Now, I oughta give a long, interesting and profound argument as to why I think facism is a million times worse than communism, but I can't. I don't know enough about either, so really, I'm too ignorant to have an opinion on this (really, that's not sarcasm).
Thing is, you can't say something is bad, just because people kill because of it (well, you can, if you want to...). People kill in the name of Christianity, doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad religion. I don't think communism works because of human nature to be competetive and form hierarchies and classes. And because it takes away ambition and iniative. But surely something that promotes equality is always going to be better than something promotes inequality and prejustice?

I assume you are basing your ideas of Fascism and Communism on the examples of the Nazis and Stalinist Russia...

The Nazi Party, as a fascist party under Adolf Hitler, perpetrated the mass slaughter of 6 million jews, and many people of other sections of the populace, including Gypsies.

The Communist Party, under Joseph Stalin, killed many more millions (the figures i have seen vary between 10 and 25 million, probably nearer the lower figure), including peasants and people within his own party.

These parties ideologies differed greatly, but the atrocities they carried out were both horrific.

But it is extremely unfair to black list Communism and Fascism as ideologies because of one or two extreme examples. It is arguable that Stalin wasn't even a communist. Even though he worked under the communist banner, he didn't really work as a communist. I'm not going to go into the specifics of that.

My main point is that these examples of Fascism and Communism are extremely bad, but there have also been communists and fascists that have been much more mild in their approach. Castro (communist) and Franco (fascist) come to mind. The western world would like to make people believe that Fascism, and especially Communism, are evil, but as a student of history i say that they are not. The people at the helms of the states that perpetrated the crimes are evil, not the idelogies.

It is wrong to say that all Communists and all Fascists conform to your ideas of them, and their ideologies are certainly more complex than how you described them.

---

by Maff
I assume you are basing your ideas of Fascism and Communism on the examples of the Nazis and Stalinist Russia...

---

Only used as the most prolific examples. There other faschist & comunist regimes. Even some groups in our own country.

---

by Maff
These parties ideologies differed greatly, but the atrocities they carried out were both horrific.

---

Agreed

---

by Maff
But it is extremely unfair to black list Communism and Fascism as ideologies because of one or two extreme examples.

---

Well they are ideologies arent they? Are you saying t's wrong to list them as bad ideologies?

---

by Maff
My main point is that these examples of Fascism and Communism are extremely bad, but there have also been communists and fascists that have been much more mild in their approach. Castro (communist) and Franco (fascist) come to mind.

---

Yes they are more mild in their approach. Does that make them any less dangerous?

---

by Maff
The western world would like to make people believe that Fascism, and especially Communism, are evil, but as a student of history i say that they are not.

---

I say they are evil. Not all leaders kill, maim or surpress their people but the basic ideology is flawed.

You cannot call judging people on their race (Fascism) good. In fact i call it evil. it's is unnecessaryily demeaning a race there by making it easier to abuse them.

You also cannot call surpressing people's dreams good (comunism). if you deny people the chance to be the best that can be you are killing the human spirit.

My belief combines both philosophies.

We are all created equally. we all deserve an equal chance at life but not everyone ends up equal.

Some excel in music, some writing, some maths. some have no head for learning at all but make wonderful artists. There's nothing wrong with being a plumber (as long as you are a good one )

This country currently makes class destinctions based on jobs etc. The hairdressing quip a few months back shows the contempt Labour have for such manual professions. Personally i have never met a poor electrition/hairdresser/plumber. many are better off than me. am i better than them 'cos i work at a desk? are they better tham me 'cos they earn more money?

NO, we are equally important in different ways.

My current fear is that labour will kill off the future bethovens, picasso's, stephen hawks in it's quest to bring everyone down to the same education level. I find even this very mild communism extreamly scary

Here comes your raving lefty alert...

Communism - A diverse group of political theories, mostly, but not entirely, linked to the theories of Karl Marx. Examples of Communist theories can be found in the following:
Maoism - Insular, Nationalist, Peasant based, Totalitarian, Top-Down power structure.
Stalinism - Insular, Nationalist, strong proletariat bias, Totalitarian, Top-Down power structure.
Trotskyism - This has varying forms from Entryists (people who covertly work within Bourgeois Socialist Democratic organizations to slowly introduce their theories into the mainstream, while still planning a proletarian revolution) to Vanguardists (people who believe they should have a public profile distinctly separate from the Bourgeois Socialists so as to be recognizable as an alternative when the Capitalist system 'inevitably' self-destructs). As such it is very hard to categorize, but common features are Internationalism, Proletariat based, Top-Down power structure.
Leninism - Again this varies wildly, depending on which point in LeninÂ’s life has been taken for inspiration. Again, common features are Internationalism, Proletariat based, but can vary from Top-Down power structures to Democratic.
Marxism - In truth there are very few 'Marxists' around, as most have been influenced by later, C20, writers (see above). Hence they can vary from Internationalist to Nationalist, Proletariat to Peasant, Social Democrat to Totalitarian. All accept fundamental failings in Capitalist system, but little else.
See also - Situationists, Anarchists, Autonomists, Libertarian Socialists...

What Communists do not believe in is bringing every one down to the same level. What they do believe in is that the proletariat (the providers of production) should also own the means of production (currently held by the bourgeoisie), and therefore be liberated from wage slavery. This doesn't mean making everyone poor. It doesn't even have to mean State Dictatorships or Totalitarianism. It depends on which variety you subscribe to.

Fascism - A diverse group of political theories, based on Racist principles and social recidivism, usually harking back to a 'golden era'. The word itself is from the name of MussoliniÂ’s Fascist Party. That other famous Fascist, Hitler, actually used Socialist rhetoric mixed with Racism and Nationalism to achieve power. Franco of Spain would also be another example of Fascism. Fascism can be categorized as being Nationalist, Totalitarian, Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, and Elitist.

I am an extremist, by anyoneÂ’s definition. I am an Anarchist. I have Marxist sympathies. I believe in the dictatorship of the Proletariat and the end of the bourgeoisie. Does this make me dangerous? I don't think so. It just means I probably disagree with everyone else on this site. I can live with that. Can you? Can you except political freedom and the individual's right to believe what they choose? What is dangerous is Totalitarianism and its baby sister, Social Authoritarianism. Political systems that place all the power in a small group of hands, that's dangerous. But there are forms of Fascism, Communism as well as social and liberal democracies, meritocracies, beaurocracies, aristocracies and many more which can also lead to the same problem. Totalitarianism is not purely a threat of left or right. It's a product of greed.

I'll rant about human nature another time...

---

by Jayjay
I'll rant about human nature another time...

---

No! Do it now! NOW NOW NOW! Ummm...please And could you explain what you mean by 'I believe in the dictatorship of the Proletariat and the end of the bourgeoisie.' please? I did say I was ignorant (and I'm not proud of it)....

OK, just for you Yally. But promise not to tell anyone else I said this?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This has been interpreted many different ways since Marx first used it. Whether the way I use it is the same as his I couldn't give a flying one about. What I mean by that phrase is a situation where the Proletariat start to act as a unified whole instead of as individual self-interested parties, ostensibly trying to climb over each other to get to the crumbs dropped from the table of the Bourgeoisie. Personally, I'd like to see this done within a democratic system and for it to lead to the end of property and capital, hence making the Bourgeoisie redundant. All of this is part of the process that would lead to my own ideas of an Anarchistic utopia.

Any help?

As for Human Nature, I think this is a myth. It is in our nature to be hungry and to seek food. It is in our nature to breathe and to avoid death. It is in our nature to seek shelter and comfort. And that's about it. Further, as Humans we are so complex that we are capable of overriding these instincts. Hence suicide, anorexia, nuclear missiles and all the rest. I see nothing in our cultural values that cannot be over-ridden or replaced. I see no reason for why the values I hold cannot be held by anyone else. I am not special; I am not unique; I've just come to conclusions that are different from most people. I see no reason why, if my goals are honourable and my logic consistent, that everyone else could not come to the same conclusion and make that Anarchistic utopia a reality. I just happen to know it won't be in my lifetime.

Thank you, yes, it does help

I think I'm interpreting your post wrong though. Do you really expect everyone to eventually come to the same conclusion as you? Maybe one day...

Expect? Certainly not. I have no sense of inevitability about my political theories. Hope? Certainly. Or at least, that that the conclusions that future generations come to are an improvement on those hopes I already have.

And all of this has to be for long after I've become worm food. My opinions are too much at odds with the dominant culture we live in for that many people to so radically change their hopes, dreams and values in the small space in time I will occupy. Best I can do is to argue my case and hope the meme spreads.

And Cat, Communism does not have to be in opposition to people's dreams. It's Totalitarianism that wants to control everyone, not Communism. When Communism is free of Totalitarianism it is about helping people achieve their dreams, so long as it does not mean stepping on the freedoms of others.

---

by Jayjay
Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This has been interpreted many different ways since Marx first used it. Whether the way I use it is the same as his I couldn't give a flying one about. What I mean by that phrase is a situation where the Proletariat start to act as a unified whole instead of as individual self-interested parties, ostensibly trying to climb over each other to get to the crumbs dropped from the table of the Bourgeoisie. Personally, I'd like to see this done within a democratic system and for it to lead to the end of property and capital, hence making the Bourgeoisie redundant. All of this is part of the process that would lead to my own ideas of an Anarchistic utopia.

Any help?

As for Human Nature, I think this is a myth. It is in our nature to be hungry and to seek food. It is in our nature to breathe and to avoid death. It is in our nature to seek shelter and comfort. And that's about it. Further, as Humans we are so complex that we are capable of overriding these instincts. Hence suicide, anorexia, nuclear missiles and all the rest. I see nothing in our cultural values that cannot be over-ridden or replaced. I see no reason for why the values I hold cannot be held by anyone else. I am not special; I am not unique; I've just come to conclusions that are different from most people. I see no reason why, if my goals are honourable and my logic consistent, that everyone else could not come to the same conclusion and make that Anarchistic utopia a reality. I just happen to know it won't be in my lifetime.

---

Yep sounds like this definately belongs on a science fiction site to me

JayJay has done an admirable job of clarifying this, but just for the territory:

Fascism does not judge on the grounds of race. Racism does that. Nazism, that is to say the specific aims of the part formerly known as the NASDP does that, but then elements of it also believed that there was a race of uberAryans living inside the Earth. Fascism is a modified form of statist capitalism working with an authoritarian approach to internal social and economic structures. Mussolini's fascism *was* racist, but as a result of contact with Nazism (and, some of the more extreme anti-fascists would argue, with Catholicism).

The difference between Communism and Fascism is not restricted to but is to some extent an economic model. Stalinism is not Communism but State Capitalism.

---

by Jayjay


I am an extremist, by anyoneÂ’s definition. I am an Anarchist.

---

Can you just clear this up for me cause I'm a bit confused in Arnarcy(if thats how its spelt) very basicaly I believe this to mean , that anyone should be able to do what they like ?

And if thats the case , does this mean I could murder all your friends and family and you would see it as my right to do so?

Please can you explain it to me JJ in blonde speak if not here as its detracting from the topic but in mail?

Thanks

Sorry for this break please continue

Hmmmmm
Maybe I am getting confused by JayJay's terms.....
The proletariat?
The Bourgeosie?
I mean really....you have the right to believe the ramblings
of some long dead philospher - but I really dont see how they apply to society today. Who are the proletariat? and the Boureosie?
There is no such thing! Providers of Production? Owners of Production?
Perhaps we can go through some worked examples?
A self-employed plumber - what is he/she? Prole? Bourgeosie?
TV presenter? Football player?
Trainee at a company?
Student?
Nothing seems to fit - looks more like people doing what they want to do - making what they want out of life.
Seems to me to fit in more with something written into the US declaration of independance - the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - with that last aspect being key.
Your phrases

---

by JajJay
making the Bourgeoisie redundant

---

and various other aspects seem to imply there is a section of society today that you do not like, and indeed want to see harmed or downtrodden in some way.
Given that I dont see there is any separation of groups in society it just seems to me you want people, who have made something of themselves to have things taken away from themselves. And I can't see that you believe that by them doing well they have put down other people. They really havent. They have just made different choices on how they want to live their life, and followed their pursuit of happiness.
It seems to me that your view of communism, or your anarchist utopia is not that of letting people follow their dreams, but rather that of smashing the dreams of others.

Makes me sad that you must live with a very dark view of both the world and people in it to feel such hatred.

---

by Leif
it just seems to me you want people, who have made something of themselves to have things taken away from themselves. And I can't see that you believe that by them doing well they have put down other people. They really havent. They have just made different choices on how they want to live their life, and followed their pursuit of happiness.

---

I have to agree with this completly.

I meet an awful lot of people through my work and find the Upper classes (Bourgeoisie) usually, although well educated, are on a modest income.

The very rich people i meet are "local boys made good". in other words working class people who worked bloody hard for what they have.

I dont even envy Elton John his fortune. As fas as i'm concerned he earnt it, he deserves it and if he wasnt to spent a fortune of flowers, let him. I dont deserve his money becaus i didnt earn it there for i wouldnt want it taken away.

OK, perhaps he didnt spent hours in a coal mine each day but he certainly isnt Upper class. he worked hard and succeeded.

There's no reason any one else cant make the same amount of money as him, all they need is a tellent or idea and the drive to succeed.

More power to the successful. (i just wish i was one of them )

Actually i did this at A-level the two are surprisingly similar appart from some obvious differences. In fact when the war ended and east germany became communist the ppl there really didn't find it that difficult to adjust to communism as it had just about the same effect on there lives as facism did.

I do find it funny, once I admit to being an Anarchist and/or Communist, that I seem to develop the ability to say all kind of things without actually opening my move or typing the words...

But before I tackle Leif's post, I'll answer your question Sange. Anarchy is taken from the Greek language: An - to be without and Archos - ruler. That is, it is a political philosophy that holds that the ideal state of humanity is to be without a ruler, to self-govern. It does not, contrary to popular opinion, mean chaos, take what you want nor is it opposed to organization. It is opposed to hierarchy and power structures. Consequently it is anti-state and anti-capital. I'll gladly go into more detail, but it could take a while. As such I recommend anyone interested in more detail check out the following Anarchist FAQ site: www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

But no Sange, Anarchy certainly does not mean you could murder all my friends and family. Liberty can only exist when it is applied to everyone, and murder and similar crimes are the removal of liberty, not the enacting of it.

Right lets really get stuck in.

Leif, you don't like the terms Proletariat and Bourgeoisie? Think they were only used by a long dead philosopher (I assume you are referring to Marx)? Sorry, but the words pre-date Marx, and are as valid today as they have been since the Industrial Revolution. Proletariat - people who sell their labour in return for wages. This covers the Sewage worker to the Advertising exec. Bourgeoisie - The owners of the means of production. These do not actually produce anything, but employ the Proletariat to produce a surplus and therefore a profit, which they then take. This has only a passing resemblance to the working/middle/upper class system that is actually a legacy from Feudalism. I have no desire to stop anyone achieving their goals. Rather it is my aim to see those old standards of socialism - Liberty, Equality and Solidarity being made the only concern of society. What I don't see is why someone who works in a sewer should live a shorter, more impoverished life than someone who designs cars. I want to see equality of opportunity; I want to see dreams made achievable. It is capital and its inevitable hierarchically uneven distribution that stops people achieving their dreams, not Anarchy.

---

Leif
and various other aspects seem to imply there is a section of society today that you do not like, and indeed want to see harmed or downtrodden in some way.

---

Really? I said all that? And there was me thinking I'd argued for liberation via democracy, and never once used any language of violence. Tell me, in what way does the word 'redundant' (to be of no further use) suggest that I want to harm or make someone downtrodden? There was no violence in my language because liberty can never be achieved through violence. For Anarchy to happen the people have to come to the decision to enter into liberty of their own free will. Anarchy will be an evolution, not a revolution. And I certainly do not hate anyone because of their economic background. Seems to me that those opposed to Socialism always forget that Engels (without whom there never would have been Marx) was a member of the Bourgeoisie.

---

Leif
Makes me sad that you must live with a very dark view of both the world and people in it to feel such hatred.

---

Nope. My life's full of fluffy bunny rabbits and good times. Seems to me that it was your post that sounded dark and brooding. All I want is a society of self-responsible adults working through co-operation instead of coercion. I want people to have the liberty to chase their dreams, not the liberty to take what they want.

Thanks for the link JJ

My pleasure.

---

by Jayjay
I want people to have the liberty to chase their dreams, not the liberty to take what they want.

---

Sounds good to me Far-fetched from this day and age, but definately good.

---

by MonSTeR
Sounds good to me Far-fetched from this day and age, but definately good.

---

Certainly we are a long way from it. I have no illusion other wise. But then I'm sure Republicans and Democrats felt the same wat in the C16. Imagine their surprise if they could see us today...