Fascism vs. Communism

[saltinespike]

Quite a broad subject and could carry on for very many pages.

Here is some backround information for those uneducated on the subject.

Fascism:

Quote by: en.wikipedia.org Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, religious, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.

Communism:

Quote by: en.wikipedia.org Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as 'primitive communism'. Self-identified communists hold a variety of views, including Maoism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, and various currents of left communism, which are generally the more widespread varieties. However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the 'Stalinist') and Maoist interpretations of Marxism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century. The competing branch of Trotskyism has not had such a distinction.

For this debate, there is no in-between. If you had to pic one, which would it be? Back yourself up.

I am leaning more towards communism. It's more organized, and a little bit more free.

Short answer on my part and I apologize for that.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would choose revolt, up to and including death.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would choose revolt, up to and including death.

Wasn't really the purpose of the debate, but ok. I suppose.

On a side not, my knowledge in politics is very limited. I am only a sophomore in high school, just apologizing in advance.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks for the honesty saltinespike, and I applaud your intrest in politics at an early age.

Well, a point of fact is that both fascism and communism are authoritarian and deny individual rights. Every man is a slave to the extent the "controlling faction" is willing to extort from the people, using physical force, denial of resources or property, denial of free speech, denial in every way from denial of freedom of speech, denial of property ownership, denial of a right to life or a right to live as you the individual see fit, at the whim of the controlling party, or if a democracy, at the whim of the majority.

There are many fundamentals to government, but the interplay between a governments philosophy, economics and the "relationship" to the individual are the critical factors to understanding the entire stake of the concept, and the direct cost of society on every individual who makes it up, save for the political elite.

All governments operate on a measure of a four-point scale based on the cross of social and economic liberty.

If you are truly interested in politics and government, check out this site when you get some time.

The Architecture of Modern Political Power

[Century 25]

I think we are very near fascism now. Despite capitalism's blather about "freedom" in every other breath.. we are very far from having a "free" and democratic society. A quick look at our history will teach you how capitalism cashed-in on the backs of slavery.. and near-slavery.. as well as 12 hour days for children. They used to call the homeless and orphaned children "street urchins" - such warm hearted folk..

And.. for such "independently self-sufficient people" the cappo's are certainly communal minded when it comes to American housing.. just look around.. new and old housing.. it's cheek to cheek.. all in the spirit of neighborliness.. heh-heh.. or is it sardine can living = more $$ per square foot..

I opt for anti-capitalism.. not communism as the cap's love to bleat about. There are alternative ways.. it's not "either-or" as you might be led to believe.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am led to believe it is "either or" by people like you who hurl insults at what exists, in prefrence for something you can't define, or explain.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Century 25 There are alternative ways.. it's not "either-or" as you might be led to believe.

Nope, I know there are definitely other ways, but for this debate, it is either-or.

[Athena]

Quote by: Century 25 I think we are very near fascism now. Despite capitalism's blather about "freedom" in every other breath.. we are very far from having a "free" and democratic society. A quick look at our history will teach you how capitalism cashed-in on the backs of slavery.. and near-slavery.. as well as 12 hour days for children. They used to call the homeless and orphaned children "street urchins" - such warm hearted folk.. And.. for such "independently self-sufficient people" the cappo's are certainly communal minded when it comes to American housing.. just look around.. new and old housing.. it's cheek to cheek.. all in the spirit of neighborliness.. heh-heh.. or is it sardine can living = more $$ per square foot.. I opt for anti-capitalism.. not communism as the cap's love to bleat about. There are alternative ways.. it's not "either-or" as you might be led to believe.

I am glad you said the US capitalism began with slavery and near slavery. We need to be realistic when we look at developing countries that are now building up from sweat shops that exploit women and children. That is how a capitalist country begins to build wealth. And when we mobilized for the first world war, Industry claimed the war caused a labor shortage, and tried to close public schools, so they could return children to factory laborers. It was argued that by keeping children in factories, they were not on the streets causing trouble. Such labor of children also assured they would not get an education and would not have better opportunities. Effectively creating a slave class, but without the responsiblility of slave owners. These pathetic human beings were disposable, and there was nothing for them when they became sick or disabled. It was a very inhumane reality, and we could return to that if people do not learn more of democracy and defend it.

The Deming Institute teaches the democratic model for industry. Deming attempted to get our industrial leaders to use the democratic model during the Great Depression, and if the had, we would not be fascist today. However, our autocratic industry refused the democratic model, so the government stepped in with autocratic controls, industry could not resist. Now we have private ownership and government control of industry and the poor. If you live in government housing and depend on government assistance, you know what I mean by government control of the poor.

The government control of industry started with Roosevelt (Democrat) and Hoover (Republican) working together to design Big Government. Some warned of the dangers of giving government these new powers, and as we neared the end of WWII some expressed their fears of the partnership of government and industry created during the war. As happened in Itally, the first fascist nation, power has shifted from the people to the fascist order of industry and government over the people.

I wish everyone knew of the Deming Institute and the democratic way of industrial management.

Deming Web Site - Home Pagethe den is the home of the deming electronic network web pages, deming file areas, and deming discussion list. deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/den/ - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

[Alive]

I like how no one is actually answering the question. :)

As long as you're one of the master race, fascisim doesn't bad. The fascists really got people worked up, pride in their nation and all that. If you're just a normal average citizen you have something to be happy about.

Communism sucks for everyone except a few people on the top.

Fascism is just so much more intoxicating. The propaganda movies are better. The music is better. The speeches are better. Communism was started by a bunch of nerds, fascism was an anti-intellectual movement.

If you're one of the enemies of the state, it doesn't really matter which one you're under.

[Century 25]

Quote:

I like how no one is actually answering the question

.

It is a catch-22 proposition. And Athena brought up how women were used as cheap labor.. but worse, they still are.. women are paid less for doing the same ( or better ) work. That is criminal. Women have families to support too.. but it is still the "good old boy" system.. nothing ever changes.

Also Athena said:


Quote:

We need to be realistic when we look at developing countries that are now building up from sweat shops that exploit women and children. That is how a capitalist country begins to build wealth.

Those developing countries are the sweatshops of the same greedy corporations that no longer can exploit the people here.. and what they cannot outsource they import illegal workers to do.. at sweatshop pay and conditions. No one wins except the corporations and stock owners..

Deming Web Site - Home Page

[Chris the Chees]

Fascism vs Communism?

Well, in my opinion its got to be communism every time. Mussolini's fascism is designed to be a right-wing dictatorial, nationalist ideology and always was.

Communism, while arguably (though not be me) may often degrade into a quasi-fascism, but it is not inteded to or designed to. Based on actual theory and intention communism is a near utopia of equality, universal wealth and classless individuals all striving for a greater good.

Fascism simply isn't, to quote Mussolini's 'What is Fascism', I think we can see what fascism was and was claimed to be: -

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... ...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... ...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

Modern History Sourcebook: Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932

A society devoid of democracy and places power in the hands of single individuals is not a place I want to live.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

I find myself agreeing wholly with Chris.

communism in its raw state demand much personal responsibility to the community. The social mind of considering everyone rather than self is very difficult for those who must be in charge to grasp.

i have heard it said nothing would be acheived, the need for committees and all groups to heard and the ideas bent to suit and make all feel "happy" about the outcome. that is so, if the mind set cannot be educated to consider the whole rather than the self.

communism would only benefit if there is no "leader" you could not have a "president", a "spokesperson" would be acceptable and may be cyclic. The ability to work together constructively in such a fashion is beyond the mind of the majority of humans who in the end want to satisfy their own needs over others...:)

[improvident]

Communism in my opinion is a wonderfull form of government.. its only draw back.. Man.. and our inability to properly cope with power

[grandpa]

Quote by: improvident Communism in my opinion is a wonderfull form of government.. its only draw back.

State communism would be a dictatorship by elites. A capitalists state similarly robs people, and has people working full time at nonsense jobs in order to access the food supply (and oither resources).

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Its an impossible question to answer.

How do you wish to be murdered? gas chamber? gulags? Aerial bombardment? Starvation?

A more interesting would be is how alike, and unlike, both are from each other.