• 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

MadLib

monstrous vermin
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
2,439
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fascism and communism were both the epitome of totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Which do you think is worse? The authoritarianism of their rule could be one your reasons, but the ideas and policies that aren't necessarily related to totalitarianism can and should be taken into account.

For the sake of this poll, Nazism is considered part of Fascism.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Hmm, tough choice, as it pretty much requires totalitarianism in order to maintain a communist society.
 
Depends on the meaning of the question. As an example, if you're talking about the Stalinist versus the Hitlerite model of governance, I would argue that Stalinism is so inefficient at resource allocation that it's completely self-destructive. Economic fascism is better in that regard, but that also makes it much more sustainable in the long run. So I'll say fascism.
 
Both are equally terrible and both are totalitarian governments where a dictator determines the outcome of millions. Both Stalin and Hitler killed millions who simply didn't agree with them or who looked different. Both also seeked to conquer the world in the name of tyranny.

That being said Communism after Stalin began to see some changes like we see with China today for the better, but ultimately it collapsed in the Soviet Union. So I would say judging by history the short fascist regimes of Germany and Italy were worse but really not by much at all.
 
Fascism and communism were both the epitome of totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Which do you think is worse? The authoritarianism of their rule could be one your reasons, but the ideas and policies that aren't necessarily related to totalitarianism can and should be taken into account.

For the sake of this poll, Nazism is considered part of Fascism.

why choose-with high capacity weapons we can shoot both fascists and communists

both are vermin and its like saying what's worse-pancreatic cancer or ALS
 
Both forms of government, like all forms of government, had their fair share of unfortunate side effects and unintended consequences. Both forms of government, like all authoritarian governments, had more than their fair share of corruption and outright abuse of power. But between the two of them, Fascism is the one that can actually work, the one that has a solid grounding in realpolitik and human nature. Thus, between the two of them, Communism is worse.
 
why choose-with high capacity weapons we can shoot both fascists and communists

both are vermin and its like saying what's worse-pancreatic cancer or ALS

Serious face on- I don't foresee us shooting communists. We have far too many of them here.
 
Fascism and communism were both the epitome of totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Which do you think is worse? The authoritarianism of their rule could be one your reasons, but the ideas and policies that aren't necessarily related to totalitarianism can and should be taken into account.

For the sake of this poll, Nazism is considered part of Fascism.

Which is worse, IYHO: getting shot in the head with a .38 or getting shot in the head with a 9mm?
 
Serious face on- I don't foresee us shooting communists. We have far too many of them here.

so many communists, so few bullets
 
Both forms of government, like all forms of government, had their fair share of unfortunate side effects and unintended consequences. Both forms of government, like all authoritarian governments, had more than their fair share of corruption and outright abuse of power. But between the two of them, Fascism is the one that can actually work, the one that has a solid grounding in realpolitik and human nature. Thus, between the two of them, Communism is worse.

I suspect you are probably right in your observations. In a Fascist country, I would think there might be a little more room for creative expression, so I would tend to think it would be preferable. In communism, there seems to be no incentive for the individual to be productive at all.
 
Both forms of government, like all forms of government, had their fair share of unfortunate side effects and unintended consequences. Both forms of government, like all authoritarian governments, had more than their fair share of corruption and outright abuse of power. But between the two of them, Fascism is the one that can actually work, the one that has a solid grounding in realpolitik and human nature. Thus, between the two of them, Communism is worse.

Well communism in Russia lasted 70 years and has lasted in China and North Korea for a long time as well. Fascism was destroyed in less than 10 years. So I mean the arguement that fascism can "work" really doesn't pan out as we can learn from history where communism still survives today. Regaurdless they both don't work at all for the people, communism just gives the illusion better than facism that it works because it tries to say everyone is equal when they really arent. Where in fascism the dictator and his governors just say this is the way it is and we are taking over everything. Doesn't really give any illusion to the people like communism which is why it didn't last too long.
 
Well communism in Russia lasted 70 years and has lasted in China and North Korea for a long time as well.

Russia's communism (it never really was communist- but it was their goal) collapsed due to the inability to produce enough money to pay for it. That's the problem with communism long term. There must be productivity and financial resources. Communism pretty much wipes out the incentive to produce.
 
Which is why China is a Communist Capitalist society now.
 
Well communism in Russia lasted 70 years and has lasted in China and North Korea for a long time as well. Fascism was destroyed in less than 10 years. So I mean the arguement that fascism can "work" really doesn't pan out as we can learn from history where communism still survives today. Regaurdless they both don't work at all for the people, communism just gives the illusion better than facism that it works because it tries to say everyone is equal when they really arent. Where in fascism the dictator and his governors just say this is the way it is and we are taking over everything. Doesn't really give any illusion to the people like communism which is why it didn't last too long.
IMO, the disparity between the lifespan of communism and fascism in the 20th century really came down to geopolitics in WW2, not ideological differences. Russia's winter, population, and sheer size made an ultimately successful German invasion an impossibility.
 
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.
 
Communism pretty much wipes out the incentive to produce.

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.

Fascism and communism are interesting.. I voted fascism as worse because in europe it attempted to create a new racial political caste system.
 
Last edited:
so many communists, so few bullets

What's that I hear... is that the sound of an unmanned drone wizzing overhead? Thank god, there's some guy with alot of guns that sees communists everywhere and he's threatening people.
 
I refuse to vote as they are both ****ed up
 
Both forms of government, like all forms of government, had their fair share of unfortunate side effects and unintended consequences. Both forms of government, like all authoritarian governments, had more than their fair share of corruption and outright abuse of power. But between the two of them, Fascism is the one that can actually work, the one that has a solid grounding in realpolitik and human nature. Thus, between the two of them, Communism is worse.

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?
 
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.
 
Fascism and communism were both the epitome of totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Which do you think is worse? The authoritarianism of their rule could be one your reasons, but the ideas and policies that aren't necessarily related to totalitarianism can and should be taken into account.

For the sake of this poll, Nazism is considered part of Fascism.

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.
 
the world hasnt met the communism yet,
 
Back
Top Bottom