[Jimmy Jazz]

This has probably been posted before but i would just like to discuss the striking similarities, which you have all probably noticed, between communism and totalitarianism. Real Believers in both (rather than just stupid neo nazi dumbasses and "communists" who have never even seen a manifesto never mind [i]the[i/]) espouse a strong state, belief in science and itsability to solve problems, a non-democratic form of govenrment, the belief that humanity can improve itself by conscious effort (by ever improving lifestyles/science and education in fascism or by pogression to a better form of society as in socialism progressing to true commuism). The only true differences in outlook rathe than the nitty gritty of how thee tings work and what should happen is that communists believe thatman needs to be protected more by the state which needs to manage how everything works while fascists believe in the capitalist ideals of free enterprise, both do support a stronger welfare state (for want of a better phrase, these things go so far beyond the welfare state as to be untrue )

i often think that rather than the traditional political spectrum of left/right we should rather have a sphere, upon which facism and communism, while being far away in their respective directions from democracy could be close to one another and where other forms of political belief (such as enviromental, religous etc.) could be represented at a complete tangent to the traditional spectrum. Although im not sure how each belief would be referenced in terms of saying "i'm a right winger" for example.

anyway, i'm getting off topic. please enlighten me as to your views on the subject.

Thankyou

[Maxim Litvinov]

Communism isn't non-democratic. And I'm sure most fascists would say that fascism isn't non-democratic either.

Both - like most systems of government - claim to operate on a secular, scientific basis. So do most dictatorial and market-based systems as well. And both propose that humanity can be bettered - and must be bettered - here on Earth, without any reference to the after-life -- something that a great majority of political systems also uphold as a fundamental truth.

Both attract a clique of true believers, and both are on the margins of 'standard political philosophies' - insofar as they are not incredibly popular.

But, these similarities I don't find striking. Because they do not entail matters of theory at all, but merely fairly universal matters of practice.

[Jimmy Jazz]

I'm sorry if i hve misunderstood but from what i have read of te threads on this forum and my other experience i have certainley picked up that a lot of people in this forum believe fascism to be non-democratic and as the description for this forum reads "...and other non-democratic forms of government" i'm fairly sure that thats what the administration thinks too, and as or communism that is certailey non demcratic. Brought into power most commonly by a minority revolution and kept in power by a dictatorship of the proletariat the state educates the people to the correct point of view, sets up how things should work and then in theory at least eventually withers away into a form of scientific anarchism.

also please if you are going to rubbish wha i say about the two ideologies being similar in practice due to their emphasis on the state please answer on a point by point basis or with your own set of points to the pro or contrary. If there was any confusion this is a thread for discssion not opinion

[Maxim Litvinov]

Huh? I wasn't 'rubbishing' what you were saying, I was disagreeing with some of your suppositions. Discussion *IS* opinion. I laid out what my 'opinion' was, but here it is again:

Democracy
A democracy is a state where people have some raw control over their own futures - what opportunities they have, what type of policies the state supports. If people 'cede' the right to government to a particular Party or ideology, then it is still democracy, provided the people continue to be happy with these arrangements. As far as I understand fascism, it has each person working for the state which controls many aspects in order to lead to the betterment of the many. It is not inherently un-democratic.

As for Communism. Well, firstly you have communism a bit wrong. A 'minority revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat' is not Communism, and is only the historical example of the USSR. Insofar as the rights of individual workers increased, their opportunities increased, and they still voted for Party officials even this strange form of Socialism was quite democratic. More democratic than Russia has ever been before or since.

A Communist state would see the *most democratic* form of government possible -- where each member of society has equal control and influence over state and everyday affairs.

Comparison
* Science: As I pointed out, most political systems do claim to be scientific. All political philosophies claim to be 'superior' as well. So, the great majority of philosophies proclaim that, if followed properly, through the use of logic and science they will bring about the greatest progression for humanity as a whole. Market capitalism, Market socialism, Anarcho-syndicalism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism ... whatever. *All* these philosophies claim this much.
* A Strong State: Well, I'm not sure if I agree. Traditional models of Communism do have central authorities regulating behaviour - especially in a transition phase - but then again there are many Communist theorists that emphasise the role of organic action and small communities. And there are many non-Fascist, non-Communist beliefs which talk about the need for a strong state.
* The Nitty-Gritty. You're right. There is a fundamental difference in the nitty-gritty. Which is to say - there are fundamental philosophical differences.

In conclusion, someone who believed in command economy capitalism, would hold that:
a) we should have a strong state
b) we believe that people will advance through scientific/logical principles
c) we believe in some measure of democracy.

So, fascism and communism in this respect are no closer to each other than they are to a strong command economy.

[Jesse]

Ethically, they both embody the desire for teamwork and a 'All for one and One for all' mentality, although, fascism indulges in occasional bouts of individualism in its unfortunate tradition of Hero-worship. Totalitarianism, in its pure form, has more of a 'hive' mentality - absolute sameness and totality.

Furthermore, not all Fascists believe in capitalism, and not all communists believe in communism

There are two scales, by the way, that are commonly employed - that of the left/right for 'political freedom', and that of the left-right for 'economic freedom.

[TROI]

not all Fascists believe in capitalism, and not all communists believe in communism

Oxymoron anyone?

[Jesse]

Its a bit of humour.

That which is claimed to be 'Fascism' isn't necessarily capitalistic, and that which is claimed to be 'Communism' isn't necessarily communistic.

[smashthestate]

Oxymoron anyone?

Actually he's absolutely correct. Fascism is about subsidizing the corporate sector, and then taking the successful creation of wealth and progress from that sector, to advance society and the state. It is a controlled and planned economy.

This is not capitalism. In capitalism (real capitalism anyway), the corporate sector receives absolutely no subsidy, and the wealth and progress they create is theirs to dispose of in any way they choose. Capitalism is a unplanned and unregulated.

[Lohr]

I believe that Smashthestate's analysis of fascism is an accurate definition of corporatism, which often accompanies fascism.

back to the original point however, fascism is inherently anti-democratic while communism is in fact, the exact opposite. Fascism was founded upone the principles of dictatorship, while communism (in theory) was founded upon the principles of direct democracy, even though that democratic ideology was never applied in any "communist" or socialist country in history.

Fascism is a political ideology while communism is both a political and socioeconomic one. Fascism can exist in a socialist or capitalist society. Joseph Stalin would be a socialist fascist while Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini would be capitalist fascists. There are no guidelines to how the economy should operate in a fascist society while in communism, those principles are made perfectly clear in the communist mannifesto. Although there are some political methods that are SUGGESTIVE of being totalitarian such as the "dictatorship of the proletariat," (which is actally a proletarian democracy) the end product of communism is supposedly a direct democracy. (despite how utopian you believe it sounds)

So personally, I see no similarities between totalitarainism/fascism and communism at all. In fact, I would say that the two contradict each other. totalitarianism/fascism and socialism however, is a different story altogether.

[jaakko]

Fascism is a form of government. It's a special form of capitalist government, a form of openly terroristic dictatorship (as opposed to dictatorship under the facade of bourgeois democracy) of the capitalist class. This is the concrete historical definition of fascism, which naturally differs from fascist demagoquery.

Communism is not a form of government, but a social system. If we talk about the period between capitalism and communism, socialism, we have a state (of the dictatorship of the proletariat) and we can have a talk about the different possible forms of government under this period. Communism as an ideology doesn't restrict itself to any specific form of government for this transitional period. It's determined by the course of revolution itself and the objective conditions where the building of socialism begins.

Fascism as a movement represents the interests of the finance capital, while drawing its mass basis from petty bourgeoisie and lumpen proletariat. If someone wants some completely different "fascism", which would be the same only in form not content, he could aswell give it another name.

Communism as a movement belongs to labour movement and aims at the overthrow of the capitalist class. Thus we can conclude that the movements represent two antagonistic social systems.

[Yevgraf]

Fascism, as Jaakko rightly pointed out, is merely capitalism under a different guise. The replacement of a covert dictatorship of the bourgoeisie(e.g. parliamentary "democracy") by the overt dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
Very simply, fascist movements usually come to power when the existing parliamentary form of government no longer protects and advances the interests of capital.

The "communism and fascism are twin totalitarian systems" essentially belongs to discredited cold war NATO propaganda.

What I would like to know is how do liberal-capitalism supporters explain why fascist movements(e.g. Fascism in Italy and and Nazism in Germany) basis of support existed primarily amongst the propertied classes(both petty-bourgoeis and 'big' capitalist)?!?!
Is it any coincidence that both Germany and Italy - prior to the Nazis and Fascists coming to power - had strong working class organisations?

[Al Khabir]

At the time, it would have been very difficult to find a western nation that DIDN'T have a strong communist movement. As Hitler proves, Fascism is a product of the ambitions of powerless men.

[Yevgraf]

As Hitler proves, Fascism is a product of the ambitions of powerless men.

Stick to reading Nietschze......

[Al Khabir]

expert refutation of my argument there Yevgraf.

Ecomomics has nothing to do with capitalism, other than the occasional advancement of the movement by temporary support by the business class. In Germany and Italy, the capitalist class came to despise the states which they had helped to create.

As I said, it would be difficult to find a country at the time which didn't have a communist movement- did they all turn to fascism?

[jaakko]

In Germany and Italy, the capitalist class came to despise the states which they had helped to create.

The states themselves were always there. What changed was form of government, that was; parliamentary democracy -> fascism -> parliamentary democracy. And among the German monopoly bourgeoisie there was no split about the nazi government (only split was about Hitler). Capitalists and nazis (where they weren't one and same) stood united untill their defeat.

As I said, it would be difficult to find a country at the time which didn't have a communist movement- did they all turn to fascism?

It wasn't because of the communists alone (either in Germany or Italy) that the capitalists saw parliamentary democracy as insufficient for their interests. Italy didn't have a strong communist movement, fascism rose because of other national class struggle / international factors. However, in the case of Germany it must be noted that the KPD was extraordinarily strong in comparison to other imperialist countries. But as I said, even there the danger of strong labour movement was just one factor. I'd say in both cases international conditions were primary.

[liberalist]

There were many reasons for the rise of Fascism. But certainly the presence of socialist parties in Italy and Germany helped reactionary parties gain popularity.

Whilst Fascism places the state at the centre of everything, the end goal for communism is to eliminate the need for government. Marx wrote that communist governments would be needed to move the country from socialism to communism but after that no government would be needed.
Or course, theory is different to practise.

[New Era]

It's for the this and other reasons I became centrum autoritarian. Fascism and Communism offer both intresting views that don't collide if used properly. Every ideology has it's pros and cons and going after purism is one of the worst things you can do.

[Russkie]

Can you have Fascism that targets the weak social behavior or poor intelligence rather than race?

[starman2003]

Can you have Fascism that targets the weak social behavior or poor intelligence rather than race?

That would be great. But IMO the term fascism should be abandoned in favor of Wholism in part because fascism has been associated with racism and also was an enemy of the US, where Wholism should ultimately triumph. Fascism is an outdated, 20th century relic; a flawed precursor of an Ultimate Wholism based on consummate progress.

[Russkie]

true, the term fascism is too obsolete. Some people argue wholism will never been in russia, it has too many cultures. But I already said before, you should not judge people by the color of their skin but the level of their intelligence.