NationStates

As the title says, I hunger for some debate. Much of gameplay now a days revolves around raider/defender gameplay. So if like to kindle this one again.

Fascism v Communism Round 1

I'll start of with the first claim. Communsim has never worked and is merely a distant utopian dream that is used by radicals to lure the poor and disadvantaged to their cause. Fascism, as seen by Mussolinis Fascist Manifesto (1935) is strictly opposed to this type of idea, and instead is more grounded on reality more than a fact.

Proof: I will cite examples such as Communist Soviet Union and China. Together, these have lead to 100,000,000 dead in the past century alone. Obviously, communism didn't work. And if we are to claim that it will work in smaller situations, than I will list Cities like Calcutta, that have been dominated by the communist party, and might I add, is stricken with poverty.

Will wait for rebuttal.

are you serious? the soviet union went from rural shit hole that every other european power laughed at wishing it could be at the big boys table to industrial superpower rivaling the united states. china seen increases in life expectancy and literacy. as did the soviet union, actually, along with increases in women's rights and medical and scientific breakthroughs. they put a goddamn man in space for fucks sake. yeah, many died, there were some fucks up, there were some famines. but the guys that came before were also fucks up that had plenty of famines, that's why they had revolutions in the first place.

comparatively, hitler and mussolini just got their nations bombed into dust. italy especially was just a massive fuck up, militarily and socially. it was a failed experiment. the trains, in actual fact, did not run on time.

and that's not even touching on the shitstorm that is "were the soviets/china even communist" debate

e: actually, let's think about other fascist nations or at least nations considered fascist. portugal. you mean the place that is still behind everyone else and refused to educate people beyond the level of 5 year olds so they would not get that uppity? yeah, that's pretty much the yellow brick road to prosperity for the poor and disadvantaged right there, eh? chile is held up, rape dogs aside, as an economic miracle. what people don't tell you is that at some point there was a definitive crash followed by sacking everyone and completely changing their economy because it was, to use the technical term, "fucked". and that's ignoring the fact they did not rely on the iron of fascism but the copper of copper exports to keep them afloat. "was franco fascist" debates are just as nasty as "was stalin communist debates". again, the transformation from shit in the 70s to richer but still lagging behind later on is similar to portugal.

Wisconsin9 wrote:And if you look over here, you'll see the glorious victory of fascism over communism. No, wait. Literally the complete exact opposite of what I just said.

If those are the two ideological choices, I'd go with communism.

Generally speaking, most of the sociopolitical ideologies are fine in a perfectly functioning system, and communism is one of the kindest. It's only when you add in us stupid, greedy humans who can't think beyond their own lifespan, that you get fucked-up systems, like the Cold War era USSR/USA.

Both Fascism and Communism are mostly full of shit.

I mean, even theoretically speaking (which is ignoring all real-world drawbacks of implementing either system), they still aren't without serious repercussions.

In Fascism, you pretty much always have a dictator. In fact, you pretty much need to have a dictator for it to be Fascism. As such, no matter how good or likable that dictator may be (even though they're usually complete dicks), you inevitably have to replace them with another dictator, since all humans do eventually die. Even if this new guy is more or less benevolent, he still has to consolidate his power and keep things in order. And there's no guarantee that the following dictators will be any good. It's a lot like medieval European feudalism. Ever played Crusader Kings II with a Gravelkind system of succession? It's a lot like that.

Communism too has it's drawbacks. Even in an ideal, utopian scenario, there's the whole issue of essentially suppressing individuality. I mean, you quite literally cannot be an individual in a Communist society, which tends to make life fairly dreary. It has a horrible impact on culture, art and most of the finer aspects of civilization. Ever seen a Communist movie or work of art? Don't bother, they all suck.

Sanctissima wrote:Communism too has it's drawbacks. Even in an ideal, utopian scenario, there's the whole issue of essentially suppressing individuality. I mean, you quite literally cannot be an individual in a Communist society, which tends to make life fairly dreary. It has a horrible impact on culture, art and most of the finer aspects of civilization. Ever seen a Communist movie or work of art? Don't bother, they all suck.

oh come on, you've played tetris and you liked it. we all know it. communist music is also pretty great. admittedly socialist realism is often not the most simulating thing in the world.

even in a capitalist society you are still dependent on society for a lot more than you would like to admit. i suppose part of communism is accepting this.

Wisconsin9 wrote:And if you look over here, you'll see the glorious victory of fascism over communism. No, wait. Literally the complete exact opposite of what I just said.

WELL FIRST OFF, it was the fascists that beat themselves. If Hitler hadn't fucked EVERYTHING up, we'd be speaking German.

SECOND, the Russkies had a little help from the Brits and Yanks if I remember correctly. It wasn't a total Bolshevik effort.

THIRD, the Allies won not because their ideology was better fit for war, in fact fascism is by far. After all, fascists worship war. They won because, as previously mentioned, Hitler ruined everything for Germany.

Venatorium wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:And if you look over here, you'll see the glorious victory of fascism over communism. No, wait. Literally the complete exact opposite of what I just said.

WELL FIRST OFF, it was the fascists that beat themselves. If Hitler hadn't fucked EVERYTHING up, we'd be speaking German.

SECOND, the Russkies had a little help from the Brits and Yanks if I remember correctly. It wasn't a total Bolshevik effort.

well yeah, if they didn't have a hyper-nationalistic dictatorship obsessed with competition many of the problems that lead to their defeat wouldn't be there. but if they weren't they, uh, wouldn't have been that fascist huh?

Communism is, without a doubt, infinitely better than fascism. Fascism is, like, the warm garbage of ideology. Communism is still garbage, admittedly, but it's garbage that's been recycled into useful things.

Alyakia wrote:

Venatorium wrote:

WELL FIRST OFF, it was the fascists that beat themselves. If Hitler hadn't fucked EVERYTHING up, we'd be speaking German.

SECOND, the Russkies had a little help from the Brits and Yanks if I remember correctly. It wasn't a total Bolshevik effort.

well yeah, if they didn't have a hyper-nationalistic dictatorship obsessed with competition many of the problems that lead to their defeat wouldn't be there. but if they weren't they, uh, wouldn't have been that fascist huh?

That's an extraordinarily watered-down description of fascism, mate. There's way more to it than that.

Round 2 (or Rebuttal, in Round 1)

Fascism failed far more catastrophically and faster in every nation it took power in. Hitler, Mussolini and Admiral Horthy brought total ruin to their respective countries less than 20 years after they each took power. The longest lasting fascist dictatorships, Spain and Portugal, entered the European Union as the poorest nations in Europe. Portugal under Salazar became the least literate nation in Europe by the time of his death.

On the other hand, Communism drastically improved literacy in every nation it took hold in. Russia went from being the most illiterate nation in Europe in 1917 (bar the Ottoman Empire) to having a literacy of 100% by 1950. The nation developed from being agrarian, largely based off almost serf-like labour conditions. It had very. very little industry. By the time Hitler invaded however, the nation was able to out-produce the Germans in every armament available, largely from territories on the eastern side of he Ural mountains.

It was an interesting charge that communism is merely a dream used to lure in the poor and disadvantaged. While personally I agree, for the purposes of this debate I would like to observe that fascism relied on very similar demographics using very similar tactics. In the 1930s, it was famously observed that many students struggled to decide if they were fascists or communists. I would maintain that the hatred the two ideologies have for each other is the hatred of the heretic, not the hatred of the unbeliever.

In short, communism didn't work. But neither did fascism, and fascism failed much faster and far more dramatically in every nation it took root in.

Proof: The nations that adopted fascism, the Oxford English dictionary definition being:

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Followed up by:

The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

So that would be Germany, Italy, Spain. Not mentioned (but need to be mentioned) are Portugal, and the Nazi puppet states/smaller allies.

Venatorium wrote:

Alyakia wrote:
well yeah, if they didn't have a hyper-nationalistic dictatorship obsessed with competition many of the problems that lead to their defeat wouldn't be there. but if they weren't they, uh, wouldn't have been that fascist huh?

That's an extraordinarily watered-down description of fascism, mate. There's way more to it than that.

well yeah i don't have time to write a 5 paragraph essay on the inefficiencies within the administration of nazi germany and its failure of racial policy in the east

if you have a cohesive and uncontroversial definition of fascism you will be a very rich man

Communism is the most misunderstood term in political economy. Fascism is rightfully the most despised term of the 20th Century.

Communsim has never worked and is merely a distant utopian dream that is used by radicals to lure the poor and disadvantaged to their cause.

The cause of what, exactly? Not being poor anymore? Fascism is little more than a coping mechanism for edgy white, straight males with inferiority complexes that want to live out their power fantasies. It's patronizing and elitist at best, genocidal at worst. Any sane person interested in the security of their own well being as well as that of others would do well to stay away from that nationalistic garbage.

Sanctissima wrote:Both Fascism and Communism are mostly full of shit.

I mean, even theoretically speaking (which is ignoring all real-world drawbacks of implementing either system), they still aren't without serious repercussions.

In Fascism, you pretty much always have a dictator. In fact, you pretty much need to have a dictator for it to be Fascism. As such, no matter how good or likable that dictator may be (even though they're usually complete dicks), you inevitably have to replace them with another dictator, since all humans do eventually die. Even if this new guy is more or less benevolent, he still has to consolidate his power and keep things in order. And there's no guarantee that the following dictators will be any good. It's a lot like medieval European feudalism. Ever played Crusader Kings II with a Gravelkind system of succession? It's a lot like that.

Communism too has it's drawbacks. Even in an ideal, utopian scenario, there's the whole issue of essentially suppressing individuality. I mean, you quite literally cannot be an individual in a Communist society, which tends to make life fairly dreary. It has a horrible impact on culture, art and most of the finer aspects of civilization. Ever seen a Communist movie or work of art? Don't bother, they all suck.

^This has put it very, very nicely. I see we're not in a formal debate here, just an all-round melee of ideas. Oh well.

Arcturus Novus wrote:Communism is, without a doubt, infinitely better than fascism. Fascism is, like, the warm garbage of ideology. Communism is still garbage, admittedly, but it's garbage that's been recycled into useful things.

^This guy gets it. Very well said.

Alyakia wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:Communism too has it's drawbacks. Even in an ideal, utopian scenario, there's the whole issue of essentially suppressing individuality. I mean, you quite literally cannot be an individual in a Communist society, which tends to make life fairly dreary. It has a horrible impact on culture, art and most of the finer aspects of civilization. Ever seen a Communist movie or work of art? Don't bother, they all suck.

oh come on, you've played tetris and you liked it. we all know it. communist music is also pretty great. admittedly socialist realism is often not the most simulating thing in the world.

even in a capitalist society you are still dependent on society for a lot more than you would like to admit. i suppose part of communism is accepting this.

I prefer a balance of the two.

Communism is a bit too much focused on the collective side of things for my liking.

And sure, I liked tetris... when I was five. And Communist music is only good until you learn the language it's being sung in. Then it's just meaningless dribble with some admittedly catchy tunes playing in the background.

Novsvacro wrote:Communism is the most misunderstood term in political economy. Fascism Capitalism is rightfully the most despised term of the 20th Century.

Fixed that for you.

Wine-loving Chimps wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:Both Fascism and Communism are mostly full of shit.

I mean, even theoretically speaking (which is ignoring all real-world drawbacks of implementing either system), they still aren't without serious repercussions.

In Fascism, you pretty much always have a dictator. In fact, you pretty much need to have a dictator for it to be Fascism. As such, no matter how good or likable that dictator may be (even though they're usually complete dicks), you inevitably have to replace them with another dictator, since all humans do eventually die. Even if this new guy is more or less benevolent, he still has to consolidate his power and keep things in order. And there's no guarantee that the following dictators will be any good. It's a lot like medieval European feudalism. Ever played Crusader Kings II with a Gravelkind system of succession? It's a lot like that.

Communism too has it's drawbacks. Even in an ideal, utopian scenario, there's the whole issue of essentially suppressing individuality. I mean, you quite literally cannot be an individual in a Communist society, which tends to make life fairly dreary. It has a horrible impact on culture, art and most of the finer aspects of civilization. Ever seen a Communist movie or work of art? Don't bother, they all suck.

^This has put it very, very nicely. I see we're not in a formal debate here, just an all-round melee of ideas. Oh well.

Cheers my fellow wine-loving pantroglodyte.

Araraukar wrote:

Novsvacro wrote:Communism is the most misunderstood term in political economy. Fascism Capitalism is rightfully the most despised term of the 20th Century.

Fixed that for you.

No, fascism is the one thing worse than modern capitalism.

Alyakia wrote:are you serious? the soviet union went from rural shit hole that every other european power laughed at wishing it could be at the big boys table to industrial superpower rivaling the united states. china seen increases in life expectancy and literacy. as did the soviet union, actually, along with increases in women's rights and medical and scientific breakthroughs. they put a goddamn man in space for fucks sake. yeah, many died, there were some fucks up, there were some famines. but the guys that came before were also fucks up that had plenty of famines, that's why they had revolutions in the first place.

comparatively, hitler and mussolini just got their nations bombed into dust. italy especially was just a massive fuck up, militarily and socially. it was a failed experiment. the trains, in actual fact, did not run on time.

and that's not even touching on the shitstorm that is "were the soviets/china even communist" debate


e: actually, let's think about other fascist nations or at least nations considered fascist. portugal. you mean the place that is still behind everyone else and refused to educate people beyond the level of 5 year olds so they would not get that uppity? yeah, that's pretty much the yellow brick road to prosperity for the poor and disadvantaged right there, eh? chile is held up, rape dogs aside, as an economic miracle. what people don't tell you is that at some point there was a definitive crash followed by sacking everyone and completely changing their economy because it was, to use the technical term, "fucked". and that's ignoring the fact they did not rely on the iron of fascism but the copper of copper exports to keep them afloat. "was franco fascist" debates are just as nasty as "was stalin communist debates". again, the transformation from shit in the 70s to richer but still lagging behind later on is similar to portugal.

That turn around wasn't only seen by The Soviet Union and China. Nazi Germany under Hitler saw a huge turnaround too, from the bottom of the Great Depression to a World Superpower that created man for man the best Army, as well as Mussolini who some visitors even commented "makes even the trains run on time". Might I add, without the millions dead by famine or forced labor.

Italy was not a "total fuck up and shithole". Italy prospered under Mussolini (minus the world wars) if you want to talk about economic shitholes, why not talk about the fall of the Soviet Union? How did that command economy work out huh? What about China embracing capatalism?

You also bring up the fact that the Soviets and Chinese might not really be communists. But assuming that we concur with the statements that the Soviets and Chinese aren't really Communists, than that brings us to another problem. How could communism possibly work if it failed massively these two times? Isn't the Ideoligy inherently flawed when you say that human faults corrupt the Ideoligy? Isn't the fact that this Ideoligy can be destroyed by human corruption and sins a flaw in itself?

Cambodia and Vietnam live in poverty and live in totalitarian regimes, just like China and the Soviet Union. Don't communists condemn and reject this sort of stuff?

Sanctissima wrote:B
I mean, you quite literally cannot be an individual in a Communist society, which tends to make life fairly dreary. It has a horrible impact on culture, art and most of the finer aspects of civilization. Ever seen a Communist movie or work of art? Don't bother, they all suck.

What. This is asinine. Communism doesn't reject individual expression. Where on earth do you get that idea?

As for communist works of art….
http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/art.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motor ... ries_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Reloaded

Besides, not too sure what you mean by that anyway. If you just mean stuff by communists, there's a ton more. But let's face it, overtly political movies/books/etc aren't too interesting anyway, communist, capitalist, or anything in between. It's the things with subtler messages that are much more fun.

I don't think 'Communism' (as has been practiced) and fascism are necessarily opposed - Soviet Union and Maoist China were brutal police states, only Hitler's gestapo compared to USSR's KGB.

Merizoc wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:B
I mean, you quite literally cannot be an individual in a Communist society, which tends to make life fairly dreary. It has a horrible impact on culture, art and most of the finer aspects of civilization. Ever seen a Communist movie or work of art? Don't bother, they all suck.

What. This is asinine. Communism doesn't reject individual expression. Where on earth do you get that idea?

As for communist works of art….
http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/art.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motor ... ries_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Reloaded

Besides, not too sure what you mean by that anyway. If you just mean stuff by communists, there's a ton more. But let's face it, overtly political movies/books/etc aren't too interesting anyway, communist, capitalist, or anything in between. It's the things with subtler messages that are much more fun.

As I said, it's mostly all crap.

And I meant cultural works done inside of a Communist society in general. You've got to admit, most of it is crap. I mean, in what universe is Battleship Potemkin a good movie?

As for individual expression, sure, technically it doesn't set out to destroy it. Then again, the dwindling of individual identity is inevitably a by-product of a Communist society, even if this is unintentional. It's happened in every single Socialist country, so what are the odds of it not happening in a full-blown Communist one?

I'll go with fascism, cause it'll collapse or move to something tolerable sooner.

Sanctissima wrote:

Merizoc wrote:What. This is asinine. Communism doesn't reject individual expression. Where on earth do you get that idea?

As for communist works of art….
http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/art.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motor ... ries_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Reloaded

Besides, not too sure what you mean by that anyway. If you just mean stuff by communists, there's a ton more. But let's face it, overtly political movies/books/etc aren't too interesting anyway, communist, capitalist, or anything in between. It's the things with subtler messages that are much more fun.

As I said, it's mostly all crap.

And I meant cultural works done inside of a Communist society in general. You've got to admit, most of it is crap. I mean, in what universe is Battleship Potemkin a good movie?

As for individual expression, sure, technically it doesn't set out to destroy it. Then again, the dwindling of individual identity is inevitably a by-product of a Communist society, even if this is unintentional. It's happened in every single Socialist country, so what are the odds of it not happening in a full-blown Communist one?

Can you provide evidence for that?