• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is worse IYHO: fascism or communism?

Which is worse in your opinion?

  • Fascism

    Votes: 19 73.1%
  • Communism

    Votes: 7 26.9%

  • Total voters
    26
I know you're a fascist, but you can't seriously believe that fascism "can work" because it is grounded in "human nature". Maybe at the level of ethnic groups living in complete isolation (good luck finding one) and owning every square inch of their own land (once again, good luck finding one that does). But in most countries (and even the city states of old) there are usually a half dozen ethnic groups sharing the land in one way or another. All of who can have equally legitimate claims to the nation. So how could fascism possibly work if there isn't a single ethnic group that can lay claim to the nation?


ethnic nationalism is the real facism ,the concept of nation is based on a culturel alliance which aims to reach common benefits for the people of a nation....

lots of ethnics exist in america,but they call themselves 'american'.
 
Last edited:
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".
 
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.

Consumerism is a problem, but consumerism isn't about profit. It's about compulsive consumption where consumers sacrifice self-control just to keep moving.

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.
 
They're really the same thing. Stalinism/Maoism is the inevitable result of social competition in communism, and it's also called red fascism. Ethnic Russians and Han Chinese got the greatest preference in their systems. In collectivism, people stereotype all the time to come to simple understandings about reliable social networks.

Even worse, if you consider Eastern European regimes, both ideologies seem to have Balkanized the whole area into a smorgasbord of nationalist strife.

I guess the really "worse" part is whether you want a community that's proactively, or reactively, militant. Fascists are proactive, communists are reactive.

Regardless, totalitarianism can go **** itself.

Oh, this stuff is very rich.
Someone who experienced fascism and has communism next door could tell you, both are just ****ed up, though fascism does have better economic conditions. That's no reasonable thing to exchange for one's freedom
 
Communism, without a doubt.
 
Wow, I see decades of propaganda (the evil Russian commies will come to America to eat you with your clothes altogether) has worked. The irony is that due to American economic, foreign and most of all financial policy the yellow commies (i.e. the Chinese) might do exactly that.

The Chinese haven't been proper Communists in several years now-- they've been liberalizing their economic sector and privatizing more and more industries since before I was born. Even as Communists, they never abandoned their nationalistic core and their government has tried to maintain many (if not enough) of their pre-Communist cultural traditions. If anything, I would say that they are on my side of the fence already-- and frolicking deeper and deeper into the tall green grass there.

I know you're a fascist, but you can't seriously believe that fascism "can work" because it is grounded in "human nature". Maybe at the level of ethnic groups living in complete isolation (good luck finding one) and owning every square inch of their own land (once again, good luck finding one that does). But in most countries (and even the city states of old) there are usually a half dozen ethnic groups sharing the land in one way or another. All of who can have equally legitimate claims to the nation. So how could fascism possibly work if there isn't a single ethnic group that can lay claim to the nation?

By abolishing ethnicity within the nation-- assimilate or exterminate. As long as the members of every so-called "ethnic group" within the nation consider themselves members of the nation first, and puts the interests of the nation first, then Fascism works as intended. This is what Roosevelt meant when he campaigned against ethnic discrimination: no more discrimination between German-Americans and Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans, no more division on ethnic lines, but a simpler system of ethnicity in which there were Americans, immigrants who wished to be Americans, and immigrants who knew which way the border was and were welcome to start walking that way.

A "legitimate claim" to a territory is nothing more than having both feet on the territory and a weapon to defend it with. The only illegitimate claims are from those whose blood fertilizes the soil, making it richer for the legitimate sovereign. And you may have trouble with this, because it is alien to liberal systems of diplomatic relations and international law, but that is also Fascism functioning as intended. Nations are supposed to rise and fall, in accordance with the cycle of life, and thereby promote the natural evolution of the human species and human culture on the whole.

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.

If you are going to analyze Communism in its ideal state, I think it is only fair that you analyze Fascism in the same fashion. Ideally, Fascist nationalism learns from other nations and adapts to them by watching them from the outside, and seeing the results of their new ideas. Ideally, Fascism promotes innovation by encouraging people who love the State to improve upon it-- criticism without disloyalty. In practice, it does fall short of these ideals because leaders are not perfect and because-- surprise-- the people most critical of the State are often not people who wish to improve the State, but people who are opposed to the State.

In the ideal Fascist government, the Leader is surrounded by intelligent and loyal advisers-- whose egos and ambitions are only partially tempered by love of nation-- and he listens to them because he knows that's why he picked them. In the ideal Fascist government, everyone fights to win both because they know they're right and because they're jockeying for favor, and they're focused on proving the merit of their own ideas rather than discrediting and sabotaging the ideas of others.

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.

Ideally, Fascist hierarchy is a matter of meritocracy-- superior loyalty and superior prowess-- in which the few given power to rule the many are chosen on the basis of proving worthy to do so. In practice, racial purity too often substitutes for loyalty and wealth too often substitutes for prowess, but is that not also too often the case within the supposed liberal democracies as well? These are problems that the visionary Fascist must seek to overcome, but they are hardly unique problems to Fascism itself.
 
An interesting analysis
While as a libertarian I am vehemently opposed to fascism, I still think it gets an unfairly bad rap relative to other ideologies just because of the whole 'sterilization and murder of Jews' thing.
 
Last edited:
Fascism...at least ideologically the idea of equality is moral. The implementation (or lack of) has been atrocious and really a way for egomaniacs to gain the support of people.

Fascism is at it's core a belief in national an racial/cultural superiority. There's no reedeming qualities about fascism or even ideologically attractive views.
 
Ideologically speaking, I'm more opposed to fascism and have more sympathy for communism.

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.

Another point is that in the past, communism was even a more attractive alternative to Western systems than it is today -- because Western systems were less open, less inclusive and more oppressive than today. Think of the horrible working conditions and lack of democratic participation in much of Europe (certainly in the German Kaiserreich 1871-1918), or segregation in the USA. Social mobility was low, maybe even almost impossible for significant segments of society. And working conditions were really bad, the workers had not much chance to participate. In some countries, you even had strong aristocraties.

So when you compare an authoritarian, discriminating republic with low social mobility on one side, and the promise of at least filling your belly and participation in society's wealth (even when this comes with authoritarian government), of equality, the choice isn't as easy anymore as it is today. So I understand why so many were fascinated by communism in the late 19th and early 20th century.
 
Consumerism is a problem, but consumerism isn't about profit. It's about compulsive consumption where consumers sacrifice self-control just to keep moving.

I know. I mentioned consumerism more for completeness of the subject of Eisenhower's farewell address than to make it a point of debate in this thread.
 
I know. I mentioned consumerism more for completeness of the subject of Eisenhower's farewell address than to make it a point of debate in this thread.

It's actually rather relevant. Not only does fascism embrace consumerism (because consumerism can encourage the national myth) while communism does not, but fascism is more embracing of technological revolution as well considering how communism is all about the working class laboring to death.

Like I said before, the real difference between the two is proactive versus reactive militarism. They're both terrible ideologies, but fascism is more overt and short term while communism is more covert and long term.
 
If you are going to analyze Communism in its ideal state, I think it is only fair that you analyze Fascism in the same fashion. Ideally, Fascist nationalism learns from other nations and adapts to them by watching them from the outside, and seeing the results of their new ideas. Ideally, Fascism promotes innovation by encouraging people who love the State to improve upon it-- criticism without disloyalty. In practice, it does fall short of these ideals because leaders are not perfect and because-- surprise-- the people most critical of the State are often not people who wish to improve the State, but people who are opposed to the State.

In the ideal Fascist government, the Leader is surrounded by intelligent and loyal advisers-- whose egos and ambitions are only partially tempered by love of nation-- and he listens to them because he knows that's why he picked them. In the ideal Fascist government, everyone fights to win both because they know they're right and because they're jockeying for favor, and they're focused on proving the merit of their own ideas rather than discrediting and sabotaging the ideas of others.



Ideally, Fascist hierarchy is a matter of meritocracy-- superior loyalty and superior prowess-- in which the few given power to rule the many are chosen on the basis of proving worthy to do so. In practice, racial purity too often substitutes for loyalty and wealth too often substitutes for prowess, but is that not also too often the case within the supposed liberal democracies as well? These are problems that the visionary Fascist must seek to overcome, but they are hardly unique problems to Fascism itself.

That's very fair to look at fascism ideologically.

Even so, and I do say this respectfully, I think that the ideals of fascism are more unrealistic than the ideals of communism.

That is I think it is more realistic for people to work together to mutual aid than for a benevolent autocrat to guide a nation into prosperity.

The reason why is because if a group fails then only that group fails. If an autocrat fails then the whole nation fails.
 
That's very fair to look at fascism ideologically.

Even so, and I do say this respectfully, I think that the ideals of fascism are more unrealistic than the ideals of communism.

That is I think it is more realistic for people to work together to mutual aid than for a benevolent autocrat to guide a nation into prosperity.

The reason why is because if a group fails then only that group fails. If an autocrat fails then the whole nation fails.

in fact , human nature is selfish and will never let communism be more realistic..
 
For the sake of this poll, Nazism is considered part of Fascism.


Both are horrible! But in this case I think Fascism/Nazism is worse, for obvious reasons.
 
Both are horrible! But in this case I think Fascism/Nazism is worse, for obvious reasons.


communism killed a lot more people than the Fascist scum did but in all reality-Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler are slightly different strains of the same disease
 
I would say communism is worse if we are examining them ideologically. Neither have been practiced with great long term success recently (but what system has?)

Ideally I'd rather have a singular ruler surrounded by people of skill, intelligence, and motivation making decisions for society and implementing the tools for society to successfully pursue those goals, and citizens that worked their way up via some sort of meritocracy. The commie lovers point to criticisms of the Soviet Union and say its not how communism should work, but are all too quick to throw all the negativity of past fascist regimes at the feet of the "system" rather than the disturbing judgement of the individuals in power themselves.

People may be uncomfortable with the idea of fascism, as it does imply some sort of aristocratic rule, but I believe mob rule is even more dangerous.
 
While as a libertarian I am vehemently opposed to fascism, I still think it gets an unfairly bad rap relative to other ideologies just because of the whole 'sterilization and murder of Jews' thing.

It is even more unfair because those racist policies-- that met with great resistance, even from within the Fascist Party-- were National Socialist policies that the Nazi government openly and admiringly stole from the Progressive movement that was running the American government at the time. I am frequently criticized as being unamerican or even anti-American for supporting political movements that are demonized for having employed policies that America invented.

Which isn't to say that I am the least bit sympathetic to racist policies today. I am a civic nationalist, in the proud tradition of Theodore Roosevelt and, as the original Fascist, Benito Mussolini himself.

Fascism is at it's core a belief in national an racial/cultural superiority. There's no reedeming qualities about fascism or even ideologically attractive views.

The redeeming quality of a belief in cultural superiority is the driving ambition to maintain that superiority and to prove it, time and time again, for as long as the nation exists. That may involve a lot of wars and the occasional genocide, but nearly every major technological advance-- from the first Roman highways to the Internet-- was born from this process. This is how human civilization and the human species grow, and growth demands pain.

That is I think it is more realistic for people to work together to mutual aid than for a benevolent autocrat to guide a nation into prosperity.

The reason why is because if a group fails then only that group fails. If an autocrat fails then the whole nation fails.

Every society has autocratic leaders whose moral character shapes the face of the nation. Liberal democracy does not depose those rulers or eliminate their power-- it only hides them from the public view and shelters them from accountability for their actions.

A nation can only be prosperous when it is moral, and a nation can only be moral when it is guided by moral leadership.
 
You imply the only purpose of production is profit.
And frankly a society is incentivized to produce as much as you and I are incentivized to eat.
A country with no motive beyond a profit motive is no society at all.

.

There must be income generated (profit)- otherwise there are no resources to pay for the necessities of the people.
 
Fascism by far is the more dangerous as it speaks to a compulsory forgetting of oneself under oppression. Communism as an economic model seems to count the individual, albeit a cog, as an important aspect of the whole.
 
Very simply Communism is Totalitarianism sans ethics. Fascism is it with ethics and morals.

As long as those ethics and morals make it okay to treat those who disagree with you as unworthy of rights.
 
Very simply Communism is Totalitarianism sans ethics. Fascism is it with ethics and morals.

You mean ethics and morals like murdering ethnic minorities and gassing handicapped people to death?
 
Back
Top Bottom