Is There A Moral Equivalence Between Communists and Fascists? (1 Viewer)

[Waddy]

Not a nickels worth of difference between communism and fascism. Both are a scourge on mankind.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Not a nickels worth of difference between communism and fascism. Both are a scourge on mankind.

Totalitarian governments are the scourge of mankind, regardless of the systemic excuses.

"We're not fascists, we are Peronists."

"We're not communists, we're monks sword to poverty, tho the Monsignor is driven by a chauffeur in a lovely Rolls Royce to and from the home he maintains for his mistress."

 

[earthworm]

Is is fair to say that communists are as morally bad as fascists? Both ideologies can be attributed to the murders of millions of people, yet there are significant differences in the goals and tenants of each ideology.

Extremists infect both groups, but fascists are already "infected' . Uninfected communists are NOT bad at all, but are in the minority ..we even have some here , or we did many years ago ..

 

[longview]

I think there is a lot of negative connotations associated with both names,
and well earned in both cases.
I think in reality it is a matter of scale.
Most households operate on what could be called ether communists or fascists basis,
(someone is in change, and dictates the how monies are spent,
to promote the family,or someone is in change and dictates how monies are spent in
an attempt to see everyone's needs are met.)
Beyond the family unit, this type of autocracy, is not acceptable, as people have different goals,
and would be required to make choice compromises, to function.
(In many cases it in not even acceptable within the family unit. People disagree on what is important)

 

[MrWonka]

Is is fair to say that communists are as morally bad as fascists? Both ideologies can be attributed to the murders of millions of people, yet there are significant differences in the goals and tenants of each ideology.

Communism is an economic strategy, fascism is a form of political rule.

Communism certainly has flaws, but there is nothing about communism that requires the use of violence to achieve its goals.

Fascism is by very definition a system that centers on the use of force and violence to achieve authoritarian control. It views strong-arming and bullying as acceptable so long as it is done in the best interest of the nation, state, or tribe. It explicitly tries to acheive the suppression of most for the benefit of few, and it is an inherently driven by selfishness, and self-centeredness.

You've maybe heard of Bernie Sanders referring to himself as a Democratic Socialist as an opposed to a regular socialist. The same could be done with communism. Democratic Communism could be something that exists. I'm not sure anyone truly every has, but it's at least theoretically possible. Democratic Fascism, however, would be an oxymoron. The idea that you would let people vote to decide if they wanted an authoritarian regeme is silly and contradictory.

Where Communism can often end up in a state of violent control is due to the fact that people will often try to selfishly exploit the system for their own benefit, and preventing that can become exceedingly difficult. This often ends up forcing the government to resort to extremes to keep certain people inline. With faciscm however those types of extremes aren't simply something that can result, they are the stated goal in and of itself.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Simple litmus test:
Replace Fascism with Socialism, Mein Kampf with Das Kapital, Hitler with Marx, and Jews with Burgeois.
If the proposition still holds true, then there is equivalency.

The proposition doesn't still hold true, that is the problem.

To repeat what I argued earlier: Communism is a utopian ideology that in practice has allowed evil men to come to power and commit evil acts (example: USSR under Stalin, China under Mao). However, we don't see mass murder under every communist leader. Khrushchev was no Gandhi, but he was no Stalin either. Xi Jinping and Hu Jintao are huge improvements over Mao.

In contrast, Facism is an ideology that requires there to be evil men in power. Does anyone honestly think that the murder rate of the Nazis would have been any different had Hitler dropped dead and one of the members of the upper echelons of the Nazi party came to power? Of course not. If anything it may well have been worse as Hitler's judgement was poor towards the end due to his use of amphetamines and worsening psychosis. A more competent Nazi would have been an even more efficient murderer. Just the same even under Hitler, the Nazi mass murder rate was the worst in the history of civilization. The only reason why communists are responsible for more deaths is they were in power much longer. Had Nazism lasted as long as Communism, it was on tract to kill hundreds of millions more.

 

[Waddy]

Totalitarian governments are the scourge of mankind, regardless of the systemic excuses.

"We're not fascists, we are Peronists."

"We're not communists, we're monks sword to poverty, tho the Monsignor is driven by a chauffeur in a lovely Rolls Royce to and from the home he maintains for his mistress."

Yes, you're right; and communism and fascism both fall within that category. Like I said, not much difference between them. But that doesn't mean there aren't other types of totalitarianism.

 

[HK.227]

In contrast, Facism is an ideology that requires there to be evil men in power.

I can't think of many Fascist states that lasted for several generations. In fact post-1936 Spain is the only one that springs to mind, and it started to transform into a democracy in '75 after Franco died.
Chile under Pinochet started out as Fascist (or something pretty close to it), but tranformed into a democracy within the lifespan of it's first dictator.

It's impossible to predict with any kind of certainty what would have happened if Hitler died earlier, but I guess that some sort of crisis would have arisen. I don't really see any of the prospective candiates as capable of carrying out a fluid leadership transition during a major war. I could see it ending up with Germany suing for peace, which would probably end with Nazism in the form that we know it dying.

Hmm...
Actually, if anything, the available evidence (albeit sparse) seems to indicate that while Communism and Fascism may intially be equally evil, Communism takes longer to return to some sort of popular rule.
So while you may be right in that Fascism requires evil individuals to be in power (or it collapses), it should be no less disturbing that Communism manages to be evil without explicitly evil individuals in power.

 

[blackjack50]

I think it's safe to say utilizing mass murder to achieve any political goal, regardless of ideology, is reprehensible.

It's hard to say for certain. We have several examples of communist nations, including the USSR and PRC, which both committed massive crimes to achieve their desired political endgames. Those killed by communist regimes number close to 90 million.

The most prominent example of fascism we have is Nazi Germany, who certainly committed their fair share of atrocities in the name of their ideological system. Lord knows how many more would've fallen victim to the SS and the Gestapo had Nazi Germany actually won the Second World War.

I tend to find individual Communists less troubling than Fascists, simply because most Communists I've encountered are just naive and obsessed with "workers equality". Most Fascists I've encountered on the other hand seem to be more arduous in their nationalist and authoritarian beliefs.

If I had to pick, I'd say Fascism is worse, if just for no other reason than Communism, as a socio-economic theory, demands certain economic requirements that tend to lead to financial trouble and decline, in essence giving any communist regime a "shelf-life" before their centrally planned economy leads them down the path of ruin. Fascists on the other hand are more vague on economic matters and a bit more flexible/adaptable when it comes to such matters.

But that's just me.

Well put. Distinguishing between individual and government. I do see the governments as vaguely similar as the end results always seem to be the same for both (extreme authoritarianism).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soopairik]

Not a nickels worth of difference between communism and fascism. Both are a scourge on mankind.

No difference at all? To you they're exact synonyms?

 

[celticwar17]

Communists are worse... though facism is still bad.

They are actually not all that different from one another... The fascist party came out of the socialist party in Italy.

 

[Waddy]

No difference at all? To you they're exact synonyms?

The details don't matter. In their effect on mankind; yes, they are both the same. Millions dead.

 

[Soopairik]

The details don't matter. In their effect on mankind; yes, they are both the same. Millions dead.

The execution of communism was not okay, Communism by itself on paper is a good concept.

 

[Waddy]

The execution of communism was not okay, Communism by itself on paper is a good concept.

Really? What aspects of communism are "a good concept"? I thought Marx's ideas rather naive and simplistic.

 

[Soopairik]

Really? What aspects of communism are "a good concept"? I thought Marx's ideas rather naive and simplistic.

Long story short, Everyone is equal and works together. Every person works according to their needs. And people help each other.

 

[Waddy]

Long story short, Everyone is equal and works together. Every person works according to their needs. And people help each other.

Like I said; simplistic and naive. Everyone "works according to their abilities yet are rewarded according to their needs". Do I really have to elaborate on the weakness of that statement? Isn't it pretty obvious it won't work in practice?

"Everyone is equal". Would that be equal opportunity (which I think is a worthy goal) or equal outcome, which denies the variable levels of talent among human beings.

"Working together". Would that be like a commune, where everyone shares the workload and the results equally? Unfortunately, some work harder than others; how many communes have ever lasted more than a few years?

Communism ignores basic human nature, while democracy, if set up with separation of powers, and joined to capitalism, which recognizes man's competitive nature and his greed, can be very successful if regulated properly.

 

[Peter King]

Is is fair to say that communists are as morally bad as fascists? Both ideologies can be attributed to the murders of millions of people, yet there are significant differences in the goals and tenants of each ideology.

well, people who live in Western democracies who have communist inklings and want to work through the electoral system (not the terrorist kind that lived in some European countries) are morally upstanding albeit unrealistic people, they are not morally bad and most certainly not evil.

In all reality, there is nothing evil about the communist ideology voiced by Karl Marx and his supporters. The political system in the Eastern European countries and some far west Asian countries are not so much about communism that makes them evil, they are evil because they are dictatorships. The evil leaders of those communist countries were the culprits in causing so much death. The Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's of these systems were the evil people, communism was just a tool.

Whereas fascism is in it's core a very morally dubious and usually is used to bring out the worst in people by pitting them against other groups in society. So communism as Marx is not a morally bad system (just an unworkable) but fascism is morally bad from it's core beliefs.

 

[Doug1943]

Communist and fascist states have a lot in common. They're both one-party dictatorships. This is the basis for the assertion that communism and fascism, and thus communists and fascists, are similar.

But it does not follow that communists and fascists as individuals are similar -- unless we're speaking about the government officials in both kinds of states, or long-term party bureaucrats where they are opposition parties, who probably do/did have a lot in common.

The key difference is this: communists profess to want a better world for all of humanity: a world without war, unemployment, racial discrimination. They are -- or used to be -- thoroughly committed to the project of modernization, bringing backward, primitive people into the modern world. They wanted equality for women long before it became popular. They fought against racial discrimination in the US back when lynchings were not an uncommon thing.

Fascists, on the other hand, are explicitly tribalists: they want to see the victory/domination of their race/nation, and in the extreme, are willing to exterminate people they see as racial inferiors. (Of course, there are shades of fascism: Mussolini was far less horrible than Hitler, Franco also -- their material circumstances didn't really allow them to have world-conquering ambitions, and they didn't achieve power by demonizing the Jews.)

Fascists are happy with continuing things like the subordination of women. (Modern fascists, of course, have, like everyone else, moved with the times, or some of them have. I read recently that a branch of the Ku Klux Klan has announced it's open to homosexuals and Jews. Probably most of the idiots flirting with the 'alt-right' wouldn't openly admit to wanting women to return to Kinder-Kuche-Kirche but most of them seem pretty unhappy with women as they are now.)

Although fascists have some common roots with the traditional Old Right, it's not useful to see them as just extreme Right wingers. They aren't really conservative: Hitler did not want to conserve the German monarchy, for example: he was a thorough modernist, supporting development in science and engineering. Fascists did not appeal to traditionalists, as conservatives do, but to people who were radically disappointed with their lot -- due to defeat in war, and/or the economic situation. The Nazis, in particular, stole the Socialists' clothes,although their ultimate aim was to defend the capitalist order (although not the free market). They studied, and imitated the Leninist party model: a combat party, not an electoral machine.

Communists not in power are wrong-headed, naive, willfully blind ... yes. But their aims are not outright evil. Most of them are laudable. They don't sit around and cackle about how wonderful it will be when we are all mindless tools of the all-powerful state. In fact, they believe that eventually, there will not be a state ... that it will wither away.

You can task them with being willing to apologize for the evil of communist regimes in power, and I think that's fair enough. But before you do ... be sure you're not a pot calling the kettle black. Most of those Americans who were aware of American foreign policy behavior during the Cold War (admittedly a minority) did not disapprove of our overthrowing a democratically-elected government in Iran, or supporting the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Chile, and their replacement by bloody dictatorships.

So the rationale of communists for the nastier side of communist regimes -- that sometimes you've got to play rough -- is one that is shared by everyone. And the rationale that I've seen for the rule of the Shah in Iran, or Pinochet in Chile -- that their governments actually moved their countries forward economically -- was also the same rationale used by communists when talking about Mao or Castro or Stalin.