, which is bad enough, but nowhere near the level of crime against humanity of Nazism. Nazism was worse, hands down.
There are other examples. Fascism in Spain 1939-1974 was certainly much less horrible than Nazism or communism under Stalin. And communism in Czechoslovakia 1948-1989 was certainly less horrible than Pol Pot's communism in Cambodia.
"Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."
When communism gets talked about, it's all too easy to focus on Stalin and Mao, as they were the leaders of communist nations, the USSR and the People's Republic of China.
But it's important to remember that there were a lot of individual communists who were so because they were seeking power or because they wanted to be authoritarian. Rather, they were communist because they believed that Marx was right in many of the ideals of class conflict that Marx brought to light in his writings.
There have been a lot of communists who were so because they wanted greater racial equality, greater gender equality, safer working conditions, better living conditions, and improvement of quality of life for as many people as possible.
In fact, (and this is mentioned little in her biographies when we learn about her in school) while Helen Keller was an advocate for the disabled, she was also a socialist who lobbied to end all the reasons why people became disabled in the first place.
And when United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower uses his farewell address to warn the American people about consumerism as well as the military-industrial-congressional complex, I think it's easier to understand communist rhetoric about how wars between nations are fought by the poor of the world so that the businessmen of the world may profit.
So, ideologically speaking, communism is a philosophy of inclusion and it seeks to use break the traditional barriers - gender discrimination, racial discrimination, physical disabilities - that groups have used to oppress each other.
Now let's take a look at fascism.
Fascism is uses nationalist dogma to unite a group of people under a leader of the state. The appeal of fascism is that the whole nation can be directed by its leader to pursue singular goals without opposition and attain them.
The problem I have with fascism is that it is a philosophy of exclusion. Because of the nationalist doctrines fascism espouses, it excludes the ideas and discoveries that other nations think up. It even excludes new thinking from within itself. Because of this, fascist countries are unable to adapt quickly when its leaders are opposed to the changes that must be adapted to.
Also, while communist ideology is revolution from the bottom-up, fascist ideology is revolution from the top-down. Fascism, by its very ideology, holds that a small group of people should have power over a larger group of people, usually justified by racial superiority but nowadays may be justified by economic superiority - that is that the wealthy deserve to run things because they have wealth.
But the problem with that thinking is that not all wealth is created by virtuous means, or by means that a businessperson controls. A person of wealth can be utterly inept but that doesn't mean anything if his property has gold or oil underneath it. That wealth is from the land - not from the competence of the landowner.
So, ideologically speaking, I am more opposed to fascism.
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
the world hasnt met the communism yet,
Last edited by Medusa; 02-16-12 at 06:27 AM.
A pox on both their houses.
Which is worse ?
That depends on one's standing in society...If a man is a mindless peon, then neither are that bad....I think that Communism is softer on minorities..If one is a so-called aristocrat, then he is better off under fascism, IMO.
But, for the 90% extremism is "evil".
Anyway, Eisenhower warned us about elitism in the technological revolution fueled by academic-government unity. He also warned us about selling out the future to live in the moment, but this was a moral argument, not a financial one:
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
The tragedy is not that things are broken. The tragedy is that things are not mended again. - Alan Paton
Bach is the beginning and end of all music - Max Reger
It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us - Rorschach