Communism and Fascism

[Jarvin]

"In capitalist societies, the state is run by the economic authorities. Nazi Germany was no different."

This is not true, it may become this way due to corruption, but in a capitalist society the State and economy are completely seperate.

Now for the definitions and debunking of some previous definitions:
Communism- The elimination of private property, collectivist policy towards populace, fully state controlled economy, those are the basic ones that all commies agree to. The ones they dont (but always seem to happen) are: elimination of democracy, severe reduction in human rights.

Fascism- private property allowed, collectivist policy towards populace, state controls MOST of the economy, in communism the state controls every last detail, in fascism the state only controls the big stuff (factories, mines, etc.). Unlike communists, fascists admit that they are anti-democracy, and usually admit to being pretty bad with human rights too.

Fascism, economically, is socialism that doesnt bother to pay lip service to the people.

IMO, they both suck, along with socialism that does pay lip service to the people. All three force the people to depend on the state for their well-being and sacrifice individual rights in the process.

[GePap]

The significant distinction between fascism and communism comes from what each sees as the princile and central aspect to the creation of individual and group consciousness.

For Communists, class, that is your economic station in life, is what creates your concisouness.
For facists, nation, that is the ethno-cultural group you belong to is the basis of your concsiouness.

From this basic distinction comes the differences between communism and fascism. Of course, the two share similar practical notions:

a belief in modernism, embracing the scientific
Mass mobilization: the creation of popuar movements as a means of action

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suppose you could make the case that the economies of fascist states were more mercantilist than capitalist, though.

Bingo.

except for the capitalism part; fascists had no problems with economic hierarchies any more than they had problems with political hierarchies

But economic heirarchies don't equal capitalism .

In capitalist societies, the state is run by the economic authorities. Nazi Germany was no different.

In Nazi Germany (and more in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain) the economic authorities were (somewhat) run by the state. You had targetted goals of production you had to meet (no matter how unprofitable), and then with the rest, you could be capitalist.

It wasn't really capitalist, but there were elements of that, just as there were elements of USSR Communism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Agathon: Your decription of Fascism is very good .

a belief in modernism, embracing the scientific

Well in Fascism, it was only a belief in scientific modernism. Social modernism was right out . I mean, these guys were on further right than Jerry Falwell in terms of social policy.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Frogger

Typical one-dimensional political thinking.

Worse than that, it's fairly deliberately stilted....

Explain yourself? Are you confused?

[The Andy-Man]

I think everyone is missing the point and looking straight a comparing Hitler and Stalin. As totalatarian states they both had quite bit in common, but the ideology was immensley different.


You'd all probably do better looking at marxist rightings and fascist rightings then in the actually states the produced, i mean, the Soviet form of communism wasn't really what marx (or Lenin) had in mind, and Nazism wasn't really fascism in the sense that Mussolini's italy was, Nazism is something else allthogether.

[GePap]

Ahh, Imran, Agathon did not post.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well in Fascism, it was only a belief in scientific modernism. Social modernism was right out . I mean, these guys were on further right than Jerry Falwell in terms of social policy.

Not really, at least not at the time we are speaking about; Eugenics was an up and coming field, and the Nazi's in particular were pioneeers of various pulic health moves that do have aspects of social modernism, like camaing against animal cruelty and smoking.Of course, their mysogenism, sexism, and rampant homophobia certainly are testiments to their narrowmindedness, but its not like you see such attitudes in various parochial societies. the thing is, the nazi's justified them using "modern, scientific" notins and not just invoking tradition.

[Elok]

Originally posted by nationalist
Explain yourself? Are you confused?

No, he's got a point. Here you are telling us that fascism is more complicated than a point on the straight right-wing-left-wing continuum; no, this particular complex ideology, it seems, is a point on a circular drawing. I personally think fascism was a "point" on the top of Mussolini's fat obsessive bald-guy head, if anything. Don't crap on my definition, which was based on my readings of Mussolini's Fascism, BTW, and present me with a powerpoint aid in its place. Hmph.

[Frankychan]

I think we can argue this topic day and night and never come to an agreement. Since I'm biased and a member of the CPA I won't reply with inflammatory rhetoric.

Sheik-what most people have basically agreed upon without actually saying it is that Fascism is a more right-wing, state-controlled government. State-controlled as in the leaders are not actually elected per se, but rather appointed.

Communistic leaders would be elected from party members (nevermind there only being one party).

Additionally, the fact of "struggle" being part of both political ideologies are also correct. Fascism's struggle is more politically and socially motivated whereas Communism is more motivated by economics.

Unfortunately, Sheik-both of these ideologies branch off into different spectrums. For example, we associate Fascism with Nazi's and Communism with Stalin. It is not so cut and dry. Fascism contains different aspects and National Socialism (Nazi) is just one part of Fascism. Similarly, Communism has different components such as Stalinism and Maoism.

But basically, just get the jist of what people are saying and you'll be able to figure out what all these ideologies stand for.

[Az]

Imran, it wasn't Agathon. the avatar got you confused.

Good stuff from GePap

[Ramo]

This is not true, it may become this way due to corruption, but in a capitalist society the State and economy are completely seperate.

There has never been a capitalist society where the state and economy are completely seperate.

But economic heirarchies don't equal capitalism .

But they're important parts of capitalism. At least, that's how I would define capitalism as. But what I was getting at is that fascist societies had no problems with wealth disparities.

In Nazi Germany (and more in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain) the economic authorities were (somewhat) run by the state. You had targetted goals of production you had to meet (no matter how unprofitable), and then with the rest, you could be capitalist.

It wasn't really capitalist, but there were elements of that, just as there were elements of USSR Communism.

I wouldn't say that the level of statism qualifies a society as capitalist. Just as it doesn't qualify a society as socialist. Libertarianism and fascism are capitalist ideologies, just as Anarchism and communism are socialist ideologies.

Does that mean the Cuba can't be socialist because it's agrarian and not indutrial?

I don't see such a major divide between the style of economic governance in (to take two examples provided thus far) Franco's Spain and Hitler's Germany.

The basis of fascism, state "mediation" in competetition between private businesses (corporatism, mercantilism, whatever you want to call it) played a significantly lesser degree in Spain than in Germany or Italy. The Spanish Fascist organization, the Falange, was co-opted and marginalized by Franco. You rather see in Franco's Spain, Duvalier'a Haiti, Bautista's Cuba, Somoza's Nicaragua, etc., etc. the state run by elements of the RCC and landowners with their interests supported instead of that of the industrialists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ahh, Imran, Agathon did not post.

Ooops, Jarvis has the same avatar .

Not really, at least not at the time we are speaking about; Eugenics was an up and coming field, and the Nazi's in particular were pioneeers of various pulic health moves that do have aspects of social modernism, like camaing against animal cruelty and smoking.

They also wanted to go back to the 'good old days'. Women were supposed to go back to child rearing and cooking. They wished to reverse the Enlightenment, which they felt was generally a bad thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But they're important parts of capitalism. At least, that's how I would define capitalism as.

Your definitions are crap .

But what I was getting at is that fascist societies had no problems with wealth disparities.

Neither did mercantalism, but that isn't capitalist either.

Libertarianism and fascism are capitalist ideologies, just as Anarchism and communism are socialist ideologies.

Um... no. Fascism isn't a capitalist ideology AT ALL. The main fascist thinkers were anti-capitalist. Read what Mussolini had to say about capitalism and how it divides people. There was great state control over means of production. The state took over labor negotiations and dictated production targets.

That's like saying Stalinism is a socialist ideology (btw, I think that is crap).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They also wanted to go back to the 'good old days'. Women were supposed to go back to child rearing and cooking. They wished to reverse the Enlightenment, which they felt was generally a bad thing.

Women were supposed to go back to child rearing because that was their "intended" biological place, not just cause it was the "good old days". Also, the nazis revolutionized the place of women in Germany by instituting groups which allowed women to leave their families care and become part of some Nazi party group. No longer did daddy or mom tell girls what they could or could not do: they were individual members of the party, no lower than their parents, and in fact, as the future wombs of the state, they were in some ways part fo the vanguard if the state.

Fasicsm like Communism works to break the old bonds of family, since both ideologies see this as an outdate bond, and one that draws attantion away from the more improtant aspect of ones being, either class or nation.