Fascism vs communism which is worse

Furthermore, Fascism in its radicalized, Nazi form was more than a simple reincarnation of counter-revolutionary thinking and action. Nazism was something brand new, an attempt to renovate the world by getting rid of the bourgeoisie, money, parliaments, parties, and all the other "decadent," "Judeo-plutocratic" elements. Clarifying these issues is vital for understanding the political, moral, and cultural stakes of the post-Cold War and post-September 11th world order.

This is a world order which political scientist Ken Jowitt rightly assumes to be "without Leninism," but where Leninist legacies continue to haunt political memory and imagination. The war between liberalism and its revolutionary opponents is not over, and new varieties of extreme utopian politics remain as the events leading up to September 11th demonstrated. In the novel La condition humaine, published in the early s, Andre Malraux captured the great dream of 20th century communism.

Apprehended by the Kuomintang in China during the failed communist insurrection of , a communist militant is asked what he finds so appealing in the cause he fights for. The answer is: "Because communism defends human dignity. Many former communists joined the cause because of this dramatic novel and its description of the movement's commitment to "ultimate dignity. The myth of the Party, more than the myth of the Leader, explains the longevity and endurance of the Leninist project.

By contrast, the Fascists, while invoking the commands of historical Providence, invested the ultimate center of power not so much in the institution as in the infallible "genius" of the Leader. For the Fascists, the party mattered, but it never had the kind of charismatic magnet with which it was endowed in Leninist incarnations.

An insistence that there was some form of lingering morality in Bolshevik utopianism, along with the exploitation of anti-Fascist emotions, is primarily responsible for the persistent refusal to acknowledge that the Soviet system was, from its inception, a criminal system. According to this belief, to document and condemn Nazi bestiality was acceptable, but to focus on analogous atrocities perpetrated by the Radical Left was primitive.

The revolutions of and the collapse of the Soviet Union in changed this outlook. The Black Book of Communism, which documents communist atrocities, was very well received upon publication in France in , selling over , copies. What The Black Book of Communism succeeds in demonstrating is that communism in its Leninist version was from the outset inimical to the values of individual rights and human freedom.

In spite of communism's overblown rhetoric on emancipation from oppression, the leap into freedom turned out to be an experiment in social engineering. The idea of an independent judiciary was rejected as "rotten liberalism. Just as in Hitler's Germany where the heinous Nuremberg Laws were a legal fiction dictated by racial obsessions, from the outset, Bolshevism subordinated justice to party interests.

For Lenin, dictatorship of the proletariat was rule by force and unrestricted by any law. The presumption of innocence was replaced by a universalized presumption of guilt. They believe absolute devotion to the state will lead to a better future. Statehood and religion are embraced as these are unifying elements. State is raised above all. Thus as long as a person is devoted to the state, his race, religion or ethnicity doesn't matter.

The ideal economic system of Fascism is massive corporations controlled and subservient to the government. As mentioned previously those who oppose the new system must be silenced or destroyed.

Fascism is much worse. One thing I want to point out though, is that communism is an extremely varied set of ideologies many of which are irreconcilably opposed to one another.

My particular branch, anarcho-Communism firmly rejects vanguard parties and the powerful states that were responsible for so many of the deaths that get attributed to the entire concept of communism.

Many other branches do as well. If it's about the deaths, communism is worse If it's about the human rights, fascism is worse If it's about the censorship, communism is worse If it's about the racism, fascism is worse If it's about what's happening currently such as North Korea and maybe China and Venezuela , communism is worse If it's about what's happening in USA such as the alt-right, fascism is worse If it's about in general, both are worse and are just stupid.

As an enlightened galaxy brain horseshoe theorist my belief is that both ideologies are completely identical and that attempting to parse their differences is an exercise in futility. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. Most likely what the OP is referring to is Marxism-Leninism, an ideological strain of the communist movement codified by Joseph Stalin, adopting and combining ideas found in works by Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, and Frederich Engels.

It is commonly referred to as "Stalinism" by other leftists. First, we should clarify what Marxism-Leninism entails. Marxist-Leninists wish to establish a communist society via the use of an intermittent socialist state ran by the vanguard party.

The vanguard party is a communist party comprised of "professional" revolutionaries and economic philosophers. The vanguard party is a direct auxiliary to the working class via democratic means. To achieve full communism, Marxist-Leninists focus on industrial and scientific development, as well as ostracism of working class enemies such as the bourgeoisie. Fascism is a form of extreme authoritarian nationalism -- the state directly controls and dictates market forces, as well as individual livelihoods.

Because of fascism's extreme nationalism, this often leads to a form of ethnonationalism such as Nazi Germany , which logically leads to mass migration or genocide of ethnic, religious, political, sexual, or gendered minorities. Like Marxism-Leninism, fascists advocate for a one-party state -- however, this party is not directly subservient to the majority or working class, as democracy is deemed ineffective by fascists.

Because of this, fascism is inherently dictatorial by a minority, such as the bourgeoisie or military. While Marxism-Leninism advocates national liberation the right of a nation to be self-reliant and independent in the name of international cooperation in the hopes of creating a global communist society, fascists advocate for extreme global unitary political control via their own nation.

This is an inherent good in fascism, and as such, methods such as war and imperialism are seen as useful tools rather than an evil to avoid. These are self-admitted characteristics of both ideologies. So, yes, fascism is far, far worse than communism. What exactly is wrong with Fascism? Surely you evaluate a system by what it promises and delivers to a nation that adopts it. The only reason you could argue why Fascism was bad for Germany is because they lost the war. But even that's a weak argument, because then would liberal democracy be intrinsically bad for a country if it loses a war while being a liberal democracy?

However, If we do consider the Marxist-Leninist countries, the answer is very simple. How many Germans were killed by Nazis? Italians by Italian fascists? Spanish people? And now compare to how many Russians or Chinese have died under their respective governments. Hitler found Berlin a city of bricks and left it a city of rubble. There's not much else to say, really. You're partly right, since I or other europeans wouldn't be able to question or argue against the Nazis, the Holocaust, or Generalplan Ost if the nazis were to win the war without instability.

Not really, no. German jews or political dissidents don't count, apparently. Is it somehow worse if the killed are one's own countrymen, and not other races or people and the other way around?

Nazi Germany invaded Eastern Europe with the intent of killing and enslaving pretty much anyone non-aryan, then colonising with German settlers.

The Soviet Union and China's deaths come from a mix of forced labour, famine, and political mass killings. Sources for deaths under Mao Zedong, some go as far as million, while Stalin's a mix of 5 to 20 million depending on who you ask. Mao and Stalin are considerably propagandised for and against, some would claim that they've killed up to million while others shrug and say that they dindu nuffin.

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

And why do you think I put quotations around "ideal" and "perfect". Star Trek works on the premise that the economy is pretty much marked invalid because technology has eliminated the middlemen, as replicators produce everything a person needs and energy is nearly freely available. While we do have some advances in eliminating the workforce for a more efficient economy automation in many businesses I don't see things like literal replicators like Star Trek has in the immediate future.

I'm just making this point that in my opinion, the hypothetical best case scenario of communism which, again, is purely hypothetical I think is better than the hypothetical best case scenario of fascism. That does not inherently mean I think we need to abandon what we're doing right now and try to go to it, especially as it relies on technology that does not exist.

But I'm not arguing that "the winner is right". I'm saying that I don't think that you should judge a system based on how a particular country that implemented it has performed in a war. Had it been alternative history with Nazi Japan and Communist China, maybe it'd be different, who knows. There's much more to winning a war than just choosing a "superior" ideology.

Well, yes, like I said, they lost the war. The last Polish prime minister before the war also found Warsaw a city of bricks and left it a city of rubble. What exactly does your argument imply? Holy shit, you even directly quote me asking why Fascism was bad for Germany.

How would Generalplan Ost be bad for Germany? Had they succeeded they probably would have become a superpower, with great territories, slaves and resources. Hell, maybe I'd be a slave if alive at all.

How could you possibly argue that all of this would be bad for Germany and Germans? Well obviously. Hitler was not responsible for the well-being of Eastern Europeans. Mao was indeed responsible for the people he ruled. Why the heck would you judge a leader based on how good or bad he was for other nations? Great leaders are by definition bad news for everyone surrounding their country, from Alexander the Great to Stalin, right?

So, normally I would agree with this, as this is only one aspect of a country, and is not something that a country inherently has to do if it can work it's diplomacy right. The problem is, nazi Germany wasn't minding it's own internal affairs and other countries decided that it wanted their land, nazi Germany billed it's future on trying to conquer most of the rest of the world. Fighting wars is an inseparable part of nazi Germany, not some minor detail that happened to not work. There are a lot of hypothetical situations that could potentially make every situation work.

Please update your billing details here to continue enjoying your subscription. Your subscription will end shortly. Please update your billing details here to continue enjoying your access to the most informative and considered journalism in the UK. Accessibility Links Skip to content. Which I don't for a moment believe. When we feel more revulsion for the smaller crimes of fascism, we are not being illogical but recognising that a philosophy that is noble but that sometimes goes horribly wrong is still superior to one based on cruelty and inequality.

Communism, like Christianity, is a willingness of the heart as much as anything else; a desire for a better world that is easy to mock but hard to live without. Fascism is about killing people. At the end of the day, any moderate democrat who pours equal scorn on both extremes had probably best not look too hard into the mirror. Because, while we can quantify the deaths caused by both communism and fascism, we will never know how many deaths have been the result of capitalism; of nothing more noble than a rich man wanting to be even richer, and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this.

Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin, but also it will never end. This article is more than 22 years old. Julie Burchill.

Topics Life and style Joseph Stalin Communism comment. Reuse this content.