Businesses are nominally privately owned; the State dictates outputs and investments. Planning is based on projected labor output rather than money. Social Structure All class distinctions are eliminated.
A society in which everyone is both the owners of the means of production and their own employees. Strict class structure believed necessary to prevent chaos Italian Fascist.
All class distinctions are eliminated German Nazi. Italian Fascism was not racist in doctrine originally. Religion Abolished - all religious and metaphysics is rejected. Fascism is a civic religion: citizens worship the state through nationalism. Ownership Structure The means of production are commonly-owned, meaning no entity or individual owns productive property.
Importance is ascribed to "usership" over "ownership". The means of production are nominally privately owned but directed by the State. Private ownership of business is contingent upon submission to the direction and interests of the State. Free Choice Either the collective "vote" or the state's rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else.
In practice, rallies, force, propaganda etc. The individual is considered meaningless; they must submit to the decisions of the leadership. Economic System The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.
Autarky national self-sufficiency. Keynesian mostly. Large public works, deficit spending. Anti trade union and syndicalism. Strongly against international financial markets and usury. Way of Change Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers.
Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim. Government in a fascist state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on a change in labor output or even at the whim of the dictator. Discrimination In theory, all members of the state are considered equal to one another. Belief in one superior race Nazism. Mental or physical handicaps.
Mental illness. Jews Nazi. Means of control Theoretically there is no state control. Fascism employs direct force secret police, government intimidation, concentration camps, and murder , propaganda enabled by State-directed, heavily-censored media , rallies, etc.
Examples Ideally, there is no leader; the people govern directly. This has never been actually practiced, and has just used a one-party system. Fascist governments are generally headed by one person: a dictator. This is not an aberration of doctrine, in fact it is an important component of it. Earliest Remnants Theorized by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the midth century as an alternative to capitalism and feudalism, communism was not tried out until after the revolution in Russia in the early s.
The Roman Empire, which could be argued was a fascist entity. The earliest fascist theories were based on examples left behind by the Roman Empire.
View of the world Communism is an international movement; Communists in one country see themselves in solidarity with Communists in other countries. Communists distrust Nationalistic nations and leaders. Communists strongly distrust "big business. Fascists distrust internationalism and rarely abide by international agreements. Fascists do not believe in the concept of international law. There are presently no openly fascist governments in existence. View of war Communists believe that war is good for the economy by spurring production, but should be avoided.
War is good for the morale of the nation and therefore good for the State. Through the conquest of war, the State can attain glory. The Nation State is bolstered through subjugation of inferior nations. War has no negative effect on the economy. Term coined by Mussolini in the s when he gained control of Italy. What are Communism and Fascism?
Communist Philosophy Communism can be traced back to Thomas More , a prominent English Catholic who wrote about a society based around common ownership of property in Utopia in Fascist Philosophy Fascism is based around the glory of the nation state. Social Structure and Class Hierarchies Communists inspired by The Communist Manifesto believe class hierarchies must be abolished by the state seizing control of private property and industry, thereby abolishing the capitalist class.
Political System Both fascism and communism are against the democratic process but with some differences. Individual Rights In both communism and fascism, individual choice or preference matter less than society as a whole.
Modern Examples As of , China, Cuba, and North Korea are the most prominent of about a dozen communist countries out of over in the world. Popular Communists and Fascists Noted supporters of communism in the U. Communism and Fascism in Capitalistic Systems Many people consider capitalism , communism, and fascism to be entirely separate systems, but there are shared elements. Follow Share Cite Authors. Share this comparison: If you read this far, you should follow us: "Communism vs Fascism.
Comments: Communism vs Fascism. Related Comparisons. Contribute to Diffen Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise. Log in ». Terms of use Privacy policy. Surely you don't feel some great animosity toward Genghis Khan.
And no, I don't really support "active genocide" because my ancestors would have been the ones genocided, lol. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. It all depends on how you want to define "worse"; the only thing that can be said with certainty is that both are terrible and we probably shouldn't try them again. Both do have positives, of course, but they're far outweighed by their negatives, shortcomings, failures, and pogroms.
To all who think that Nazism is a correct representation of Fascist ideology, explain these quotes from Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" Ludwig "Talks with Mussolini". I am tired of this idiocy. When people claim that Stalinists or Maoists did this or that, people claim that these ideologies are not real communism. When someone reminds democratic folks that the greatest massacres and imperialist conquests were under liberal democracies and constitutional monarchies, they claim that this does not represent democracy.
But when someone starts screaming that Fascism is inherently evil because National Socialism exists, everyone just nods in agreement.
If your analyzing and comparing ideologies do it properly. If the Polish prime minister started a war with an ideology and state system almost entirely based around the funding of, and extermination, during the war … And then had their asses kicked, then yes, I would say that.
But I doubt that was the case. World War 2 as we know it wouldn't have happened if the nazis were absent. Depends who or not is German to you, really. The slaves, the murdered and the oppressed would all be a part of Germany should Germany become a superpower, but that would never happen, they'd all be a part of the enslaved, murdered, and oppressed. No one is responsible for them. If Germany invades and takes over Eastern Europe, then Eastern Europeans are inside German borders, and since they are under Nazi Germany authority and with no actual autonomy, then Germany would be responsible for its subjects.
If that is not the case, then who is going to be "responsible" for these slaves and soon-to-be-exterminated people? If someone's state, government, or culture is gone, then do they no longer have right to life or freedom? Let's say that I take control of a country and then kill anyone who doesn't fit my arbitrary definitions of race and heritage.
Sure, it's """good""" for anyone who does fit my arbitrary definition of race and heritage, but that also means that even those who consider themselves "Big Brotherian" but do not fit my arbitrary definition of "Big Brotherian" must also be a part of the list of undesired people. Even if these people were born in "Big Brotherstan", had "Big Brotherstan" families in the hundreds, spanning several centuries, they would not be real "BB-ian" to my definition of "BB-ian" because they prefer strawberry milk instead of chocolate milk.
You know: now that there's no classically defined fascist countries left the world has been a lot better and better yet since the collapse of communism as a global force to the point there's only four communist countries left the world has been even better. Obviously there's still dictator fucktards, but most of those countries don't consider ethnic puritism a end goal. Not really about communism or fascism but since communism has been falling and fascism is dead the world has been a better place, all we really gotta do is wait for theocracies to end also.
There's 8 theocracies left so once they're gone the world might be nice. Tldr; Fascism is pretty much dead. Communism is dying, only four communist countries left. Theocracy is dying, only eight countries left. I think it's fair to point out that not all fascism is Nazism and that fascism doesn't necessitate a racial component.
That being said, I find what Mussolini actually wrote or had written in his name abhorrent. Mussolini's fascism was all about suppressing everything, freedom, religion, culture, morals, and molding them until they served the needs of the state. If you're going to do all that you better have an immense payoff.
But you don't. You get the subjective betterment of the state, which itself is an abstraction. Italy, America, whichever country you live in, they don't actually exist. There's line's we draw on a map and tell others not to cross. There are laws passed by politicians that we agree to follow, and there are people hired to commit or threaten violence against you if you don't.
But there's no concrete entity or person called Italy or America that actually benefits from people being patriotic, or from the fact that people are now more pliable. But some people do benefit from these things, the politicians. The people who form the government are given even more power over a pliable populous. As long as they can justify that whatever position they are taking is for the good of "the state" then the people will be happy to sacrifice whatever liberties they need in order to make their nation strong.
There are two simple definitions: a citizen of Germany, or an ethnic German. I'm talking about ethnic Germans. I'm not well versed in Communist theory, so I guess an "ethnicity" is a social construct for you, but it isn't for me, Hitler, or anyone else who lived back then.
Therefore I was talking about the advancement of Germany as a nation of ethnic Germans. Nazis had very clear rules for whom they accepted, which even included people with considerable non-German ancestry. You're talking as if the biggest problems in the world come from Communist countries or dictators.
Which they're not, so they disappearance won't make the world any better. There is no concrete entity called America because there are no concrete entities called Americans. Any country that exists as a multicultural amalgamation of different ethnicities only exists on paper. Obviously, one can't say the same thing about monoethnic countries, which have their own unique cultures and gene pools.
Their states, therefore, exist to directly represent their interests and ensure their existence and development. Without a strong nation their continuous existence and prosperity is endangered.
Without a strong state they are going to be destroyed or exploited, as it has always happened and is still happening now. Holy shit, I think I just realized what's wrong with communists. They argue for things that would be true or would work in a world where Communism has won without actually living in a world like that. It literally says "The majority of battle deaths will be combatants, however, deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire are also included" so civilian deaths are included.
If you want to count that then the number of people dictators and shit directly or indirectly killed would break well over a hundred million easily. China's "Great Leap Forward" starved to death fifty million people. The USSR just shoved people onto islands to intentionally starve them to death. Well I was talking about modern times since you mentioned how there're less and less dictators, and how that's great.
You posted an interesting graph, but it would be great to see the overall number of unnatural deaths since the early 's. Also we should definitely switch to using messages if you're planning to continue this any further.
Before you go "That proves the USA are all horrible monsters that come in the night and kill children and sacrifice them to satan" the USA does publish the number of civilians we accidentally kill in wartime now.
The number of civilians we accidentally killed in Iraq was several thousand. The reason why the civilian death is so high though is insurgents and ISIS were not kind to any civilians who didn't submit to them. ISIS beheaded a lot of people. That proves the USA are all horrible monsters that come in the night and kill children and sacrifice them to satan. ISIS and all of these insurgencies were directly caused by a certain democracy, not an ebil dictator. What can we do about the United States?
I don't know. Personally I hope that China becomes some hyper-ultra-superpower in the future and overshadows the US. Some modern dictator stepping down won't change the world for the best. If anything, it would probably be the other way around. They literally believe it's the end of the world and that forcibly converting people at gunpoint is "saving them".
It'd be like if a bunch of Christians that believe in "The Rapture" started rounding up Non-Christians, forcibly at gunpoint trying to convert people to "save your soul from the anti-christ". Please do enlighten me, my American friend, about the circumstances under which ISIS came to be as powerful as it was.
And all of these other insurgencies. And Libya literally moving back to the Middle Ages, with slavery and other nice stuff like that. I heard it might have something to do with a certain democracy that enjoys overthrowing foreign governments.
At this point we derailed the thread way too much, I'm afraid of getting cucked by the mods, let's use messages pls. ISIS aren't the only ones. Historically, they're both pure shit and will lead their country to famine or near complete destruction. They both demand state control of the economy. They both advocate the destruction of any opposition to their cause. They both use conspiracies--whether Jewish or Bourgeoisie in origin--to control their countries and eliminate opponents.
And they both advocate a grand vision that, ultimately, can never actually be realized. You can argue about a utopian communism where there's no money and everyone's treated rightly or a utopian fascism where the state strictly uses nationalism with no racial element to unify and protect its citizens but, in reality, you're far more likely to end up dead in a mass grave in either than in a perfect society. The issue of terrorism is still as heated of a topic in Islam as it has been, because people want to sweep it under the rug and act as though their countries have moved past it.
The problem with the middle east is Islamic fundamentalism that pretty much views any other religion merely existing to be "persecuting them". In a lot of countries if you convert away from Islam they'll kill you.
Sure you can argue your point about Iraq, Libya or such, but can you argue that about Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries the USA has never taken military action against? Tldr; religious fundamentalism regardless of the religion is bad. Theocracy is bad Communism is bad Fascism is bad The goal off those four isn't to better the countries they operate in, rather it's goal is to forcibly change someone to believe like they do at gunpoint.
Thank you for understanding my point. One of the biggest problems with people comparing ideologies is that they lump all the variations of ideology together and then everything devolves into screeching how one ideology is this and that and killed this many people. Can't we have a discussion where we compare not the actions of those who claimed to support the ideology, but rather how the creators of the ideology wrote it's points and ideals down?
Okay then: Marx was a dumbass that was a obsessive fanboy of the french revolution. If he was alive today he'd have a dakimaru of napoleon. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. They will do so with great passion and when they have a moment of self-doubt, their conscience will press them to go yet even further.
As the economy deteriorates, their lack of understanding concerning economic issues causes them to take only greater comfort in their attempts at alleviating economic woes. Fascists had the opposite problem. Himmler once gave a speech to the SS where many of their members were having ethical protestations from their conscience.
Their ethics were condemning them, even among their anti-Semitic geopolitical enemies, who thought they were going too far. But not the communists. Their mob mentality cries out and demands lynchings and their conscience demands even more. This raises another evil to communism — the mob. Where people with extremely weak justifications have their confidence boosted because they have friends who share their opinions.
Irrational validation is the death of critical thought. The fact that so many university professors, journalists, empty-minded artists, and actors share these views gives unintelligent people comfort for their shared barbaric evils.
0コメント