Communism or Fascism?

You did not provide an opinion or topic for us to comment on. What about communism or fascism would you like to speak about? Do you want us to comment on the picture? Stay out of SD until you can form coherent posts.

To be honest, I don't really see a difference in either; both are oppressive state forms that strive to crush their ideological enemies with power.

The only difference is the political theory behind them; practice shows that both are about the same. Both try to suppress any kind of resistance within the population.

While I think the principles of Communism are sincere at their core, the fact that communist states are ruled by a single party corrupts these principles, turning them into a horrible abomination.

Although both the Reich and the CCCP were oppressive, totalitarian states, if you only look at the ideology itself they're very different. One is rational, while the other is irrational and embraces populism. One put the community above the individual, the other vice versa.

If you speak about systems of government, then yes, they were similar, but communist regimes greatest crimes didn't come straight from the ideology, but sheer incompetence, overzealousness and the greed and ambition of the powerful.

Fascism by its nature advocated the eradication of whole races and nations. Communism on the other hand advocated revolution and the overthrowing of the bourgeois - and embraced violence and force of arms as the means - but it didn't advocate their killing or genocide.

In practice though, we know that the label of bourgeois and subsequent labels of bourgeois related "classes" were convenient excuses to round up, deport and imprison all political opposition of the new communist leaders as well as to oppress anyone who didn't share their "vision of utopia".

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2008/01/14/things-one-should-not-forget/
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Still, although there are similarities, I'm still adamant that Fascism and Communism are different.

These were the two totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (that had any impact on the West! If we spoke about Asia or South America the story would be different), and also the last examples of terror that accompanies totalitarianism, so people naturally think they must have been the same.

They wore the same coat, they trod on similar paths but the two are not the same.

I seriously can't tell the difference between the two with that image and I'm not too knowledgeable on government structure so if someone can take the time to explain this to me, i would be grateful.

I'm not saying that they are the same (...although, I kinda did), I'm just a person that sees "power" as a transcendental entity that corrupts everyone that comes into contact with it.

As I stated earlier elsewhere, my ideal society would be communist in nature; though I disagree with those who think that taking over the power is a means to that end.

To me, the whole idea of communist state theory is absurd; power strives to perpetuate itself, so being able to "dismantle the state from within" is only an illusion in my opinion. Though I may be biased here, I have yet to see a government that proves me wrong.

Fascism is the result of a collective group of people, within a state, that possess a "proud" history having been systematically weakened and humiliated; thus, a strive to reclaim former glory and the majority of people looking for individuals to guide them. Because it is more of a modern concept, and really came about after the first mechanized war, there is heavy focus placed on those who produce wealth, i.e. corporations. The people are, more or less, willing to give up any and all liberties if it means they will be a part of a strong state once again, and they give direct power to individual(s) to "use" the people of the state as they please, and must to fulfill the wishes of the people.

Communism is the "destination" of the socioeconomic theory of socialism, as laid out mainly by Marx with help from good friend Engels. This is far more complex to explain, probably because I know more about it than fascism. It's difficult to discuss this, also, because when discussing communism or socialism (fuck, now it seems Marxism is taboo; fuck you Glenn Beck) people always refer back to the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. No. Socialism was never established in any country. A short definition of what is understand to be socialism:
The way I see it, socialism cannot be established through reforms. It requires a complete reconstruction of a state, during a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy."

Communism is far too complex to discuss if all you know is what took place during the 20th century. It requires the study from the the agricultural revolution to the 19th century, and I guess so on. From the beginning of the establishment of property, which would lead to "civilization" (cities, etc) to feudalism, which would later be replaced by capitalism. Marx is the undisputed history's greatest scholar on capitalism, let's get that clear (doesn't make him right, but don;'t fucking toss out what he says cause you have a grudge against his legacy). He determined that capitalism, if left alone, would spread across the entire world, and being naturally harmful to the workers of the world, would eventually destroy itself from within by inciting global revolution.


I think I'll leave it at that for now.

Ah Okay, that cleared up a lot of things for me thanks, now I learned something new.

I'm a socialist myself - but not the way Americans see it. Actually here in Europe socialist is the opposite of conservative and means the person is pro-labor, pro-liberal but believes in the welfare state. Ergo: part of the left wing politics. (He doesn't necessarily believe in Marxism and the abolishment of property. Those are Communists and Marxists). Unfortunately even Wikipedia now lists Socialism as the "all encompassing" family of Communist ideologies (it's US bias IMHO), while in practice it's more like Communism is the radical wing of the socialist ideologies. There are several socialist movements and ideologies that quite frankly *deny* Marxist ideology.

I'm arguing semantics here, so bear with me. My "problem" is that the moderate left has no accepted name in the US, so we have to use terms like democratic socialist, progressives etc. to describe ourselves. Part of this is due the lack of any comparable camp in the US. Britain's Labor party is the closest, but they don't have a (dark) Communist past (and heritage) to contend with and were always moderate left.

Although, yes, if you really want to argue it, then we're "Democrats", however if we label European left wing parties as such then we'd have to label the American Democratic Party as a "Republican" organization as it is a lot more conservative and religious than most European parties.

The above diagram with "democrats" and "republicans" doesn't hold any water in Europe. Here those terms are meaningless, and both the Republican as well as the Democratic party as seen as inherently conservative organizations.

I always preferred the Pournelle chart:

@Flaser I'm quite fond of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, but they're small and supposedly exclusive. I found this wiki entry hilarious


But I'm an American, so I'm pretty much fucked when it came to me registering to vote. I live in California, so there's always the Peace and Freedom Party, but I prefer to just remain as an independent. Frankly, I'm a little bitter about being viewed as an outcast and an enemy because my political views lean towards socialism (I'm not a fan of labels), so I would prefer the abolishment of political parties. :P

Back on topic.
What really grinds my gears is that my fellow Americans are so convinced now that communism and fascism are similar. Take it from me and this one fascist I argued with a few years back... we are long-standing enemies. ;)

Back off topic: