Soviet Communism and German Nazism/Fascism

[Kroforit]

I dont mean to offend any Russians or anyone else by posting my unbiased opinion.

Many westerners, even though they dont always admit it, compare Soviet Communism to German Nazism/Fascism (I am combining Nazism and Fascism since I understand that they were the same thing during Hitler's rule.)

In theory, proposed by the leaders, peace, equality and justice were the foundations of both ideologies. Both societies were being constructed practially identical to each other:

-Passionate speeches promoting peace, equality and justice.

-Mobilization of the whole nation to one cause, with the intention to make people think and act as if they were one man.

-Creation of diverse social programs and activities, which were almost compulsory for everyone: summer camps, sport activities, physical labor, memberships in certain organizations, parades, marches, etc.

-Indoctrination of all nation's youth: Hitler's Youth, Russian Pioneers.

-Extensive military training throughout life, which started in youth programs and continued untill the person reached non-military age. To my understanding military training was claimed to be for the purpose of defending the nation.

-Both ideologies proposed that their later generation would eventually become noticebly more advanced than other people in the world due to new understanding of humanity, which was the propaganda instilled into them from the early childhood, physical labor, and proper nutrition.

There are more similarties in ideologies which I can't remember right now.

-Both nations succeeded at implementing all these things in the begining but later became known as dangers to humanity to the rest of the world community.

-Both nations (Russia, Germany) wanted their ideology to be spread all over the world.

-Both Nations implemented repressive measures against certain groups.



I remember Russian mp.net members arguing about how absurd the idea of building a monument for victims of an ideology is, but they forget that there are monuments for victims of fascism and nazism.

I am looking for any kind of opinions.

[Kroforit]

It is also my opinion that Hitler and Stalin saw similarties in their rule and probably borrowed some ideas from each other, and that is why they signed a pact before WW2; but most likely, Hitler got greedy about sharing the world with another society, so after a successful rampage over Europe he was confident enough to attack Russia.

[nnnn87]

-Both nations succeeded at implementing all these things in the begining but later became known as dangers to humanity to the rest of the world community.
-Both nations (Russia, Germany) wanted their ideology to be spread all over the world.

add democracy and usa also

[cinoeye]

Well, I do agree that communism and nazi regimes are very bad.

I do not agree that democracy is bad, altought some countries with democratic regimes are doing bad things.
nnnn87 I would be more concirned with organised crime and corruption, than fighting "imperialism".

[Susumu]

everything is just a matter of perspective - the west pretends to spread democracy all over the world to pursue its agressive geo-political interests just as much as soviet union or germany did and the differences were just in the detail.
The rise and downfall of the systems was imo just triggered by political decisions of their leaders and not because of what kind of systems they were and we have yet to see how long this "democratic" systems will last.
But whatever you say and whatever some people in the past might have done you can't forbid Russians and other former Soviet countries to be proud of their countries' pasts just as much as you cant forbid other countries to do the same - unless you force them by making their country capitulate and reeducate the people like it happened with germany.

**** happend - most people from the former soviet union will agree and you can have a good discussion about it as long as you leave the generalizing "soviet union was evil" BS out of it - I don't know if I'm the only one who feels like its an insult to our country's history and to our ancestors of whom most were neither evil nor did anything of that kind no matter what ideology they might have believed in or not.

[StukaJr]

Give a person car with keys, no boundaries and a full tank of gas - where that person goes is not determined by manufacturer's slogan...

In short, tyrants came and went in many disguises and exploited given situations and forms of government - often as a fear of something else... Give unchecked power to a small group of individuals and its constituents are in for a quite a ride - with all parallels to Stalin's repressions or Hitler's Final Solution you want...

You do want to fear a government that comes to power by force and doesn't relinquish it peacefully and democratically... The new fear though, is that almost every "democratically" elected politician comes with a feed tube installed - where corporate and foreign parties could dump funds disguised as "campaign contributions"... Thinking like that gets you labeled as leftwing liberal wingnut, though p-)

[afreu]

Well at least we Germans can forbid ourselves to be proud of the Nazi regime and instead acknowledge and be aware (not feel guilty for it) of what happened. This is not because Germans learn better of history it's simply because we lost the war.

And although this was imposed on us from the outside I think it's a good thing. How can someone in his right mind want to be proud of mass murderers.

Stalin or Mao weren't better than Hitler nonetheless people are still allowed to glorify their acts. This situation is nothing to whine about it's just proof of how history is written and moral is manipulated by the ruling powers.

[Doublethinker]

Well at least we Germans can forbid ourselves to be proud of the Nazi regime and instead acknowledge and be aware (not feel guilty for it) of what happened. This is not because Germans learn better of history it's simply because we lost the war.

And although this was imposed on us from the outside I think it's a good thing. How can someone in his right mind want to be proud of mass murderers.

Stalin or Mao weren't better than Hitler nonetheless people are still allowed to glorify their acts. This situation is nothing to whine about it's just proof of how history is written and moral is manipulated by the ruling powers.

Aww, don't feel bad. One day you'll get your right to glorify Hitler back.

[Digimon]

I dont mean to offend any Russians or anyone else by posting my unbiased opinion.

Many westerners, even though they dont always admit it, compare Soviet Communism to German Nazism/Fascism (I am combining Nazism and Fascism since I understand that they were the same thing during Hitler's rule.)

In theory, proposed by the leaders, peace, equality and justice were the foundations of both ideologies. Both societies were being constructed practially identical to each other:

-Passionate speeches promoting peace, equality and justice.

-Mobilization of the whole nation to one cause, with the intention to make people think and act as if they were one man.

-Creation of diverse social programs and activities, which were almost compulsory for everyone: summer camps, sport activities, physical labor, memberships in certain organizations, parades, marches, etc.

-Indoctrination of all nation's youth: Hitler's Youth, Russian Pioneers.

-Extensive military training throughout life, which started in youth programs and continued untill the person reached non-military age. To my understanding military training was claimed to be for the purpose of defending the nation.

-Both ideologies proposed that their later generation would eventually become noticebly more advanced than other people in the world due to new understanding of humanity, which was the propaganda instilled into them from the early childhood, physical labor, and proper nutrition.

There are more similarties in ideologies which I can't remember right now.

-Both nations succeeded at implementing all these things in the begining but later became known as dangers to humanity to the rest of the world community.

-Both nations (Russia, Germany) wanted their ideology to be spread all over the world.

-Both Nations implemented repressive measures against certain groups.



I remember Russian mp.net members arguing about how absurd the idea of building a monument for victims of an ideology is, but they forget that there are monuments for victims of fascism and nazism.

I am looking for any kind of opinions.

What gives fascism a bad name, is not the properties you have listed, but the ideology of racial superiority coupled with military aggression and widespread effort to perpetrate genocide.

The practice of using the term as a derogative name is an attempt to project on a particular subject the essential characteristics of fascism (ones I have listed), solely on the basis of accidental characteristics (ones you have listed). Thus, Bush is often called a fascist, and I have read similar “analyses” comparing Bush administration to fascism as the one you have presented. These are elements of rhetoric, which include attempts to create a negative opinion of the subject by illegitimate means, i.e. fallacy of equivocation whereby two different senses of fascism are purposely confused, and fallacy of appeal to emotion.

As far as some of the properties you have listed are concerned, then the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the Stalinist system do have certain similarities to German National-Socialist movement and the system it produced. However, the comparison could be extended to a number of other states throughout history. Some of the properties are present in different contemporary democratic states to a different degree – but these properties do not qualify a state as a fascist or a communist state. All states implement repressive measures against some groups, perhaps if you have specified the groups and the principle behind the determination what groups are to be repressed, you might have put your finger on the principle that is unique to fascism or communism – but you have failed to do this. You have also failed to do this with regards to draft, military training, compulsory programs, passionate speeches about justice, being more advanced due to deeper understanding etc... These are not unique to either fascist or communist states.

In other words, similarities along these lines as far as they are true are uninteresting.

[tsuri]

You basically listed multiple properties of a totalitarian state. Those can be applied to whatever state you please, not just Fascist/Socialist states.

Some selective comments

-Both nations (Russia, Germany) wanted their ideology to be spread all over the world.

That is true for ideologies in general. With very few exceptions, political ideologies are universal and their followers seek to apply and spread them. Democracy is a good example because it starts more wars to spread itself than all the others.

-Both Nations implemented repressive measures against certain groups.

This is nearly universal for every state except maybe for liberal democracies but one can argue that the latter may also use repressive measures against enemies of their ideologies.

I remember Russian mp.net members arguing about how absurd the idea of building a monument for victims of an ideology is, but they forget that there are monuments for victims of fascism and nazism.

It is absurd. One can make a monument for the victims of the Soviet Union or the Soviet Sphere of Influence but an Ideology cannot be held responsible, it is an abstract concept, governments and thereby people are and should.

[Ordie]

The Far Right gave us Hitler.

The Far Left gave us Stalin.

[Doublethinker]

And Hegel gaves us both, the far right and the far left.

We should build a monument dedicated to victims of Hegel's philosophy - it would encompass all victims of all fascist, nazist, nationalist, socialist and communist regimes.

[Loki77]

I dont mean to offend any Russians or anyone else by posting my unbiased opinion.

Many westerners, even though they dont always admit it, compare Soviet Communism to German Nazism/Fascism (I am combining Nazism and Fascism since I understand that they were the same thing during Hitler's rule.)

In theory, proposed by the leaders, peace, equality and justice were the foundations of both ideologies. Both societies were being constructed practially identical to each other:

-Passionate speeches promoting peace, equality and justice.

-Mobilization of the whole nation to one cause, with the intention to make people think and act as if they were one man.

-Creation of diverse social programs and activities, which were almost compulsory for everyone: summer camps, sport activities, physical labor, memberships in certain organizations, parades, marches, etc.

-Indoctrination of all nation's youth: Hitler's Youth, Russian Pioneers.

-Extensive military training throughout life, which started in youth programs and continued untill the person reached non-military age. To my understanding military training was claimed to be for the purpose of defending the nation.

-Both ideologies proposed that their later generation would eventually become noticebly more advanced than other people in the world due to new understanding of humanity, which was the propaganda instilled into them from the early childhood, physical labor, and proper nutrition.

There are more similarties in ideologies which I can't remember right now.

-Both nations succeeded at implementing all these things in the begining but later became known as dangers to humanity to the rest of the world community.

-Both nations (Russia, Germany) wanted their ideology to be spread all over the world.

-Both Nations implemented repressive measures against certain groups.



I remember Russian mp.net members arguing about how absurd the idea of building a monument for victims of an ideology is, but they forget that there are monuments for victims of fascism and nazism.

I am looking for any kind of opinions.

I'm sorry, I cannot agree.I think both are equally as screwy and destructive as the other...Communism led to Nazism in Weimar's Republic. ..Nazism was formed to fight all-out communism while sharing certain ideologies that would entice people who once followed communism into joining the party... Nazis loved to have disillusioned commies join their ranks.

[loserbydefault]

both were created and financed by the same global banking elite to get ww2 etc started, and especially the soviet union was basically a "beta test" for the coming world system under the UN!...now most things from soviet russia are now standard in the "free" western world and considered "normal", for example we use terms like "political correct" or countries like australia made voting mandatory etc etc...what we have today is socialism, it has NOTHING to do with freedom or a "constitutional republic"...its TYRANNY!

both systems have the same occult roots and worship the same "gods" (saturn etc) with their symbols!...check out the REAL meaning of the twisted swastika and the hammer & sickle and all the other symbols like the skull and crossbones or the five pointed star etc...and for some myterious reason both used a red square on their flags...

http://jordanmaxwell.com/arcane.html

and btw the soviet system already merged with the US system a long time ago deliberately!...it was planned that way by a bunch of inbred psychopaths aka the "global elite"...communism/socialism is THEIR system, it is THEIR IDEA!

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7373201783240489827&q=norman+dodd&total=145&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

In pursuing his investigation, Mr. Dodd was invited to privately meet with Mr. Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation, a premier leftist organization active in funding Communist-oriented causes and strongly supported by liberals in Congress and the media.
During this visit, Ford’s Mr. Gaither voluntarily made a stunning admission. He stated, "Mr. Dodd, we operate here at the Ford Foundation under directives which emanate from the White House...We operate and control our grant-making policies…as follows: We shall use our grant-making power so as to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."
http://cuttingthroughthematrix.net/audio/Alan_Watt_on_AmericanAwakening_w_MichaelHerzog_July132007.mp3 (very good explanation of socialism etc)

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

communism has never been defeated! it is well and alive...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It is absurd. One can make a monument for the victims of the Soviet Union or the Soviet Sphere of Influence but an Ideology cannot be held responsible, it is an abstract concept, governments and thereby people are and should.

I'd disagree with that. Neither Hitler nor Stalin woke up one day with the ambition or capability to kill millions. They had lots of help - hundreds of thousands of people functioning within a system of clearly defined parameters. The system set up risks and rewards - some fought the system and perished while others used the system and became powerful. Therefore, I think its entirely appropriate to recognize the system as well as the individuals. Without the morality and social protections fostered by their respective beliefs/systems, both of these men would have just wound up as portly middle aged malcontents.

[dangerclose]

The new fear though, is that almost every "democratically" elected politician comes with a feed tube installed - where corporate and foreign parties could dump funds disguised as "campaign contributions"... Thinking like that gets you labeled as leftwing liberal wingnut, though p-)


If the Che T-shirt fits ....

[cinoeye]

everything is just a matter of perspective - the west pretends to spread democracy all over the world to pursue its agressive geo-political interests just as much as soviet union or germany did and the differences were just in the detail.
The rise and downfall of the systems was imo just triggered by political decisions of their leaders and not because of what kind of systems they were and we have yet to see how long this "democratic" systems will last.
But whatever you say and whatever some people in the past might have done you can't forbid Russians and other former Soviet countries to be proud of their countries' pasts just as much as you cant forbid other countries to do the same - unless you force them by making their country capitulate and reeducate the people like it happened with germany.

**** happend - most people from the former soviet union will agree and you can have a good discussion about it as long as you leave the generalizing "soviet union was evil" BS out of it - I don't know if I'm the only one who feels like its an insult to our country's history and to our ancestors of whom most were neither evil nor did anything of that kind no matter what ideology they might have believed in or not.

COme on man, Stalin and Hitler where killing milions, people did not have freedom, religion was forbiden, it was terrible to live under him.

Somebody needs to rule thos world, and if I need to choose between USSR, China, USA...or what ever, I will go with the USA.

[dangerclose]

COme on man, Stalin and Hitler where killing milions, people did not have freedom, religion was forbiden, it was terrible to live under him.

Somebody needs to rule thos world, and if I need to choose between USSR, China, USA...or what ever, I will go with the USA.


Same with people getting shot in the back jumping the Berlin Wall, dying in saipans fleeing the north vietnamese and getting chewed on by sharks escaping Castro's socialist paradise.

It's no coincidence that the former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia are staunch American allies. They have no romantic notions of communism having experienced it first hand.

[greatza1]

I lived in comunism till 17 years ago and i prefer democracy . Some members on MP.net are perhaps 50 yo and live in Spain or Portugal .I bet they didn`t love the fascism too. In a simplified version of socialism , what an noble name i will compare it with a car. The designer manage to sold only two models of it :the truck who had an impresive launch(Germany) but soon after crushed to a tree leavin after two trailers in Europe and some wheels in South America and the other model a minibus with a longer life who travel from Europe to Africa and Asia but getting old finally broke up. The original ideas were good , for the human been but the aplication of both formes failed dezastroly.

[Susumu]

COme on man, Stalin and Hitler where killing milions, people did not have freedom, religion was forbiden, it was terrible to live under him.

Somebody needs to rule thos world, and if I need to choose between USSR, China, USA...or what ever, I will go with the USA.

Thats the typical textbook comment from western propaganda - i have learned that **** at school in germany long enough now it doesn't impress me anymore. ;)
the communist ideology and the Soviet Union is neither Stalin's work nor did they die with him so don't put it like Stalin=Communism/Soviet Union.
Freedom is relative and some people today - especially in the USA - try to limit freedom whenever they get the chance to do, religion has killed even more people and average people lived just fine even if the standard of life was different from the west.

I disagree - nobody has to rule the world - I like the different countries with different cultures, ways of life and different ideas.
And I wouldn't go with the USA either. What are you going to do with the people like me who don't want it? force them ? where's the freedom and democracy in that? :)

[Rifleman]

I disagree - nobody has to rule the world - I like the different countries with different cultures, ways of life and different ideas.
And I wouldn't go with the USA either. What are you going to do with the people like me who don't want it? force them ? where's the freedom and democracy in that? :)

Well put! To answer your question, the hens and busybodies will nag you until you become a puppet.

[Limeyfellow]

COme on man, Stalin and Hitler where killing milions, people did not have freedom, religion was forbiden, it was terrible to live under him.

Somebody needs to rule thos world, and if I need to choose between USSR, China, USA...or what ever, I will go with the USA.

And this is any different really then the subjugation and genocide of native americans? Its not a facist or communist state, but we saw the same methods used. They were forbidden from practicing many of their religious ceremonies, forced off into marches that were as bad as the Japanese in WW2, towns where slaughtered, biological warfare was practiced on them. The British are little different, especially in Africa and India. You could name pretty much most nations in the world and we seen genocide and surpression of people. Its nothing limited to a communist or facist state.

[Kap2406]

People tend to ignore that Soviet Union was not ruled by Stalin alone. The ideology was the same for the most part, but leaders and their approaches were different. Gorbachev was a communist leader, who is, by the way , very respected by the west. How can somebody compare Gorbachev to Stalin? Stalin was a tyrant, Gorbachev was not. Communist ideology had nothing to with it. I mean, we can claim that democracy = terrorism, since Hamas was democratically elected.

[Kilgor]

And this is any different really then the subjugation and genocide of native americans? Its not a facist or communist state, but we saw the same methods used. They were forbidden from practicing many of their religious ceremonies, forced off into marches that were as bad as the Japanese in WW2, towns where slaughtered, biological warfare was practiced on them. The British are little different, especially in Africa and India. You could name pretty much most nations in the world and we seen genocide and surpression of people. Its nothing limited to a communist or facist state.

Maybe because communists and fascists excelled at killing and persecuting their OWN people ?

[asch]

Maybe because communists and fascists excelled at killing and persecuting their OWN people ?
don't USA have a capital punishment?

[Kilgor]

don't USA have a capital punishment?

Usually innocent people :roll:

[Dif]

Both incomparable. Communism is more like religion.

1. USSR has never built a communism, they had funny socialism
2. Communism as such is the most fair democratic regime (read Karl Marx, Das Kapital)
3. Communism is an utopia. It is too good to be real

[Susumu]

3. Communism is an utopia. It is too good to be real

its the nature of people who are too bad/greedy/etc for communism to work without heavy brainwashing.

[Serjey]

its the nature of people who are too bad/greedy/etc for communism to work without heavy brainwashing.
you dont know a **** about comunism and its idea, one of ideas "from anyone`s possibilities to anyone`s wishes" true communism is really utopia and this has never been realized in real world, btw its very interesting, u`ve got to read Karl Marks

[Susumu]

you dont know a **** about comunism and its idea, one of ideas "from anyone`s possibilities to anyone`s wishes" true communism is really utopia and this has never been realized in real world, btw its very interesting, u`ve got to read Karl Marks

youre right - I don't know a **** about comunism and its idea - how could I know? all they taught me in german schools was that it's bad ;)

[tluassa]

There are certain similarities. One example: Both Nazism and Communism tried to create the Idea of a new "citizen", for the Bolsheviks he was determined over social class, wealth, political views, while in Nazism it was race and blood. You could be as German as you wanted, a jewish grandmother and that was it for you.

The Soviets found after 3 years of terror campaign, that the average Kulak -(supposedly rich peasants accused of hiding their wealth and food to keep it from the people after stalins reforms of the agriculture) family had about 500 - 1000 rubel after their home was sold and everything taken from them, while the transport to Siberia costed about 2000 rubel. So we can see that under Stalin, the choice of victims was more random, and could hit anybody (not to say that any of these systems were better or worse, both were inhumane. )

[MZKT]

COme on man, Stalin and Hitler where killing milions, people did not have freedom, religion was forbiden, it was terrible to live under him.

Mybe you should learn about other countries either. American, british,spanish,french government also killed millions in colonialism, natives people did not have freedom, religion was forbiden, it was terrible to live under those rules.

Somebody needs to rule thos world, and if I need to choose between USSR, China, USA...or what ever, I will go with the USA.

You really sure that sombeody needs to rule the world alone? Who will provide this country the right to do so? God? History? International referendum of all the worlds population?

[MZKT]

Maybe because communists and fascists excelled at killing and persecuting their OWN people ?

Aren't native americans and afroamericans OWN people of USA?
And btw is murdering foreign people better then own?

[Dif]

There are certain similarities. One example: Both Nazism and Communism tried to create the Idea of a new "citizen", for the Bolsheviks he was determined over social class, wealth, political views, while in Nazism it was race and blood.

Pls stop using word "Communism" as it has no relation to the political system that was established in the USSR. And bolsheviks have nothing to do with the word "communism" either. Same as mass murders during Stalin time can not be compared to the developed socialism in 70s and 80s. If you want to compare methods of Stalin and Hitler, yes, both are similarly bad.

[Kroforit]

What gives fascism a bad name, is not the properties you have listed, but the ideology of racial superiority coupled with military aggression and widespread effort to perpetrate genocide.

The practice of using the term as a derogative name is an attempt to project on a particular subject the essential characteristics of fascism (ones I have listed), solely on the basis of accidental characteristics (ones you have listed). Thus, Bush is often called a fascist, and I have read similar “analyses” comparing Bush administration to fascism as the one you have presented. These are elements of rhetoric, which include attempts to create a negative opinion of the subject by illegitimate means, i.e. fallacy of equivocation whereby two different senses of fascism are purposely confused, and fallacy of appeal to emotion.

As far as some of the properties you have listed are concerned, then the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the Stalinist system do have certain similarities to German National-Socialist movement and the system it produced. However, the comparison could be extended to a number of other states throughout history. Some of the properties are present in different contemporary democratic states to a different degree – but these properties do not qualify a state as a fascist or a communist state. All states implement repressive measures against some groups, perhaps if you have specified the groups and the principle behind the determination what groups are to be repressed, you might have put your finger on the principle that is unique to fascism or communism – but you have failed to do this. You have also failed to do this with regards to draft, military training, compulsory programs, passionate speeches about justice, being more advanced due to deeper understanding etc... These are not unique to either fascist or communist states.

In other words, similarities along these lines as far as they are true are uninteresting.

I somewhat agree with you, but let me disagree first.
Can you post some examples of societies which implemented same measures at the same rate as Soviet Union and Hitler's NSDAP did? Repressive measures which continued throughout the lifetime of the regime are not common in other societies; and I am talking about repression of the enemies of the ideology, not regular criminals. Repressions were also very harsh compared to regular jail sentences. Hitler purged some suspected enemies from his organizations (some are belived to have be assassinated), he was determinted to externimate jews (even though secretly), and he killed millions of other people around the world who did not want to be part of his society. Stalin through out his rule purged members of the party, forced collectivization, and scilenced anyone who spoke against the party.

I do agree that many other societies do have similar characteristics of the totalitarian nature, but. These societies never put it to the extreme, they never implement them at such a fast rate, their actions are ussualy softer and sometimes are not even directly stated. All the similarties are ussualy very ambigious:
You said it your self that "Some of the properties are present in different contemporary democratic states to a different degree – but these properties do not qualify a state as a fascist or a communist state." That's exactly why they are not fascist or communist, becuase their properties are presented to some degree and are limited in quantaty.

It is known that physical labor improves your body and mind, but you are not obliged to participate in it. You will be persecuted or have some rights taken away if you act against the state's ideology, but you will not be interrogated, tortured or killed. Healthy social activities make a person more adept to life in a society and in general, but we dont see constant state-sponsored/supervised activities being set up. Most people know that healthy mind, proper nutrition, physical activities and relatively good moral understanding will make you stronger and smarter, but its not stressed by any of the societies, it is common knowledge and its up to you to use this knowledge or not.

I am not saying that either system is good but only disgareeing with you.

[toki]

Pls stop using word "Communism" as it has no relation to the political system that was established in the USSR. And bolsheviks have nothing to do with the word "communism" either. Same as mass murders during Stalin time can not be compared to the developed socialism in 70s and 80s. If you want to compare methods of Stalin and Hitler, yes, both are similarly bad.

Btw: Anybody really thought about the word National Socialism? (Nationalsozialismus? The word Nazi was generated as the opposite of Sozi. .)

Nationalsocialism is a weird word for 'Blut & Boden' Fascism. National+Socialism is quiet meaningless as a description for the system.

[Kroforit]

You basically listed multiple properties of a totalitarian state. Those can be applied to whatever state you please, not just Fascist/Socialist states.

Some selective comments


That is true for ideologies in general. With very few exceptions, political ideologies are universal and their followers seek to apply and spread them. Democracy is a good example because it starts more wars to spread itself than all the others.


This is nearly universal for every state except maybe for liberal democracies but one can argue that the latter may also use repressive measures against enemies of their ideologies.


It is absurd. One can make a monument for the victims of the Soviet Union or the Soviet Sphere of Influence but an Ideology cannot be held responsible, it is an abstract concept, governments and thereby people are and should.


Only Hitler and Stalin forcefully gained land to spread their ideology, Stalin gained land after defeating Germany although he had very little moral right to take over those territories. (I want to point out that anything pre 1900's shouldn't be used as examples.)

Yes, i did mean repressions for enemies of the stat or ideology, something that is very different from today's repressions.

What can you say about monuments to victims of fascism then?

[Kroforit]

COme on man, Stalin and Hitler where killing milions, people did not have freedom, religion was forbiden, it was terrible to live under him.

Somebody needs to rule thos world, and if I need to choose between USSR, China, USA...or what ever, I will go with the USA.


For most of the SU population this was not a fact, most of them had enjoyed their lifes under his rule. Logicaly you can tell that if people are not happy then country and the state it self can not function effectively, SU did not attain the title of super power by slave labor and repressions.

[BLUE THOR]

Btw: Anybody really thought about the word National Socialism? (Nationalsozialismus? The word Nazi was generated as the opposite of Sozi. .)

Nationalsocialism is a weird word for 'Blut & Boden' Fascism. National+Socialism is quiet meaningless as a description for the system.
good point!
Pure Communism is something, i believe, to be out of our grasp completely because of our basic desire for power. someone always wants power over others. we have always had leaders and followers, its in our nature, why do we fight- really, its for domination.
someone chimed in that Communism was a utopia, couldnt it be argued that the Nazi Ideal of a master race would also create a Utopia???
it would certainly be a wonderful world for all the Nazis....
p-)

[tsuri]

Only Hitler and Stalin forcefully gained land to spread their ideology, Stalin gained land after defeating Germany although he had very little moral right to take over those territories. (I want to point out that anything pre 1900's shouldn't be used as examples.)

Why the artificial separation? Before 1900 there were also ideologies at work, I might point to the USA which invaded the Phillipines because God told their President to do so in a dream...

Territorial expansion is very different from spreading an ideology.


I'd disagree with that. Neither Hitler nor Stalin woke up one day with the ambition or capability to kill millions. They had lots of help - hundreds of thousands of people functioning within a system of clearly defined parameters. The system set up risks and rewards - some fought the system and perished while others used the system and became powerful. Therefore, I think its entirely appropriate to recognize the system as well as the individuals. Without the morality and social protections fostered by their respective beliefs/systems, both of these men would have just wound up as portly middle aged malcontents.

What can you say about monuments to victims of fascism then?

This is quite different. People killed other people,not their ideologies therefore only a monument for people which have been killed by other people has a significance. A monument for the victims of fascism for example is merely a monument for the victims of the German state in a specific time period.

There has been the quest to establish communist societies in very different countries, putting them all under the same label won't do the victims justice either, in fact: Lots of victims of "communism" were communists themselves, it does not really cover them.

tl:dr; Victims of totalitarian states are not victims of the vessel of legitimization tha these states use.

[Kroforit]

There are certain similarities. One example: Both Nazism and Communism tried to create the Idea of a new "citizen", for the Bolsheviks he was determined over social class, wealth, political views, while in Nazism it was race and blood. You could be as German as you wanted, a jewish grandmother and that was it for you.

The Soviets found after 3 years of terror campaign, that the average Kulak -(supposedly rich peasants accused of hiding their wealth and food to keep it from the people after stalins reforms of the agriculture) family had about 500 - 1000 rubel after their home was sold and everything taken from them, while the transport to Siberia costed about 2000 rubel. So we can see that under Stalin, the choice of victims was more random, and could hit anybody (not to say that any of these systems were better or worse, both were inhumane. )

Hitler's fascism was more extreme than Stalin's communism, but everything Hitler sought to create worked out alot faster than for Stalin. Hitler aimed for a classless society with the dominant pure-blood Germans. Stalin too promoted a nationalistic view of a Soviet man, who was better than a non-Soviet, but this was a lesser extreme. And i dont agree that Stalin randomly repressed people, it would've been pointless for him to do that, actually it would've been counter productive to his vision.

[Templar@Large]

See this why this world is so Ass Backwards Now!!!!!!! People wanna sugar coat History if its there Country thats in the spotlight or go back in History to justify there countrys actions by pointing a finger and saying look what your country did 100 or 300 years ago. Or even worse just deny that it or something even happened.......Hitler/Stalin both were what they were, And both directly or Indirectly ordered many Horrible things to be done in the name of there country`s and political parties......So get over it already People......And please read up on your Country`s History before you post and make a Ass out of your self too .....

[Kroforit]

Why the artificial separation? Before 1900 there were also ideologies at work, I might point to the USA which invaded the Phillipines because God told their President to do so in a dream...

Territorial expansion is very different from spreading an ideology.





This is quite different. People killed other people,not their ideologies therefore only a monument for people which have been killed by other people has a significance. A monument for the victims of fascism for example is merely a monument for the victims of the German state in a specific time period.

There has been the quest to establish communist societies in very different countries, putting them all under the same label won't do the victims justice either, in fact: Lots of victims of "communism" were communists themselves, it does not really cover them.

tl:dr; Victims of totalitarian states are not victims of the vessel of legitimization tha these states use.


I specifically stress on using 20th century as examples becuase 20th century is when revolutionary ideologies and societies were being created, and moral understandings have become very different from slave-owning period.
US did not seek, atleast openly, to spread their rule over the whole world, neither did Stalin try to openly force communism onto the world, but he achieved alot more than US with Phillipines acquisition.

So you mean that monuments to vicitims of any ideology is absurd? Soviet Union might diasgree with you about monuments to victims of fascism.

[HOLLiS]

See this why this world is so Ass Backwards Now!!!!!!! People wanna sugar coat History if its there Country thats in the spotlight or go back in History to justify there countrys actions by pointing a finger and saying look what your country did 100 or 300 years ago. Or even worse just deny that it or something even happened.......Hitler/Stalin both were what they were, And both directly or Indirectly ordered many Horrible things to be done in the name of there country`s and political parties......So get over it already People......And please read up on your Country`s History before you post and make a Ass out of your self too .....


They are also not realizing, Stalin or Hitler could have been in any other country. All people are vulnerable to tactics that they employed to suppress Freedom.

I think it is a terrible mistake to think, This could never happen in my country. This is not about Nationalism or insulting one country or another. It is about human nature. POWER CORRUPTS, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

While constitutional representative republics may be filled with partisan political strife, their own brands of corruption from power hungry maniacs, they are the best it gets for humans right now in allowing for a "free society".


There has never been a utopian society, there has never been any uber citizens, there are people and what people have done. Good people will do good things, evil people will stive to do evil and the more power they can obtain, the more evil they will do.


For evil to happen, all good people need to do is nothing. If people advocate their inalienable rights /power to another./government......... people like Stalin and Hitler take over.

[BLUE THOR]

Hollis, you right on track there, my Brother!!:hug:

[Kroforit]

They are also not realizing, Stalin or Hitler could have been in any other country. All people are vulnerable to tactics that they employed to suppress Freedom.

I think it is a terrible mistake to think, This could never happen in my country. This is not about Nationalism or insulting one country or another. It is about human nature. POWER CORRUPTS, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

While constitutional representative republics may be filled with partisan political strife, their own brands of corruption from power hungry maniacs, they are the best it gets for humans right now in allowing for a "free society".


There has never been a utopian society, there has never been any uber citizens, there are people and what people have done. Good people will do good things, evil people will stive to do evil and the more power they can obtain, the more evil they will do.


For evil to happen, all good people need to do is nothing. If people advocate their inalienable rights /power to another./government......... people like Stalin and Hitler take over.

Hollis i dont agree with most of your posts becuase your view of human nature is very constrained. You separte people to evil and good categories, where this isnt a fact - people are not born evil or good, they adapt/learn to become either good or bad, and ussualy employ both characteristics with one overweighing the other. It is also part of nature to be able to become the opposite of what you are, or balance out these characteristics.
You say that absolute power corrupts, then how can "evil" Hitler or "evil" Stalin become corrupt when they are already evil?

[M1A2U2]

Communism takes away freedom of choice. It takes private property from individuals. If you don't like the system your government has provided...too bad. Any ideology that engages in these acts is fundamentally immoral and deserves a memorial for the freedoms and rights it took away from individuals.

I don't really understand why people here are so up in arms about calling a momunment "Victims of Communism" as oppose to "Victims of Leaders that attempted to Implement a Communist System." Is the ideology of Communism that near and dear to them that they have to start trying to deflect blame by pointing fingers at individuals when it is under attack? This, "idea that has never been realized" is called Marxism, not Communism. Communism has been realised. Call it Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism I don't care. The bottom line is that Communism is the human implementation of Marxism and all it has produced is mass piles of bodies and lots of human suffering.

Now for everyone here that is defending communism as an ideology, a form of government or whatever at least have the balls to defend it instead of attacking something else and trying to alieve yourself of guilt by say saying "well look they all did it too!". We are discussing communism and facism on this thread not what evils democracy or imperialism has produced. While those are interesting topics, if you want to attack them or discuss them, do it in another thread.

[HOLLiS]

Hollis i dont agree with most of your posts becuase your view of human nature is very constrained. You separte people to evil and good categories, where this isnt a fact - people are not born evil or good, they adapt/learn to become either good or bad, and ussualy employ both characteristics with one overweighing the other. It is also part of nature to be able to become the opposite of what you are, or balance out these characteristics.
You say that absolute power corrupts, then how can "evil" Hitler or "evil" Stalin become corrupt when they are already evil?


It was the simple one page approach VS a volume of pages defining it. Yes, everyone of us is a blend of positive and negative characteristics. There is a very large book on humans complexity, DSM IVR or V.

Some people seem to have a natural propensity to go bad/evil. Also there is a concept of legal self responsibility, it often does not take in consideration the good that is done, but they evil that was done. Example; A Man can be a great father, husband, provider, worker all the noble traits but..... has a uncontrollable vice that cause him to fall and maybe loose it all.

[Kroforit]

Communism takes away freedom of choice. It takes private property from individuals. If you don't like the system your government has provided...too bad. Any ideology that engages in these acts is fundamentally immoral and deserves a memorial for the freedoms and rights it took away from individuals.

[quote]I don't really understand why people here are so up in arms about calling a momunment "Victims of Communism" as oppose to "Victims of Leaders that attempted to Implement a Communist System." Is the ideology of Communism that near and dear to them that they have to start trying to deflect blame by pointing fingers at individuals when it is under attack? This, "idea that has never been realized" is called Marxism, not Communism. Communism has been realised. Call it Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism I don't care. The bottom line is that Communism is the human implementation of Marxism and all it has produced is mass piles of bodies and lots of human suffering.

Communism was proposed by Marx himself, and in reality it was never been implemented the way he saw it.


Now for everyone here that is defending communism as an ideology, a form of government or whatever at least have the balls to defend it instead of attacking something else and trying to alieve yourself of guilt by say saying "well look they all did it too!". We are discussing communism and facism on this thread not what evils democracy or imperialism has produced. While those are interesting topics, if you want to attack them or discuss them, do it in another thread.


Hahaha. I agree that was the intention of this topic, but anything is welcome.

[HOLLiS]

[quote=M1A2U2;2637848]
Communism was proposed by Marx himself, and in reality it was never been implemented the way he saw it.



That's the point, what ever the plan is, it has to be operated by people. As a cook would say the proof of the receipt is in the tasting.

Communism's great ideas + People = Opppps bad things.

[MZKT]

[quote=Kroforit;2637860]


That's the point, what ever the plan is, it has to be operated by people. As a cook would say the proof of the receipt is in the tasting.

Communism's great ideas + People = Opppps bad things.

Adam Smith's ideas capitalism + people also didn't worked in 5/6th of the world really well. The poorest countries in the world (Sierra Leone, Burkino Faso etc) are those where the capitalism has less limuts then anywhere.

[Jobu]

I consider fascism and communism to be equally as bad as each other. Between what Hitler did in the name of fascism and what Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others have done in the name of communism, I'm not about to say "hey let's give them another attempt at getting it right".

[StukaJr]

I consider fascism and communism to be equally as bad as each other. Between what Hitler did in the name of fascism and what Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others have done in the name of communism, I'm not about to say "hey let's give them another attempt at getting it right".

Right, because in case of a wolf in sheep's clothing one should hunt down and kill all the sheep!

[Digimon]

I somewhat agree with you, but let me disagree first.
Can you post some examples of societies which implemented same measures at the same rate as Soviet Union and Hitler's NSDAP did? Repressive measures which continued throughout the lifetime of the regime are not common in other societies; and I am talking about repression of the enemies of the ideology, not regular criminals. Repressions were also very harsh compared to regular jail sentences. Hitler purged some suspected enemies from his organizations (some are belived to have be assassinated), he was determinted to externimate jews (even though secretly), and he killed millions of other people around the world who did not want to be part of his society. Stalin through out his rule purged members of the party, forced collectivization, and scilenced anyone who spoke against the party.

I do agree that many other societies do have similar characteristics of the totalitarian nature, but. These societies never put it to the extreme, they never implement them at such a fast rate, their actions are ussualy softer and sometimes are not even directly stated. All the similarties are ussualy very ambigious:
You said it your self that "Some of the properties are present in different contemporary democratic states to a different degree – but these properties do not qualify a state as a fascist or a communist state." That's exactly why they are not fascist or communist, becuase their properties are presented to some degree and are limited in quantaty.

It is known that physical labor improves your body and mind, but you are not obliged to participate in it. You will be persecuted or have some rights taken away if you act against the state's ideology, but you will not be interrogated, tortured or killed. Healthy social activities make a person more adept to life in a society and in general, but we dont see constant state-sponsored/supervised activities being set up. Most people know that healthy mind, proper nutrition, physical activities and relatively good moral understanding will make you stronger and smarter, but its not stressed by any of the societies, it is common knowledge and its up to you to use this knowledge or not.

I am not saying that either system is good but only disgareeing with you.

It is beyond question that the scale of atrocities committed by Stalin’s and Hitler’s regimes and their systemic approach to carrying them out are unprecedented in modern history. To that extend they are in a class of their own. If you slightly relax the criteria for membership in the class, for instance, as far as scale is concerned, some others will qualify – Mao, Pol Pot, Robespierre, etc... Furthermore, if you cease looking at the scale and the actual result of repression, and start looking at the principles justifying it, then a great number of modern states might qualify for the membership in this class – any nation that places interests of the nation above the individual rights. In the original post you have not specified the criteria in a way that would place these regimes in a unique category.

Everything in the physical and conceptual sphere can be found similar in some way and therefore classed together, and for the same reason everything can be found in some way different and therefore classed separately – what matters is the criteria for membership in the class. As I have pointed out, the Fascist regime and Stalinism are comparable as far as the scale of the persecution of their civil population is concerned. But this fact is uninteresting and beyond question. It is correct but uninteresting to claim that Stalin and Hitler have systematically destroyed a roughly comparable number of innocent people.

Why is this uninteresting? Well, comparison must be in some way informative. There are many accidental properties that regimes have in common which would put them in the same general class: they were staffed by humans, mostly males, mostly militarized, ideologically homogenized etc... But the comparison along these lines are not informative. If you draw a comparison between Ted Bundy and another person, the comparison better be in respect to what makes Ted Bundy a unique standard: serial killing and cannibalism, not being bearded, cruel, insane, or being a male of a certain age. The comparison of the fascist and Stalinist regimes based on the criteria you have specified is uninteresting and uninformative, because what makes fascism a unique standard is the ideology of racial superiority which justified a systematic execution of inferior races. This is what makes fascism a particular standard comparison to which makes sense and can be informative.

This is why to the extend to which I agree with you, as in relation to the similarities with regards to the totalitarian nature of the regimes, the patronizing relationship of the state towards its citizens, enforced ideological homogeneity, the scale of the repression of the population etc, I do not see the comparison as being in any way informative. Comparing Stalinism and Fascism along these lines does not shed any new light on either Stalinism or Fascism.

P.S. I would not compare fascism to communism, but rather Stalinism to fascism; after all, the fascist regime was not an abuse of fascist ideology but rather its faithful implementation.

[daily666]

Ok, I think we need to clarify one thing: Fascism does not equal Nazism, it is only a variation of it.

Nazism (NazionalSozialismus) is, by many, considered as leftist system, where the word "class" was changed to "race", it was afterall based as a workers party NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). So by all means it is socialism filled with heavy national and racial hatred. It was only another socialist alternative to the "standard" socialism (communism).

And it has to be stated that it is thanks to Soviet propaganda that Nazism is still called Fascism by Russians, Poles and many other people from behind the iron courtain. It was a cunning way not to link National Socialism (Nazism) with Socialism (Communism). During the two years that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was in effect (1939-1941), the Soviet press loyally spoke of "National Socialism'; but after the Germans invaded the USSR in June 1941, the Soviets started referring to their German counterparts as "Hitlerovtsy". Commie regimes in EE were using "Fashisti" term for every movement, ideology coming from Nazi Germany.

[Digimon]

Ok, I thing we need to clarify one thing: Fascism does not equal Nazism, it is only a variation of it.

Nazism (NazionalSozialismus) is, by many, considered as leftist system, where the word "class" was changed to "race", it was afterall based as a workers party NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). So by all means it is socialism filled with heavy national and racial hatred. It was only another socialist alternative to the "standard" socialism (communism).

And it has to be stated that it is thanks to Soviet propaganda that Nazism is still called Fascism by Russians, Poles and many other people from behind the iron courtain. It was a cunning way not to link National Socialism (Nazism) with Socialism (Communism). During the two years that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was in effect (1939-1941), the Soviet press loyally spoke of "National Socialism'; but after the Germans invaded the USSR in June 1941, the Soviets started referring to their German counterparts as "Hitlerovtsy". Commie regimes in EE were using "Fashisti" term for every movement, ideology coming from Nazi Germany.

Good point, and duly noted. I was wondering about the reasons for this confusion.

[Smersh]

Oh boy another communism thread. this time the very premise is comparing it to Facism.

My first problem, is this a thread about communism and facism, as idealogies, or about comparing Stalin and Hitler?? Because it seems to be more of the latter.

The first post says that both leaders proposed peace. How exactly did Hiter's screaming rants about "living space" and conquest have anything to do with peace? The contents of Mein Kampf were also no secert to the German people, as far as I remember, it was a best seller and required reading. Facism in all the nations it manifested itself in, was very much anti-peace.

It was only another socialist alternative to the "standard" socialism (communism).What are you talking about? communism is different from socialism and buy no means is it "standard socialism", what ever that means? and as far as alternatives... What about the Social democrat party?

It was very popular during this time to have socialist and revotionary sounding names to party's especially in the Wiemar. Who cares what a party is named, you judge it's buy it's deeds. Nazism's core of racism and nationalism, puts it strictly counter to the basic tenets of Marxism.

Facism was supported by royalists, corporations, big business, the elite, industrialists, bankers this stands completely opposite to Communism. And as a side note... Hitler was elected democratically*. (*by your definition of democracy)

This idea that Russians call Nazis "Fashisti", instead of Nazi , because Nazi contains the world "national socialist" is also bogus. There was no problem in labeling the Socialist Revolutionary party or the "SRs" in the same camp as the clergy and Royalists.

Third, let's not got into another casualty contest!! Capitalism by the same standards has killed and is killing as much or more people. If your arguments are going to be nothing but " you killed more ", stop there.

[Kilgor]

Facism was supported by royalists, corporations, big business, the elite, industrialists, bankers this stands completely opposite to Communism.

.

Haha, honestly Smersh do you know what your on about ?

"Fascists" disliked capitalism and the old system just as much as the communists.

As a little example "Hitler's beer hall oratory, attacking Jews, social democrats, liberals, reactionary monarchists, capitalists and communists, began attracting adherents."... From wiki.

Communists and Fascists have many things in common. Apart from shoving in millions into freight cars... they had a passionate hatred for the old world order.

[Smersh]

"Fascists" disliked capitalism and the old system just as much as the communistsI think your getting confused agian. Fascists disliked western style democracy, not capitalism. Hitler was whole-heartidly supported by capitalists.

they had a passionate hatred for the old world order.So did the founding fathers of America...

From wiki.must be right.

[HOLLiS]

OK OK, Capitalism is a E-conomic system. Yes it can and will influence the political system. They are not the same.


Communism is a blend of social, economical and political systems.

[Minardiau]

Just don't put me in with these guys ok.

Capitalism is the most corrupt principles known to man. All it does is foster greed.

[HOLLiS]

Just don't put me in with these guys ok.

Capitalism is the most corrupt principles known to man. All it does is foster greed.


An you expect us to take you seriously after that?

[Minardiau]

Capitalism by itself is corrupt. The idea behind capitalism is corrupt. At the end of the day somebody is going to miss out so another person can make money.

You could still have very high living standards if you took away the greed and corruption that is capitalism.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro. They can say what they want about being socialists. They were nothing of the sort. They just used the ideas of Marx to appeal to the masses to get into power and stay in power.

Done correctly, true socialism would be very productive and provide more freedoms then a democratic capitalist society ever could. Problem is. Alot of Billionaires will be pissed off implementing it

[Smersh]

Minardiau your posts are largely irrelevant and pointless to this thread.

[Kilgor]

I think your getting confused agian. Fascists disliked western style democracy, not capitalism. Hitler was whole-heartidly supported by capitalists.

So did the founding fathers of America...

must be right.

The quote I was looking for.

"Soon Germany will not be any different from Bolshevik Russia; the heads of enterprises who do not fulfill the conditions of "plan" prescribes will be accused of treason against the German people, and shot" - Fritz Thyssen

If you dont know who this guy is, why not look him up.

And btw, Nazi germany did have a centrally planned economy like the soviet union.

[daily666]

The quote I was looking for.

"Soon Germany will not be any different from Bolshevik Russia; the heads of enterprises who do not fulfill the conditions of "plan" prescribes will be accused of treason against the German people, and shot" - Fritz Thyssen

If you dont know who this guy is, why not look him up.

And btw, Nazi germany did have a centrally planned economy like the soviet union.

exactly, and I've found some more (wiki)

Nazi Party from 1920 listed several economic demands. Included in these demands were, "that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens," "the abolition of all incomes unearned by work," the ruthless confiscation of all war profits," "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations," "profit-sharing in large enterprises," "extensive development of insurance for old-age," "land reform suitable to our national requirements," and to achieve this and other aims, "the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich."

And how is that not socialist???

I think your getting confused agian. Fascists disliked western style democracy, not capitalism. Hitler was whole-heartidly supported by capitalists.

Only by few, who made profits from Nazism. Generally speaking Nazis were against capitalism in it's all forms.

Party spokesman Joseph Goebbels insisted in 1932 that the NSDAP was a "workers' party" and "on the side of labor and against finance". Hitler said of the Nazis "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance". However, he was clear to point out that Nazism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." He further said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative". Nevertheless, he wanted property to be regulated to make sure "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual".

Attacks were made on what Hitler called "pluto-democracy," which was claimed to be a conspiracy by Jews to favor democratic parties in order to keep capitalism intact.

What are you talking about? communism is different from socialism and buy no means is it "standard socialism", what ever that means? and as far as alternatives... What about the Social democrat party?

Back than there were two "socialisms" fighting each other in Weimar Republic. Communism and National Socialism. That's what I meant.

[Kippari]

As far as I see it, all the current and past systems have and will be almost equally flawed. Not because their principals are wrong, but because thay just don't work.
Communism/socialism didn't work because there was always people who wanted to have more power than others in the system.
National Socialism didn't work because other nations were seen as inferiors or even hostile to the people of one's own nationality.
Capitalistic democracy is also ultimately flawed because it promotes too much individualism. After all, human is a pack animal.
Dictatorships don't work because of the high risk of getting incompetent or oppressive ruler.
Anarchy don't work because, people would just kill each other because they can and receive no sanction for it.
It's ultimately that you can't please everyone. That's why no ideology is better than the other and that's why we have multi-party systems so that atleast for most of us there's someone to represent our views. Consequently all the parties in my country atleast have only minor differences in everyday issues. Imho ideologies can't be qualified as bad because some jerk tried to implement them and ended up doing more harm than good.

[Smersh]

Here is the main point you guys seem to miss, but was in your very own posts. "However, he was clear to point out that Nazism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism".

The brand of "socialism" that facism practices is a sort of state socialism. The dream of every big capitalist: the elimination of there competitors and a guaranteed market for their products, guaranteed by state contracts. This is more of a "state monopoly capitalism" and this is why Hitler was supported buy big industrialists. They also loved Hitler's complete suppersion of communists and trade unions.

Like the quote says this has nothing to do with Marxism, painfully it's much closer to the economy of the United States.

Back than there were two "socialisms" fighting each other in Weimar Republic. Communism and National Socialism. That's what I meant.You think you discovered something new? There have always been different groups fighting each other, since even the time of Marx. The first two camps were the Marxist socialists and the Utopian socialists, like Robert Owen. Even today there are multiple factions who label themeselves "socialist".

[M1A2U2]

Capitalism by itself is corrupt. The idea behind capitalism is corrupt. At the end of the day somebody is going to miss out so another person can make money.

You could still have very high living standards if you took away the greed and corruption that is capitalism.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro. They can say what they want about being socialists. They were nothing of the sort. They just used the ideas of Marx to appeal to the masses to get into power and stay in power.

Done correctly, true socialism would be very productive and provide more freedoms then a democratic capitalist society ever could. Problem is. Alot of Billionaires will be pissed off implementing it

So you murder the billionairs right? Spoken like a true Stalinist.

P.S. I dont understand why everyone says communism would be a great system. I think it would be horrible. I don't want some system siezing everything I have worked for my whole life and not letting me vote for a different form of government.

[Kilgor]

The brand of "socialism" that facism practices is a sort of state socialism. The dream of every big capitalist: the elimination of there competitors and a guaranteed market for their products, guaranteed by state contracts. This is more of a "state monopoly capitalism" and this is why Hitler was supported buy big industrialists. They also loved Hitler's complete suppersion of communists and trade unions.



Oh dear. A centrally planned economy being a capitalists dream ?

Just give up now.. really..

Trade unions, they also ceased to exsist in the soviet union when Stalin was in power.

[HOLLiS]

Funny when people invoke the evil of capitalism, they seem to be still living in the late 1800's.

Things have great changed. Look at some movie stars, they make millions but they are capitalist in any sense.

In a democracy money does equate to power. Money can influence how people vote. Look at the dildo M. Moore, very rich, very anti-every thing that is not about him. Partisan politics the ability to influence/control large block of voters.

Capitalism today is the capital market and it's players can be almost anyone.

A workable system needs checks and balances. When some goes unchecked it generally becomes a pox on society. The goal of communism was to create a society that is runned by the workers, more than that, society embraced all the morals and ethics of the workers of the time. It never happened, because in the end, most people/workers are not as altruistic as Marx thought.

[MZKT]

So you murder the billionairs right? Spoken like a true Stalinist.

P.S. I dont understand why everyone says communism would be a great system. I think it would be horrible. I don't want some system siezing everything I have worked for my whole life and not letting me vote for a different form of government.

Communism in its true Marx's form is indeed the better system, it's just human greed which prevent ist from reality and apply much better to capitalism.
Greed is just stronger then altruism, as long it won't change, communism remain an utopia.

[daily666]

Funny when people invoke the evil of capitalism, they seem to be still living in the late 1800's.

It's called homo sovieticus

[Digimon]

Communism in its true Marx's form is indeed the better system, it's just human greed which prevent ist from reality and apply much better to capitalism.
Greed is just stronger then altruism, as long it won't change, communism remain an utopia.

Why is it the better system, MZKT? (Since the thread had been already hijacked, I hope Kroforit will forgive me.)

[M1A2U2]

Communism in its true Marx's form is indeed the better system, it's just human greed which prevent ist from reality and apply much better to capitalism.
Greed is just stronger then altruism, as long it won't change, communism remain an utopia.

no even in its purest form I still see it as a worse system. how is a system that takes away your right to vote and right to private property a good system?

[Digimon]

no even in its purest form I still see it as a worse system. how is a system that takes away your right to vote and right to private property a good system?
Takes your right to vote? I guess you better hit the books...

[Smersh]

Greed is just stronger then altruism, as long it won't change, communism remain an utopia.

That's why you don't build communism, as a socio-economic stage, overnight.

right to private property
There is a big difference between private property and personal property.

yes, this thread is very much off topic know. But this always happens.

[HOLLiS]

That's why you don't build communism, as a socio-economic stage, overnight.




Re-education camps have been tried. People just don't program as easy as behaviorist think.

[Kilgor]

That's why you don't build communism, as a socio-economic stage, overnight.


There is a big difference between private property and personal property.

yes, this thread is very much off topic know. But this always happens.

Do you honestly think the party would end the period known as "dictatorship of the proletariat" willingly ?

This "temporary" situation, is nothing more than a exchange of dictators.

[dangerclose]

Communism: an ideology for losers who are mad at the world because they suck and want everyone to be equally miserable as themselves.


Taken from Webster's Dictionary

[Kroforit]

Communism: an ideology for losers who are mad at the world because they suck and want everyone to be equally miserable as themselves.


Taken from Webster's Dictionary

That's is the definition of today's communist wannabes.

[Kroforit]

mmm.. so many different opinions, topic got really expanded, ill try to reply to some tommorow.

[Shellshock1918]

Communism and National Socialism are the same. They both preach collectivism. The destruction of the individual for the good of the whole. Its all the same ****.

[dangerclose]

Communism and National Socialism are the same. They both preach collectivism. The destruction of the individual for the good of the whole. Its all the same ****.

American communists were pro-Hitler and against American involvement in WWII until ..... Hitler turned on Stalin.

[Minardiau]

no even in its purest form I still see it as a worse system. how is a system that takes away your right to vote and right to private property a good system?

If you look at my writings on the subject. Not once have I said the right to vote is canceled. Nor have I said people would lose their personal property.

What I'm in favor of is a system where the economy is shared by all. Not a select few. And where by and large decisions are made based on democratic principle.

I'm opposed to centralised government. Because where possible any form of centralised government would be scrapped and this power returned to the cities, towns ect. Only in defence and foreign affairs should there be any resemblance to a federal government.


By ensuring that each person has a legitimate say in the decision making then a proper socialist society can be successful. Hence the devolution of government into smaller and easier managed communities where each person's vote counts.

[Smersh]

Do you honestly think the party would end the period known as "dictatorship of the proletariat" willingly ?

This "temporary" situation, is nothing more than a exchange of dictators.

The Party doesn't decide when "the dictatorship of the proleteriat" ends. The level of socio-economic development and the building of the prerequisites of communism do.

This thread is getting spiraling out of any serious dicussion very fast...:cantbeli:

any reason Krorofit, why you had to make 2 one line posts back-to-back?

[Kroforit]

T
any reason Krorofit, why you had to make 2 one line posts back-to-back?


my last 2? Second post wasnt a reply to Dangerclose. Are we saving internet paper?

[Smersh]

Are we saving internet paper?
No:), there was just alot of posts with little to no, real content. I just singaled you out, since I saw two one-line posts, back-to-back.

[Kilgor]

The Party doesn't decide when "the dictatorship of the proleteriat" ends. The level of socio-economic development and the building of the prerequisites of communism do.

This thread is getting spiraling out of any serious dicussion very fast...:cantbeli:

any reason Krorofit, why you had to make 2 one line posts back-to-back?

The soviet union's social economic development became mature after ww2, and Stalin, yet there was no change.

[Smersh]

The soviet union's social economic development became mature after ww2, and Stalin, yet there was no change.

Industrialization is the not same thing. The Soviet Union had largely industralized by the end of the 1930s. Of course WW2 set back things. But industrialization is not the same as the social and economic prerequisites I mentioned, nor was the international situation great. The death of Stalin did not also magically create this conditions either.

you want to me to explain what they are? Since I think this is going beyond the scope of this thread and your understanding of this topic.

[daily666]

There is a big difference between private property and personal property.

Really? How big? Can you elaborate?

[Smersh]

Really? How big? Can you elaborate?

Here is a short answer, I hope I've explained it clear enough.

The simple answer is that private property is nearly identical with capital. When I say privite property I mean "the means of production". You can use it to make a profit: renting land, a factory, etc.

Personal Property is not capital. Your television, your toothbrush, your living space i.e your home (unless your renting it) or speculating...

you could own as many cars, televisions. you could "own" homes for personal use, they don't transform into privite property. They would still be personal property, for your personal use. But when you own, land (for speculation or rent), a factory, a store, a television station and other types of similiar private property that is only used to make profit and not for personal use. In the USSR, even collective farmers individualy owned a part of the farm as their own personal property for their own use.

On the whole, elimination of private property in the sense I'm talking about, and not the common definition taken to just mean "ownership" will have no affect on the majority of people at all. The abolition of private property is only horrifying to people whose entire social position, is based on wealth associated with owning the means of production, i.e privite property.

Edit: On a related note. The Soviet elite, despite their perks, never actually owned any privite property, until after it became legal to do so in the very late 1980s-early 90s. That is when you saw, them gobble up state property: from factories, to natural resources, to oil piplines. That's the story of the creation of Russian and CIS "oligarchs". In some cases Billionaires have bought up entire communities.

[daily666]

Here is a short answer, I hope I've explained it clear enough.

The simple answer is that private property is nearly identical with capital. When I say privite property I mean "the means of production". You can use it to make a profit: renting land, a factory, etc.

Personal Property is not capital. Your television, your toothbrush, your living space i.e your home (unless your renting it) or speculating...

you could own as many cars, televisions. you could "own" homes for personal use, they don't transform into privite property. They would still be personal property, for your personal use. But you cannot own, land, a factory, a store, a television station and other types of similiar private property that is only used to make profit and not for personal use.

on the whole, elimination of private property in the sense I'm talking about, and not the common definition taken to just mean "ownership" will have no affect on the majority of people at all. The abolition of private property is only horrifying to people whose entire social position, is based on wealth associated with owning the means of production, i.e privite property.

I think I'm back in time, this is really the same as we've been told by the communist media...

Car? How I use it is just a matter of my fantasy or entrepreneurship. I can use it to carry my back from point A to point B, but I can also use it as an investement, to earn money. So when I earn more I can get another car to earn even more, hire personell to get them other cars.

TV? I have a TV for "personal ownership" where I can watch stock indexes and thus earn money (capital) so my company could grow.

Home? I actually run my company at home. I do it through the same laptop I'm writing this text here on mp.net.

The division between private property and personal property is artificial, made by the communists. It's just private property, and by all means it should be protected.

All the things ARE means of production for someone productive and innovative.

Socialism is something that kills these skills.

[Smersh]

I think I'm back in time, this is really the same as we've been told by the communist media...

Car? How I use it is just a matter of my fantasy or entrepreneurship. I can use it to carry my back from point A to point B, but I can also use it as an investement, to earn money. So when I earn more I can get another car to earn even more, hire personell to get them other cars.

TV? I have a TV for "personal ownership" where I can watch stock indexes and thus earn money (capital) so my company could grow.

Home? I actually run my company at home. I do it through the same laptop I'm writing this text here on mp.net.

All the things ARE means of production for someone productive and innovative.

There is something you have added to your analysis:

You couldn't use your home or labtop to run a company, if there was no company you owned (privite property)

You couldn't use your TV for watching stocks, if you didn't own stocks (privite property)

I don't know specifically what you mean about using your car an investment to comment on that one.

Socialism is something that kills these skills.

which skills? how to swindle people? how to exploit people? speculation?
none of your examples have to do with productivity or innovation.

[daily666]

There is something you have added to your analysis:

You couldn't use your home or labtop to run a company, if there was no company you owned (privite property)

Company that I own? I am the company, just go and start it. I see you have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Just go and start a business not a corporation.

You couldn't use your TV for watching stocks, if you didn't own stocks (privite property)

What's the difference between stocks and toothbrush? For an actress shiny teeth is her way of getting money.

which skills? how to swindle people? how to exploit people? speculation?
none of your examples have to do with productivity or innovation.

That I legally earn my money by hard work is swindle and exploit? What a knobbed thinking is that?

[Smersh]

That I legally earn my money by hard work is swindle and exploit? What a knobbed thinking is that?The guy who buys a piece of land or a home, waits for the price to go up, and then resells it did no hard or real work. He made that money doing relatevily nothing. Nor the guy who owns a company in which he hired employees to both manage and actually carryout the operations, in which he takes no active role. Nor all the people who make money through speculation: wheather real-estate, stocks, currencies, etc. Of course all that is legal under capitalism...

About swindeling, Real estate speculation drives up the price of homes, making it much tougher for people who want to buy a home to live in. There are some cities were a good junk of the land is owned by someone and uninhabitied, making it nearly impossible for people to buy homes there. Spain is a terrific example of this.

I am the companyWhat do you do?

What's the difference between stocks and toothbrush?what's the difference between stocks and a toothbrush???!

[daily666]

The guy who buys a piece of land, waits for the price to go up, and then resells it did no hard work. He made that money doing nothing.

Nor the guy who owns a company in which he hired employees to both manage and actually carryout the operations.

Nor all the people who make money through speculation: wheather real-estate, stocks, currencies.

Of course all that is legal under capitalism.

I see we won't get anywhere. You sound like my grandpa :)

what's the difference between stocks and a toothbrush???!

In terms of ownership. None.

[Smersh]

I see we won't get anywhere. You sound like my grandpa :-)Hah!:oops:
In terms of ownership. None.right...

[Kilgor]

The guy who buys a piece of land or a home, waits for the price to go up, and then resells it did no hard or real work. He made that money doing relatevily nothing. Nor the guy who owns a company in which he hired employees to both manage and actually carryout the operations, in which he takes no active role. Nor all the people who make money through speculation: wheather real-estate, stocks, currencies, etc. Of course all that is legal under capitalism...



Ummm.. how about Risk ?

[Smersh]

Ummm.. how about Risk ?Boohoo, he has to worry at night......What's he risking having to work??Making money simply by the fact of owning something, is not, does not constitute work by any stretch of the definition.

I too see this is going nowhere, and it's also way way off topic.

[number nine]

I can't help those that can't see the difference between communist economy, and economy that is geared toward wartime production.

Sorry, German economy was not run by the party, it was free market economy. It's normal in wartime most production for civilians to produce military equipment and weapons. In any country. And what if there is delaying of production for military for political reasons, for treachery?

Like this of Emile Dewoitine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Dewoitine).

Commandant Stehlin, from the fighter plane group III/6, visited the Toulouse factory of Dewoitine D.520 on June 9, 1940, after the beginning of the German invasion of France. Cdt Stehlin declared: "Finally, on June 9, we went to the factory in Toulouse to take the twelve first Dewoitine 520 of the group. We have too much to choose , so many planes are available. Why haven't they been attributed to the units which had to fight and which continued to do so, with planes almost deprecated in comparison with those of the German fighters planes?"[2]

Also, you have to distinguish between persecution of opposition to the state, something both Soviets and Nazi did, as well as any authoritarian government, and genocide. Stalin commited no genocide (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/genocide?view=uk). Hitler did.

[Kippari]

Boohoo, he has to worry at night......What's he risking having to work??Making money simply by the fact of owning something, is not, does not constitute work by any stretch of the definition.

I too see this is going nowhere, and it's also way way off topic.

I can agree with Smersh here, although i don't promote communism in any form. People shouldn't just for example inherit a company and live without having to do any work, because they got lucky when someone already had done all the work for them. The same goes for when someone makes more profit from kicking out some non-vital employees from his company.

Ofcourse if you invest on something and it eventually pays off, then nothing wrong there. One has to remember that stock shares are handed out because a company needs investments and wants to grow.
That usually means more jobs which is a good thing. But when some company owner merges his company with some other company and then cashes in his options, which are then a lot more valuable, is wrong and it's abusing of the stock markets for one's own profit because there's no risk.

[Kroforit]

It is beyond question that the scale of atrocities committed by Stalin’s and Hitler’s regimes and their systemic approach to carrying them out are unprecedented in modern history. To that extend they are in a class of their own. If you slightly relax the criteria for membership in the class, for instance, as far as scale is concerned, some others will qualify – Mao, Pol Pot, Robespierre, etc... Furthermore, if you cease looking at the scale and the actual result of repression, and start looking at the principles justifying it, then a great number of modern states might qualify for the membership in this class – any nation that places interests of the nation above the individual rights. In the original post you have not specified the criteria in a way that would place these regimes in a unique category.

Everything in the physical and conceptual sphere can be found similar in some way and therefore classed together, and for the same reason everything can be found in some way different and therefore classed separately – what matters is the criteria for membership in the class. As I have pointed out, the Fascist regime and Stalinism are comparable as far as the scale of the persecution of their civil population is concerned. But this fact is uninteresting and beyond question. It is correct but uninteresting to claim that Stalin and Hitler have systematically destroyed a roughly comparable number of innocent people.

Why is this uninteresting? Well, comparison must be in some way informative. There are many accidental properties that regimes have in common which would put them in the same general class: they were staffed by humans, mostly males, mostly militarized, ideologically homogenized etc... But the comparison along these lines are not informative. If you draw a comparison between Ted Bundy and another person, the comparison better be in respect to what makes Ted Bundy a unique standard: serial killing and cannibalism, not being bearded, cruel, insane, or being a male of a certain age. The comparison of the fascist and Stalinist regimes based on the criteria you have specified is uninteresting and uninformative, because what makes fascism a unique standard is the ideology of racial superiority which justified a systematic execution of inferior races. This is what makes fascism a particular standard comparison to which makes sense and can be informative.

This is why to the extend to which I agree with you, as in relation to the similarities with regards to the totalitarian nature of the regimes, the patronizing relationship of the state towards its citizens, enforced ideological homogeneity, the scale of the repression of the population etc, I do not see the comparison as being in any way informative. Comparing Stalinism and Fascism along these lines does not shed any new light on either Stalinism or Fascism.




Relaxing criterias would defy the main point of this topic. The two regimes were the most extreme regimes of the time, not only in a sense of totalitarinism, but in everything that was part of the regime. Regimes that you have mentioned, were pretty repressive, but they've never achieved the level of social euphoria and stability which was seen in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany at the early stages.

When I made the topic, I originally intended to show Russian members that even though fascism was regarded as the main enemy of communism, it was practicaly identical to communism in the way it was implemented into the society; and ironically, both societies had similar end-results.



P.S. I would not compare fascism to communism, but rather Stalinism to fascism; after all, the fascist regime was not an abuse of fascist ideology but rather its faithful implementation.


When talking about Hitler's and Stalin's rule, pointing out ideologies is sensless since they blended their ideologies with additions and their own personal views of the ideologies. And if I remember correctly, Hitler didnt stress on fascism in the early days of NSDAP and was devoted only to nazism, but later turned to fascism in the wake of WW2. Same can be said about Stalin, he was agressive in acquiring his posts but never resorted to killing, and only later, when he gained total control, he turned to mass represssions.

[Kroforit]

Stalin's "cult of personality" tag can also be applied to Hitler. Hitler was adored and praised as a savior by his own people, although Hitler didnt have many monuments and banners with his picture but neither did Stalin before ww2. I dont really believe into the "cult of personality", becuase any charismatic leader would be treated the same way Hitler and Stalin were. I believe there has been alot of energy invested into defacing Hitler's and Stalin's personalities, twisting their original ideas and intentions, becuase of the impact they had on humanity, but that is natural for anyone who has been hurt by someone.
I dont think both of them were just there for the sole reason of ruling over masses of people, and taking over the world. I dont think that they were these evil geniuses, masterminding schemes of how to win the crowds. I believe they originaly had the best inentions for the people, but eventually got too selfish and corrupt (specifically Stalin)

[number nine]

Kroforit, Kippari, they were not equal, not at all.

Nazi regime was everything Stalin's was with genocide on top of that.

You don't know listening to Radio London was all you needed to be killed by Gestapo? Germans distributing anti-war leaflets were killed also. Anybody speaking anything against Nazi regime was killed as well.

[Kroforit]

I can agree with Smersh here, although i don't promote communism in any form. People shouldn't just for example inherit a company and live without having to do any work, because they got lucky when someone already had done all the work for them. The same goes for when someone makes more profit from kicking out some non-vital employees from his company.

Ofcourse if you invest on something and it eventually pays off, then nothing wrong there. One has to remember that stock shares are handed out because a company needs investments and wants to grow.
That usually means more jobs which is a good thing. But when some company owner merges his company with some other company and then cashes in his options, which are then a lot more valuable, is wrong and it's abusing of the stock markets for one's own profit because there's no risk.


Smersh's points about private and personal property are pretty reasonable, but for someone who has chosen the way of market profit it is hard to see.

[Kroforit]

Kroforit, Kippari, they were not equal, not at all.

Nazi regime was everything Stalin's was with genocide on top of that.

You don't know listening to Radio London was all you needed to be killed by Gestapo? Germans distributing anti-war leaflets were killed also. Anybody speaking anything against Nazi regime was killed as well.


Thats the point where Hitler got too selfish, as he gained control over Europe he saw nothing that could stop him, and like a capricious child who has everything, he went to the most extreme measures. If Stalin had as much power over the world as Hitler did, he would've done same thing most likely.

[number nine]

But he had the same power. Stalin had the same power, but...

Stalin commited no genocide, killing of particular ethnicity.

By the way, political enemies in SU fared no better than in Hitler's Germany, or any other authoritarian state.

Look this way, cruel or not, authoritarian state defends itself by eliminating political opposition, because that opposition threatens the state. You can see the motive, am I right?

On the other hand there is no motive in genocide, at least no sane one.

Motive for Stalin's puirges was strenghtening of authoritarian state. Genocide Hitler commited was meaningless act of insanity. Because German generals knew it they tried to put him down. Stauffenberg himself was staunch prussian militarist, as well as generals who helped him.

Hitler was too lucky however.

[Kroforit]

But he had the same power. Stalin had the same power, but...



No, he didn't. Once Hitler had most of Europe overran, he had no one to answer to. Stalin had half of the world to answer to and his own people after the attack from Hitler. It is only my speculation that Stalin would've done same thing in Hitler's position, but power balance at the start of ww2 was in Hitler's favor, and no one else in human history had so much power.

[number nine]

You say Stalin would commit genocide? He was not racist! I really think you believe you wish to believe, because he answered nobody. If he's communist he must be worse than anybody, including nazis am I right?

[Jobu]

Soviet Communism and German Nazism, two hemorrhoids on the same unwashed ass.

[Kroforit]

You say Stalin would commit genocide? He was not racist!

He probably wouldn't in the sense of race, but if he were to take over the world, and there was on nation or a society of people whom he saw as the greatest destibilazation to his rule, he would undoubtfully deal with them harshly.

[Smersh]

Soviet Communism and German Nazism, two hemorrhoids on the same unwashed ass.
more great contributions by Jobu.

we are back to this dicussion agian. Communism and Facism are idealogically completely opposite! The superficial surface similairties you guys mention, like suppersion of opposition, can be applied to so many historical examples and aren't neccessarly unique to Communism or Facism. This brings me back to another point, that I brought up on my first post on this thread. You guys are not dicussing two idealogies but are comparing two personalities, Hitler and Stalin. In terms of personalities they do have similarities.

[number nine]

He probably wouldn't in the sense of race, but if he were to take over the world, and there was on nation or a society of people whom he saw as the greatest destibilazation to his rule, he would undoubtfully deal with them harshly.

That society in every communist revolution were rich people. Bourgeoisie, as communists call them. But, that is not genocide, but an attempt to make dictatorship of proletariat. An idea to take from the rich and give to the poor in reality implemented as taking from everybody to give to yourself. Postwar years in my country were violent also. Again, we are talking about a motive, what communists did is not without motive, just like common criminal who kills for money is not neccessarily a nutjob. Hitler's deeds had motive which is unfathomable to sane mind.

Exactly Smersh. How about this...

In communism private property existed with severe limitations. You had quotas on amount of land you could own, somewhere you were allowed to own small shop or bar, while fascism implied liberal capitalism and unlimited private property. Also, under communism de-facto party run the economy with small help from workers who were nominally in control. Under communism nationalistic sentiments were curbed and replaced with class identity, while fascism always emphasized extreme nationalism. Communist governments were more often than not very tolerant on minorities unlike fascists. Under fascism religion was not prohibited. Similarities existed too, obviously, both systems are authoritarian, but both emphasized social welfare and caring for the poor, and both had "higher goal", true communism with equality and without private ownership or New Roman Empire and millenium-lasting greater Reich.

[daily666]

I can agree with Smersh here, although i don't promote communism in any form. People shouldn't just for example inherit a company and live without having to do any work, because they got lucky when someone already had done all the work for them. The same goes for when someone makes more profit from kicking out some non-vital employees from his company.

So because someone's lucky it's wrong? I know people who had nothing, started a business with an idea of selling something stupidly cheap in Poland to UK where the same thing stupidly expensive. In two years they became millionairs. Two contracts, two business trips and it's off.

IOfcourse if you invest on something and it eventually pays off, then nothing wrong there. One has to remember that stock shares are handed out because a company needs investments and wants to grow.
That usually means more jobs which is a good thing. But when some company owner merges his company with some other company and then cashes in his options, which are then a lot more valuable, is wrong and it's abusing of the stock markets for one's own profit because there's no risk.

In developed countries there are legal regulation that guard stock market rules from being abused. But this is sometimes not enough as someone not fair will do it anyway (legal loophole or something).

[Kroforit]

but are comparing two personalities, Hitler and Stalin. In terms of personalities they do have similarities.

Thats exactly what we are discussing, and in my opinion Hitler and Stalin didnt just share personalities but whole implementation of their ideas into their societies. Soviet Union equated fascism and nazism, and Hitler himself was greatest enemy to Soviet Russia at the time. Hitler, nazism and fascism were demonised equally by Soviet Union even though Stalin's regime wasn't much different.

Edit: At the time, both ideologies were seen as their true implementations. Demonization of Hitler's Germany was propagandized up untill the end of SU. I wonder if this still would've been the case if Hitler never attacked Russia.

[number nine]

Wrong thread, sorry.

[Smersh]

Demonization of Hitler's Germany was propagandized up untill the end of SU. I wonder if this still would've been the case if Hitler never attacked Russia.You must be joking! Demonization of Hiter's Germany is(edit: I hope) and should be propagandized by everyone! and still is today in Russia. There should be no end to it! When you forget history it repeats itself.

Hit the books! Facism and Nazism was attacked by the Soviet Union since it's inception. I can post some 1930s era posters if you want. The only time when it wasn't attacked was in that short period between the signing of the molotov-ribbentrop pact and the start of operation Barborossa (what is that less then 2 years?). This was after Western Europe continually ignored Soviet requests to reign in Hitler and formations of "popular fronts". Who do you think was the major supplier of the republican army fighting in Spain against the facist Franco? What did the USA, Britain, or France do?? nothing.

One more thing, Hitler didn't just attack Russia...

Thats exactly what we are discussingI said that because this thread is not titled "Hitler and Stalin", it's titled "Soviet Communism and German Nazism".

[Kilgor]

Hit the books! Facism and Nazism was attacked by the Soviet Union since it's inception. I can post some 1930s era posters if you want. The only time when it wasn't attacked was in that short period between the signing of the molotov-ribbentrop pact and the start of operation Barborossa (what is that less then 2 years?). This was after Western Europe continually ignored Soviet requests to reign in Hitler and formations of "popular fronts". Who do you think was the major supplier of the republican army fighting in Spain against the facist Franco? What did the USA, Britain, or France do?? nothing.



Maybe you should hit the books ?

Why should have the UK/France and other states aligned themselves with the Soviet Union against Hitler ? You have seem to forgotten, like Germany the Soviet Union at the time was a pariah state at the time and headed by a liked minded brutal dictator. She like Germany was openly hostile to countries like the UK and France, and she also did her fair share of subversion and fermenting communist revolution in these countries.

Btw, in case you have forgotten Stalin's kill count was magnitudes ahead of Hitler before 1939.

[number nine]

Maybe you should hit the books ?

Why should have the UK/France and other states aligned themselves with the Soviet Union against Hitler ? Y