Which is worse IYHO: fascism or communism?

I don't like the use of the word 'communism' in the poll, because it encompasses a wide range of ideologies with varying different levels of authoritarianism. Maybe 'Marxism-Leninism' would be more appropriate. Same thing with 'fascism', because many varieties of fascism are comparatively benign compared to National Socialism, which seems to be what this poll is aiming at (i.e. Nazism is racist at its core, while fascism is nationalist at its core).

JustinS said:

I don't like the use of the word 'communism' in the poll, because it encompasses a wide range of ideologies with varying different levels of authoritarianism. Maybe 'Marxism-Leninism' would be more appropriate. Same thing with 'fascism', because many varieties of fascism are comparatively benign compared to National Socialism, which seems to be what this poll is aiming at (i.e. Nazism is racist at its core, while fascism is nationalist at its core).

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of communism without any form of totalitarianism at all.

we human creatures are funny.... we can get so hot and bothered over trifling matters ..


Communism and Nazism, right and left and that's it... and on the other side Democracy. End of story.


why complicate things? :shrug:

Note:

To put things into perspective, votes should be cast based on how the countries have worked out in practice, not in theory. History is what matters.

So especially to address Kori's point, Communism in practice has lasted more than Fascism in practice, and generally been more powerful, even if the theory of Fascism itself would work out better than that of Communism.

Ba'athism could be fascism too, looking at its history.

This is a skewed thread because I don't think the vast majority of people on DP actually know what either ideology/economic system entails. For instance, only Medusa has brought to light one major aspect of communism: it has never existed on a large-scale basis in the world. By human nature, it never can.

Conversely, people who think fascism and Nazism are unvaryingly linked are ignorant to the true system. Fascism is nothing but state-controlled economy. Mussolini himself described it best - Fascism should be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. He was one of the great political minds of the 20th century, also with an insight into "tyranny of the majority" rule: "Democracy is beautiful in theory, but a fallacy in practice."

The true answer to which one you would rather live in is a matter of which you prefer - social liberty, or economic security. For the former, you prefer communism. For the latter, you prefer fascism. Under a fascist rule, you would give up many things you consider "rights" these days, but as a whole it represents a very successful mode of economic growth. For communism, you essentially have complete freedom in your daily life, but you tend to follow an economic system rife with stagnation that fights the very heart of ambition.

I reluctantly choose fascism, but for many idealists and dreamers, communism would be utopian.

Gipper said:

Fascism is nothing but state-controlled economy.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, communism is a state-controlled economy too.

It's just that how the state controls the economy is different.

In a communist country, the economy is controlled to provide resources according to the need of the people.

In a fascist country, the economy is controlled by the will of its leadership.

MadLib said:

So especially to address Kori's point, Communism in practice has lasted more than Fascism in practice, and generally been more powerful, even if the theory of Fascism itself would work out better than that of Communism.

Click to expand...

The Axis lost in World War II, but this was almost entirely due to the blunders of Hitler-- he's the one that attacked the Soviets and he's the one that invited the US into the European theater when we were inclined to focus entirely on Japan. Communism was protected by the Soviet possession of nuclear weapons, preventing the kind of total warfare that allowed the Allies to triumph over Fascism.

I'm also not inclined to count World War II as a total loss for Fascism, given FDR's policies at the time. You're also overlooking Spain.

MadLib said:

Ba'athism could be fascism too, looking at its history.

Click to expand...

Yes, quite. They were also one of the most successful Arab countries until President Bush (the Elder) stabbed them in the back for his own personal gain.

Sam said:

Well, to be fair, communism is a state-controlled economy too.

Click to expand...

A staple as to why "true" communism hasn't, and can't, exist. True communism is a stateless, classless society that can't "control" an economy. It's antithetical to humanism.

samsmart said:

In a communist country, the economy is controlled to provide resources according to the need of the people.

In a fascist country, the economy is controlled by the will of its leadership.

Click to expand...

This is a categorical error, because these two descriptions are not mutually exclusive; besides, fascism is formed around the same ideas of the "greater good" or "good of the whole."

And even if they were two entirely different things, they both lead to the same thing -- tyranny of identical stripes.

Viktyr Korimir said:

The Axis lost in World War II, but this was almost entirely due to the blunders of Hitler

Click to expand...

Keep in mind, Kori, that the behavior of the Axis powers is an inevitable result of Fascism: nationalism is itself the idea that the people of Germany, or Italy, or America, or whatever country you want to think of (ethnic nationalism can be something else if a country is diverse) are better than the people of any other country, and is a key part of Fascism. As a result, it encourages people to try to "incorporate" or "civilize" denizens of other countries, which will eventually lead to war. In addition, Fascism and Communism are enemies of each other, so war between the holders of their ideologies is also inevitable.

Communism was protected by the Soviet possession of nuclear weapons, preventing the kind of total warfare that allowed the Allies to triumph over Fascism.

Click to expand...

They were able to get those weapons, though. Just that alone could be proof that Communism is more militarily capable than Fascism.

I'm also not inclined to count World War II as a total loss for Fascism, given FDR's policies at the time. You're also overlooking Spain.

Click to expand...

39 years is not a bad amount of time, but it doesn't stand up to 75 years of Soviet Communism.

Yes, quite. They were also one of the most successful Arab countries until President Bush (the Elder) stabbed them in the back for his own personal gain.

Click to expand...

A lot of their success was do to their alliance with the U.S., as it was strategic in fighting Soviet influence in the region and was used to oppose Iran.

_________________

I think that the absolute worst form of government, to be honest, is absolute monarchy, due to the fact that Communist and Fascist leaders can at least come into power through merit, while monarchs can become ruler just by being born, instead of by being revolutionaries.