What was worse? Communist or Fascist Regimes?

Which was worse?


  • Total voters
    117
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lord_Sidious

No Fun At All
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
731
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Which were worse?
Left-Winged authoritarian regimes like the URSS,China, Cuba, etc., i.e., Communism.
or
Fascist, Right-Winged Dictatorships (note Fascism is not right winged), Nazi, Authoritarian Conservative Regimes?

I think Communist regimes were worse because, they killed more people :)
Hitler killed 6 million Jews, Stalin killed 10 million people. And Mao, around 40 or 30 million people.
Second
I would rather live in Fascist Italy than in the URSS.
At least I had a little of Economic Liberty in Italy, thing that in the Communist Authoritarian Reigmes (Stalinists, Maoists) didn't happen.

What's your opinion=?
 
I measure this by my likelyhood of surviving in them. So I think the communists were worse. There is no telling who will be dragged off in the next purge. The gulags were full of loyal party members as well as everyone else. The fascists would be pretty bad, but as long as you match their ideals and keep your mouth shut, there is a good chance of survival. I could probably blend into Nazi Germany quite nicely. I wouldn't mind either if I was the guy in charge.:king:
 
Mussolini´s Italy was much different from Hitler´s Germany, like Castro´s Cuba is much different from Stalin´s Russia.

There is little point in a general comparisson between Fascism and Communism, since there were alot of variations.

It´s enough to say that both are horrible and a stain on human history.
 
Communism by far. Greater period of time enslaving people, many times more deaths and spawned regimes that continue to hold people under their tyrannical yoke to this day. There is also the issue raised of random terror, and of economic status and relative prosperity.
Fascism was arguably not as bad to live under if you were of the right race and kept your mouth shut.
 
Yeah but not all of us are blessed with being the right race, so fascism is not that appealing.
And about fascism being better "as long as you keep your mouth shut"... well, if you keep your mouth shut under a communist regime, you could survive, too.
Under both communism and fascism you pretty much were ordered to agree unconditionally with the government. Under both exist secret state police; under both systems the people living in the country lived in fear of one day, someone banging on that door and being dragged away in the middle of the night.
Also, arguing that communism is worse simply because it lasted longer is a pretty weak argument. If fascism lasted longer (and note, fascists still do exist and still try to gain power in countries), more people would have died under that system, too.

Like luiz said, both were horrible and it's enough to say that they were/are a horrible stain on human/world history.
 
Neither nor. For neither actually existed... Well, you could make a case for Fascism. But Communism? Not at all.
 
Fascist regimes usually have stylish military uniforms (except for Italy) but since I’m often mistaken for being Jewish, I’d be in trouble. On the other hand, I don’t think forced labor in a gulag or communal turnip farm would be much fun.
 
Kamilian said:
Yeah but not all of us are blessed with being the right race, so fascism is not that appealing.
And about fascism being better "as long as you keep your mouth shut"... well, if you keep your mouth shut under a communist regime, you could survive, too.
Under both communism and fascism you pretty much were ordered to agree unconditionally with the government. Under both exist secret state police; under both systems the people living in the country lived in fear of one day, someone banging on that door and being dragged away in the middle of the night.
Also, arguing that communism is worse simply because it lasted longer is a pretty weak argument. If fascism lasted longer (and note, fascists still do exist and still try to gain power in countries), more people would have died under that system, too.

Like luiz said, both were horrible and it's enough to say that they were/are a horrible stain on human/world history.
Agree 100%..... personally and as a Slav also I preferre the Communist system, just because its variations turned to be a bit more humaine than most Fascist (Nazi) ones. It is equally bad to equalize all the bad and all the good in a whole country without knowing enough to understand what was going on and who was behind it......
 
Kamilian said:
Yeah but not all of us are blessed with being the right race, so fascism is not that appealing.

And about fascism being better "as long as you keep your mouth shut"... well, if you keep your mouth shut under a communist regime, you could survive, too.

Under both communism and fascism you pretty much were ordered to agree unconditionally with the government. Under both exist secret state police; under both systems the people living in the country lived in fear of one day, someone banging on that door and being dragged away in the middle of the night.

Also, arguing that communism is worse simply because it lasted longer is a pretty weak argument. If fascism lasted longer (and note, fascists still do exist and still try to gain power in countries), more people would have died under that system, too.

Like luiz said, both were horrible and it's enough to say that they were/are a horrible stain on human/world history.

1.) That is a given; that is why the words 'arguably' and more importantly 'if' were used. Furthermore, they were used in a hypothetical sense, rather than a celebration of being part of the master race or whatever. :ack:

2.) Again, a given. Neither cancel the other out.

3.) More Russians, Chinese, Ukrainians and other Soviet ruled ethnicities, Cubans, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Eastern Europeans, Mongolians, Nicaraguans, Afghanis and Albanians were killed and persecuted by their own government than Germans, Austrians, Italians, Portuguese and Spaniards. The nature of the regime did not touch as many people, nor were its malign tendrils felt as noticably by the populace at large.

4.) No. Fascism lasted in Italy for 20 odd years and in Germany for 12. Various right wing dictatorships were around for longer times, notably Salazar and of course the beloved Generalissimo. These pale in comparison to the sheer length of time communist dictatorships have blighted the earth, with wide ranging consequences both inside their borders and for the world at large. Arguing that the average is a superior measure of wickedness than the full tally can be done, but it does not mean that the latter is invalid. In the end, it is a case of arguing the toss of a double sided coin.

Fascists still do exist but pose no threat whatsoever in terms of taking control of a country or government. Communists on the other hand, hold a significant portion of the world still in thrall.

5.) Communism was and is a most terrible and corroding stain on the earth, as it was a significant factor in motivating the rise of fascism.
 
1.) That is a given; that is why the words 'arguably' and more importantly 'if' were used. Furthermore, they were used in a hypothetical sense, rather than a celebration of being part of the master race or whatever.
And with that statement, the argument that fascism wasn't as bad as communism collapses. Because there's only a handful of races (I'm talking "Caucasian", "African", "Asian", etc.) out there. So wherever fascism rises, it's basically going to promulgate their own race as superior. Thus: enslave and/or kill all others. Now, communism was horrible but under communism, a person of any race would have the same chances of getting rounded up by the state police as a person of another race. With fascism, most people of the world would be herded into labor camps and/or worked to death.
Even worse if the fascism that develops is promoting a specific ethnicity (as in German, Irish, Korean, etc.) over others. Well, that expands the amount of people that will be targeted by it even more.
Hmm... communism is starting to sound better after all!

2.) Again, a given. Neither cancel the other out.
That's what I'm saying. You were saying that under fascism, so long as you kept your mouth shut, you would have a chance of surviving. I'm saying that that's exactly the same case with communism - keep shut your criticisms of the government and you have a chance at living.

3.) More Russians, Chinese, Ukrainians and other Soviet ruled ethnicities, Cubans, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Eastern Europeans, Mongolians, Nicaraguans, Afghanis and Albanians were killed and persecuted by their own government than Germans, Austrians, Italians, Portuguese and Spaniards.
Yes, the communist regimes were around a lot longer and had time to accumulate the large sums of victims. Again I say, had the fascist regimes (I'm talking Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and WW2 Japan - I don't know if Japan was considered fascist but it was in that Axis so I'm putting them together) stuck around longer, there would have been many, many more victims. Hell, with the Nazis' plan, the Slavs would have been almost wiped out, the small remainder being turned into an expendable slave labor force. Poland was the first target for this plan, but it would eventually expand to include the rest of occupied Eastern Europe.
Oh, and let's not forget the Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities against the Chinese which have rarely been researched thoroughly.
The nature of the regime did not touch as many people, nor were its malign tendrils felt as noticably by the populace at large.
Oh, right. Not a single person in occupied Europe noticed the Gestapo and informers swarming around. Please. Eastern European children deemed as looking German enough were kidnapped from their homes and their families by the Nazis. After the war, only a handful of those children were found and returned to their own families, and by then they were pretty much Germanized. In Poland itself, random street round-ups were an almost daily norm. In China, people were being experimented on and killed by the Japanese in a manner similar to that in Germany's concentration camps.
But I'm sure noone noticed these actions by the regimes ruling their countries.

Fascists still do exist but pose no threat whatsoever in terms of taking control of a country or government. Communists on the other hand, hold a significant portion of the world still in thrall.
Don't underestimate the fascist parties that exist again. A fascist threat is still real - after all, they offer power for the country and greatness and exalt their country as the best. They exploit patriotism, turning it into blind nationalism. Fascism is especially a danger in the countries that were under the Soviet bloc. The democracies in those countries are still feeling growing pains, and there's not only corruption in the governments but also there's economic issues, especially with the countries trying to adjust to the EU regulations. If the democratic government is ineffective in dealing with the problems, there will be a lot of disillusionment. And the alternative to democracy is a dictatorship. A leftist (communist) dictatorship is infeasible there because people there detest communists after 50 years of Soviet domination. So in the way of offering a strong, willful dictatorship as alternative to an inefficient democracy, fascist parties have no competition.

5.) Communism was and is a most terrible and corroding stain on the earth, as it was a significant factor in motivating the rise of fascism.
Fascism may have risen a few years after communism did, but that hardly means it was any more or less vulgar than communism.
 
Salazar's Dictatorship, Estado Novo, wasn't quite Fascist, it was a Conservative Authoritarian Regime. Generalissimo Franco's Dictatorship is similar too, yes.
However, both lasted many years.
Salazar ruled Portugal from 1933 to 1968. Marcello Caetano from 1968 to 1974. So 41 years of Conservative Dictatorship.
 
Kamilian said:
And with that statement, the argument that fascism wasn't as bad as communism collapses. Because there's only a handful of races (I'm talking "Caucasian", "African", "Asian", etc.) out there. So wherever fascism rises, it's basically going to promulgate their own race as superior. Thus: enslave and/or kill all others.

You have to realize that fascism isn't about racial genocide just like communism isn't about rounding people up and sending them to Siberia. It’s a form of government that was adopted by several countries before WWII. Most of whom didn't pursue policies in racial cleansing or empire expansion.

You can't say that any fascist regime would conquer and enslave/kill other races. That was mainly a policy of Nazi Germany and Hitler who goaded other fascist regimes like Italy into sending them their Jews to Nazi death camps.

The same goes for communism. You can't say that any communist regime would kill priest and god-fearing people, put people into labor and reeducation camps and conquer their neighbors based on the actions of the Soviet Union.
 
A Right-Winged policy is purely economic.
It gives more liberty to companies and economic liberty, i.e., Capitalism
Then the Left-Winged is purely economic.
More control over money.More Social Policies
Fascism was Corporativist, a kind of Centrist Dictatorship
 
The worse one is whichever is threatening your(you, your family, your race, and/or your nation's) existence the most at the time.
 
Rolo Master said:
A Right-Winged policy is purely economic.
It gives more liberty to companies and economic liberty, i.e., Capitalism
Then the Left-Winged is purely economic.
More control over money.More Social Policies
Fascism was Corporativist, a kind of Centrist Dictatorship

Corporatism is the symbiotic relationship between government and private enterprise, take Nazi Germany for example:

* IG Farben
* Mercedes Benz
* Siemens
* Krupps
* Bayer

ect. ect. ect. as well who knows how many intermediate and small busineses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG-Farben

Tell me how do you think corporations like these would view the leftist concept of "nationalization" ? Only in their labour policy we the Nazis indicative of leftist tendencies, everything else was straight corporatism/capitalism/right wing until Speer reigned in the economy for the war effort in 1942, a full three years after most of the allies, which shows how hard it was for these supposed leftists to control the economy.

Your turn.
 
1.) Racial dimensions to variants of fascism were mainly confined to the German experience. Also, the arbitrary nature of the doctrine of racial superiority has a similar extent and outcome as that of class warfare and the liquidation of those who's interests are inamicable to those of the shining guardians of the proletariat. Furthermore, the communist states have not been absent from the game of racial oppression, deportation of nationalities, anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing and the large scale rape and destruction of other racial groups.

2.) Under fascism, it was possible to a greater degree to exist unmolested by the regime, particularly in the rural/agricultural areas, but in urban centres also.

3.) The key words were 'by their own government'. I am willing to set aside the circumstances of war, given that extremes occur from all sides in conflict. Both sides did terrible things in war time, that is a given.
In times of relative and indeed declared peace, far more citizens were killed, imprisoned and oppressed by their OWN communists governments than were done by fascist governments. This continues to this day. Collectivisation, dekulakisation, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the purges, the gulags - they comfortably beat anything the fascist states could offer, particularly in regards to Italy and the Iberian states.

4.) One was referring to their own people, prior to the outbreak of war and the aggressive conquest of other nations. Even during the course of war, Germans had more to fear from Allied bombing than from their own state, and morale, belief and productivity tends to confirm this. The point is that you seem to be focusing on the tallest trees of wartime, and not noticing the overall wood to which I refer.

5.) All true, and also all irrelevant. There is many times more likelihood in Eastern European and other states of former communists and reconstructed leftist parties gaining ascendance as compared to bona fide fascist parties taking power. The extreme right at this time lacks any broad appeal, electoral hope of success and tends to be tarred with the brush of the past. Indeed, dictatorship of any complexion is rather unlikely, and less likely still is the longevity of any hypothetical junta that did take power.

6.) Without the threat of communism, fascism would not have been able to attract a broad basis of support. Indeed, without the ideology of Marxism, we would not have seen fascism, certainly not in the form it took. Fascism was definitely a form of reaction; when there is a lion loose in the street, you go for the people who can handle it. Its ideas would not have gelled with the public in the absence of the geopolitical and ideological situations created by communism, communist revolution and the threat of it, and communist states.
 
Simon Darkshade said:
The key words were 'by their own government'.

Why?

I don't think this thread belongs in the History forum at all as it's obviously so subjective. What's the definition of "worse"?

However, it seems clear to me that fascism is worse than communism, for the simple reason that at least communism has a motive and principle that is worthy and makes sense (stopping one class exploiting another and ensuring that everyone has what they need). Fascism, by contrast, has a loopy motive and principle (idolatry of the state as a thing in itself). Whatever the consequences of the two may have been, at least communism had the right intention to begin with. I can't see anything sympathetic about fascist ideology at all, even apart from the racism part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom