Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    17 Nov '18 11:37
    I got to thinking, why is communism more politically correct than Nazism? Nazism is banned in entire countries, and in places like the US you become an outcast within society.

    However, this is not the case with communism. On these boards, we have proud communists like Shav, but not so when it comes to Nazism. In fact, leaning towards Communism is fairly common as we still have entire communist governments still in existence, but none are Nazis.

    So which ideology is more evil? Consider this from Wiki.

    Comparison of Communism and Nazism[edit]

    Courtois considers Communism and Nazism to be distinct, but comparable totalitarian systems. He says that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of the Nazis".[6]:15 Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. As an example, he cites the Nazi SS official Rudolf Höss who organized the infamous extermination camp, Auschwitz concentration camp. According to Höss:[6]:15


    The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples.

    Courtois argues that the Soviet crimes against peoples living in the Caucasus and of large social groups in the Soviet Union could be called "genocide" and that they were not very much different from similar policies by Nazis. Both Communist and Nazi systems deemed "a part of humanity unworthy of existence. The difference is that the Communist model is based on the class system, the Nazi model on race and territory".[6]:15 Courtois further stated:


    The "genocide of a "class" may well be tantamount to the genocide of a "race"—the deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a result of the famine caused by Stalin's regime "is equal to" the starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by the Nazi regime.

    He added:


    After 1945 the Jewish genocide became a byword for modern barbarism, the epitome of twentieth-century mass terror. [...] [M]ore recently, a single-minded focus on the Jewish genocide in an attempt to characterize the Holocaust as a unique atrocity has also prevented the assessment of other episodes of comparable magnitude in the Communist world. After all, it seems scarcely plausible that the victors who had helped bring about the destruction of a genocidal apparatus might themselves have put the very same methods into practice. When faced with this paradox, people generally preferred to bury their heads in sand. [...] Communist regimes have victimized approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million of the Nazis.
  2. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22121
    17 Nov '18 14:05
    @whodey said
    I got to thinking, why is communism more politically correct than Nazism? Nazism is banned in entire countries, and in places like the US you become an outcast within society.

    However, this is not the case with communism. On these boards, we have proud communists like Shav, but not so when it comes to Nazism. In fact, leaning towards Communism is fairly common as we stil ...[text shortened]... ictimized approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million of the Nazis.
    An understanding of what fascism and communism actually represent is first required.

    Your premise prompts me to ask:
    Which horse is faster: The white one or the brown one?
  3. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56284
    17 Nov '18 14:191 edit
    Communism = the people who produce have control over production. This has to be the case due to dialectic materialism (the friction between owners and producers). International in nature; the production is more important than national priorities; again due to dialectics.

    Nazi = national socialism; the fascist party of Adolf Hitler.
    Fascism = an oligarchy controls all production and nationalist ideology (the own country / culture is better than any other country / culture).

    Anybody comparing fascism to communism does not have a clue what they are talking about.

    And so to answer your question:
    One political movement tries to better the rights of workers, women and minorities on an international scale.

    The other is stooped in racism and ‘rights’ are non-existent except to better the ruling classes and their ideology.

    So, why do you think it’s socially acceptable to be a communist and slightly less so to be a fascist?
    Mhmmmmm ponder it you should...
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    17 Nov '18 16:29
    @shavixmir said
    Communism = the people who produce have control over production.
    Isn't that socialism? I thought communism was when the government controls the means of production and distribution is based on need.
  5. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56284
    17 Nov '18 16:36
    @vivify said
    Isn't that socialism? I thought communism was when the government controls the means of production and distribution is based on need.
    Both are really quite the same.
    Some people say communism is a further evolved system than socialism... not quite accurate.

    However, if you look at political evolution, you could say that it goes capitalism to socialism to communism to anarchy.

    The government controlling distribution is a method, rather than a goal. Pooling resources for distribution can only be communist if the pool is controlled by the producing classes. As soon as the executive is no longer elected or subject to removal, then it can no longer be considered communist.
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    17 Nov '18 17:56
    @vivify said
    Isn't that socialism? I thought communism was when the government controls the means of production and distribution is based on need.
    In a nutshell, socialism is an ideology which states that the means of production and/or the benefits coming from them should be in the hands of the workers. In the late 19th Century, socialism split into two main branches: one thought that the workers would (or should) seize the means of production by force/revolution, the other that workers should gain control of the means of production through democratic means. The former is now known as communism, while the latter is known as social democracy. Social-democratic political parties dominated continental Western European politics from the end of WW2 to approximately the 1990s and social-democratic ideology was influential to a lesser degree in American politics from the 1930s to the 1960s.

    To answer whodey's question, Nazism is condemned more than communism because not all communists turned out to be genocidal killers. For instance, the Socialist Party and the GreenLeft party represented in the Dutch parliament both have historical roots as communist parties, but clearly neither of them are about to go on a Stalin-style killing spree.
  7. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138591
    17 Nov '18 18:131 edit
    @vivify said
    Isn't that socialism? I thought communism was when the government controls the means of production and distribution is based on need.
    Communism and Socialism, while they might be ideologically next door neighbors, are 2 different and separate ideologies.

    A good site to get the Coles notes version understanding is diffen.com
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    17 Nov '18 23:00
    Thanks for the clarification. I had always understood the difference to be:

    socialism: people control means of production

    communism: government controls the means of production
  9. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19327
    18 Nov '18 02:40
    @shavixmir said
    Communism = the people who produce have control over production. This has to be the case due to dialectic materialism (the friction between owners and producers). International in nature; the production is more important than national priorities; again due to dialectics.

    Nazi = national socialism; the fascist party of Adolf Hitler.
    Fascism = an oligarchy controls all pr ...[text shortened]... acceptable to be a communist and slightly less so to be a fascist?
    Mhmmmmm ponder it you should...
    It isn't actually right to describe Fascism as an oligarchy having the means of production; it often believed in corporatism, whereby the skilled and distinguished workers in a specific class would be the representatives of that particular occupation. In a very real sense, it proposed sort of a rule by union. At least, this is how Moseley seemed to phrase it, but corporatism isn't that widely recognized by many people.

    Hitler even dabbled in some corporatism. You can see some of this even in the pre-parade in the Triumph of the Will just how it was important within Nazi political structure.

    Yet, we all know that there were Fascists that were far less interested in the leftist economic perspective. And we know that there were Fascist groups that probably really didn't have much to do with Corporatism, like the Falangists.

    It's a difficult topic.

    Linking together all of the Fascisms can be a bit dubious. To some degree, it is probably also wrong to link together all of the Communisms.
  10. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56284
    18 Nov '18 06:24
    @philokalia said
    It isn't actually right to describe Fascism as an oligarchy having the means of production; it often believed in corporatism, whereby the skilled and distinguished workers in a specific class would be the representatives of that particular occupation. In a very real sense, it proposed sort of a rule by union. At least, this is how Moseley seemed to phrase it, but corporati ...[text shortened]... be a bit dubious. To some degree, it is probably also wrong to link together all of the Communisms.
    I’ve never heard of fascists allowing corporatism, beyond the extent of corporations doing exactly what the regime allows it to.
    I’ll have to look into that.
  11. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65523
    18 Nov '18 06:31
    @whodey

    The commies sure beat out the Nazis with the death toll though, pretty big difference right there.
  12. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56284
    18 Nov '18 06:56
    @vivify said
    Thanks for the clarification. I had always understood the difference to be:

    socialism: people control means of production

    communism: government controls the means of production
    As I wrote: if the government is a means to control and distribution, then it’s communism.
    If the government’s control and distribution is the aim, then it’s not communism.

    Many of the websites you’ll find will not make this distinction. They base their assumption on what China and the USSR were.

    However, if you read Marx, you’ll get to the basics. It’s called dialectic materialism.

    If a state controls production and distribution (as the aim, rather than the means) and the population can’t replace said government (1-state party), then there’s the same friction as in a boss-worker relationship and said form of government will have to evolve.

    You could say that a 1-party state means the government has taken over the role of what business is within a capitalist system (meet the new boss, same as the old boss).

    Hence communists will call it state- capitalism, rather than communism.

    So, following on from that, even though I am a communist, according to websites which differentiate between socialism and communism, I’d be a socialist and not a communist.

    However, if you really, really, really wanted to pick nits (which I wouldn’t bother with), there is a subtle distinction between the two within classic Marxism:

    Socialism = distribution according to contribution.
    Communism = distribution according to needs.

    Obviously semantics which has to be ignored. It’s the concept that the revolution takes part in steps. And it’s a smaller step to organise along input rather than output.

    So unionization is socialism, but the NHS is communist.
    Buying shares is socialist and the BBC is communist.

    Needless to say, the distinction beggers belief (and is the funnist debate you’ll ever witness during Marxism week in London).
  13. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65523
    18 Nov '18 09:132 edits
    @shavixmir said
    As I wrote: if the government is a means to control and distribution, then it’s communism.
    If the government’s control and distribution is the aim, then it’s not communism.

    Many of the websites you’ll find will not make this distinction. They base their assumption on what China and the USSR were.

    However, if you read Marx, you’ll get to the basics. It’s called dialec ...[text shortened]... nction beggers belief (and is the funnist debate you’ll ever witness during Marxism week in London).
    Obviously the solution is a free society which I argue for consistently, where the commies could be commies, the socialists could be socialists, the capitalists could be capitalists, the atheists could be atheists, and none of them could force their ideals on the other fellow.

    Edit: Oh yeah, nearly forgot, the nazis can be nazis.
  14. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56284
    18 Nov '18 10:09
    @wajoma said
    Obviously the solution is a free society which I argue for consistently, where the commies could be commies, the socialists could be socialists, the capitalists could be capitalists, the atheists could be atheists, and none of them could force their ideals on the other fellow.

    Edit: Oh yeah, nearly forgot, the nazis can be nazis.
    Do you think that societies should accept political movements which have the aim of denying people rights based on religion, gender or skin colour?

    Or do you think that so long as it’s not physically trying to achieve these aims, it’s alright, but as soon as it becomes physical society should step in?
  15. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65523
    18 Nov '18 11:34
    @shavixmir said
    Do you think that societies should accept political movements which have the aim of denying people rights based on religion, gender or skin colour?

    Or do you think that so long as it’s not physically trying to achieve these aims, it’s alright, but as soon as it becomes physical society should step in?
    You're onto it.

    Force and threats of force, that is the only way to deny a right.

    If ever there were a movement that should be banned it would be communism, but so long as all the members of the group are there voluntarily they should be free to pursue those ideals.
Back to Top