Why isn't Socialism/Communism as frowned upon as Fascism?

[Claorica]

The only way you will ever stomp out every Nazi is by wiping them out. That's how the Commies did it, that's how pretty much every other far-left regime did it.

I dunno, Germany managed to do it quite well without killing people.

Using methods that in the US are unconstitutional (aka: throwing everyone who does even the slightest thing offensive in jail while not doing the same to commies)

[Washington Resistance Army]

The only way you will ever stomp out every Nazi is by wiping them out. That's how the Commies did it, that's how pretty much every other far-left regime did it.

I dunno, Germany managed to do it quite well without killing people.

It kinda took a really big war, a military occupation, forcing them at gunpoint to drop their ideas and then making it unconstitutional for them to espouse said ideas. Yet despite all of that Neo-Nazis still exist in Germany.

[Vassenor]

I dunno, Germany managed to do it quite well without killing people.

Using methods that in the US are unconstitutional (aka: throwing everyone who does even the slightest thing offensive in jail while not doing the same to commies)

I look forward to the day people remember the First Amendment is about preventing the government from banning criticism of itself, not enshrining people's rights to be racist trashbags.

[Kavagrad]

When libertarian socialists start advocating or carrying out the killing of entire racial groups, you'll have a valid point.

You're advocating the killing of entire ideological groups and nationalities, what is your point?

Show me where, in my comment about stamping out an ideology, I specifically advocate the killing of the people belong to those ideologies, or of any particular nationality. I'll wait.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Short answer? Because history is written by the winners. We fought a war against fascism, but we didn't really fight one against Communism (unless you count Vietnam, but as a nation, we try to forget our only real outright defeat).

Long answer? Well, that might have something to do with the fact that communism is well-intentioned, while fascism is not. Because of communism's claim that everyone will be equal and you will no longer have to work your entire life to get barely enough food to feed yourself, people tend to like it, tending to forget that the reality is usually closer to "work your entire life to get not enough food to feed yourself". Besides that, fascism is, by definition, an oppressive, militaristic dictatorship, while communism could theoretically be accomplished without that and socialism is just whenever the state does something, road construction and maintenance being the best example. This has led to the argument that "that wasn't REAL communism!", which is technically correct (there's an important distinction between communism, socialism, and Stalinism), but forgets that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if you give one man the power to redistribute wealth as he sees fit, he will tend to redistribute it into his own pocket. This gives communism popular support, even if they don't realize it, because every communist either believes that someone else is incorruptible enough to believe in them, or believes that they themselves are incorruptible. Or they're just a Stalinist. (I don't normally support the death penalty, but if someone proposed a plan that would send all the Stalinists to gulags, they might just win my vote.)

[Claorica]

You're advocating the killing of entire ideological groups and nationalities, what is your point?

Show me where, in my comment about stamping out an ideology, I specifically advocate the killing of the people belong to those ideologies, or of any particular nationality. I'll wait.

In a nation where free speech - especially political speech of any kind (See: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie)- is protected, how else would you silence them beyond doing the same work of your violent buddies in Antifa are doing (which will only lead to violence between the extremes) and/or killing them.

[Vassenor]

Show me where, in my comment about stamping out an ideology, I specifically advocate the killing of the people belong to those ideologies, or of any particular nationality. I'll wait.

In a nation where free speech - especially political speech of any kind (See: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie)- is protected, how else would you silence them beyond doing the same work of your violent buddies in Antifa are doing (which will only lead to violence between the extremes) and/or killing them.

Doesn't First Amendment protections only cover what the Government can do to you?

[Claorica]

In a nation where free speech - especially political speech of any kind (See: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie)- is protected, how else would you silence them beyond doing the same work of your violent buddies in Antifa are doing (which will only lead to violence between the extremes) and/or killing them.

Doesn't First Amendment protections only cover what the Government can do to you?

It also requires the Government ensure that you can speak without having your rights violated by others (via violence, intimidation, etc. etc.) because if other people are beating you within an inch of your life for exercising your rights, you don't really have those rights.

[Vassenor]

Doesn't First Amendment protections only cover what the Government can do to you?

It also requires the Government ensure that you can speak without having your rights violated by others (via violence, intimidation, etc. etc.) because if other people are beating you within an inch of your life for exercising your rights, you don't really have those rights.

[citation needed]

Because if that were true, "fighting words" wouldn't be a defence against an assault charge.

[Kavagrad]

Show me where, in my comment about stamping out an ideology, I specifically advocate the killing of the people belong to those ideologies, or of any particular nationality. I'll wait.

In a nation where free speech - especially political speech of any kind (See: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie)- is protected, how else would you silence them beyond doing the same work of your violent buddies in Antifa are doing (which will only lead to violence between the extremes) and/or killing them.

Firstly, you appear to ignore the fact that laws can be changed. Secondly, your attempt to imply that I'm sympathetic to political violence is pathetic, considering that I haven't actually said anything of the sort.

[Washington Resistance Army]

In a nation where free speech - especially political speech of any kind (See: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie)- is protected, how else would you silence them beyond doing the same work of your violent buddies in Antifa are doing (which will only lead to violence between the extremes) and/or killing them.

Firstly, you appear to ignore the fact that laws can be changed. Secondly, your attempt to imply that I'm sympathetic to political violence is pathetic, considering that I haven't actually said anything of the sort.

That's one thing that will never, ever, ever change.

[Salandriagado]

Doesn't First Amendment protections only cover what the Government can do to you?

It also requires the Government ensure that you can speak without having your rights violated by others (via violence, intimidation, etc. etc.) because if other people are beating you within an inch of your life for exercising your rights, you don't really have those rights.

No it doesn't. The first amendment requires nothing of the sort. There are separate laws against such violence, but they are nothing to do with the first amendment.

[Claorica]

In a nation where free speech - especially political speech of any kind (See: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie)- is protected, how else would you silence them beyond doing the same work of your violent buddies in Antifa are doing (which will only lead to violence between the extremes) and/or killing them.

Firstly, you appear to ignore the fact that laws can be changed. Secondly, your attempt to imply that I'm sympathetic to political violence is pathetic, considering that I haven't actually said anything of the sort.

Yeah, I doubt you will repeal the 1st Amendment. ever. It's as sacred to the American mythos as the 2nd, and as immutable as far as the states are concerned as their equal suffrage in the senate.

Secondly, you are literally using the same terminology (stomp them out) as antifa, and they are not peaceful.

[Kavagrad]

Yeah, I doubt you will repeal the 1st Amendment. ever. It's as sacred to the American mythos as the 2nd, and as immutable as far as the states are concerned as their equal suffrage in the senate.

Something being very difficult to achieve doesn't mean it can't be supported, this shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

Secondly, you are literally using the same terminology (stomp them out) as antifa, and they are not peaceful.

Still not sure how that proves anything about my personal beliefs on political violence.

If you want to know those beliefs, go look in my sig. It's been there this entire time, this discussion wasn't actually necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to know my beliefs better than I do?

[Claorica]

Yeah, I doubt you will repeal the 1st Amendment. ever. It's as sacred to the American mythos as the 2nd, and as immutable as far as the states are concerned as their equal suffrage in the senate.

Something being very difficult to achieve doesn't mean it can't be supported, this shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

But this is very clearly something that shouldn't be supported.

Otherwise my folk'll use it to silence your folk as well.

[Claorica]

Yeah, I doubt you will repeal the 1st Amendment. ever. It's as sacred to the American mythos as the 2nd, and as immutable as far as the states are concerned as their equal suffrage in the senate.

Something being very difficult to achieve doesn't mean it can't be supported, this shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

But this is very clearly something that shouldn't be supported.

Otherwise my folk'll use it to silence your folk as well.

[Kavagrad]

Something being very difficult to achieve doesn't mean it can't be supported, this shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

But this is very clearly something that shouldn't be supported.

Otherwise my folk'll use it to silence your folk as well.

Similar laws can be put in place that protect free speech, except in the case of inciting violence again racial groups. Make that grounds for an Aarhus Model-style of rehabilitation.

[Claorica]

But this is very clearly something that shouldn't be supported.

Otherwise my folk'll use it to silence your folk as well.

Similar laws can be put in place that protect free speech, except in the case of inciting violence again racial groups. Make that grounds for an Aarhus Model-style of rehabilitation.

Inciting violence is already not covered.

"I think we should kill the jews" is not inciting violence, nor is "I believe we should lynch-" blacks/whites/asians/hispanics etc. etc. etc..

Unless you have people that are rearing to engage in violence, weapons in hand, then it is not the incitement of violence.

[Kavagrad]

Similar laws can be put in place that protect free speech, except in the case of inciting violence again racial groups. Make that grounds for an Aarhus Model-style of rehabilitation.

Inciting violence is already not covered.

"I think we should kill the jews" is not inciting violence, nor is "I believe we should lynch-" blacks/whites/asians/hispanics etc. etc. etc..

Unless you have people that are rearing to engage in violence, weapons in hand, then it is not the incitement of violence.

I disagree with your definition, sadly. Stating in seriousness that you would support such killing is akin to endorsing it, which as far as I'm concerned, is more than enough to require immediate rehabilitation.

[Trumptonium]

The only way you will ever stomp out every Nazi is by wiping them out. That's how the Commies did it, that's how pretty much every other far-left regime did it.

I dunno, Germany managed to do it quite well without killing people.

"Wiping out every Nazi" is quite a comment to use on modern Germany given that they still had 1.1 million people who voted for the Nazis in 2013, 1.5 million in 2009, 1.6 million in 2005 and are the only European country to have an openly avowedly Nazi member as an MEP. Oh, and since you're far left, you probably consider AfD tyrannical fascists too, in which case, 6 million Nazis or circa 15% of society.

[Community Values]

Inciting violence is already not covered.

"I think we should kill the jews" is not inciting violence, nor is "I believe we should lynch-" blacks/whites/asians/hispanics etc. etc. etc..

Unless you have people that are rearing to engage in violence, weapons in hand, then it is not the incitement of violence.

I disagree with your definition, sadly. Stating in seriousness that you would support such killing is akin to endorsing it, which as far as I'm concerned, is more than enough to require immediate rehabilitation.

And endorsing it isn't against the law, nor should it be. If you believe that endorsing violence is enough to be "rehabilitated", then we better start throwing a lot of people in jail.

[Community Values]

rare double-post

[Radoslavnny]

The reason why communism isn't as hated as Nazism is because that statement is a complete lie. Communism is by far more hated than fascism ever has been. All of our lessons on communism in American schools are about how bad it was under the Soviet Union and China. All anybody ever talks about now is how likely it is for North Korea to nuke us. So no, fascism is not as hated as communism. BTW, the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea are not communist and never were; anybody who has ever read "Critique of the Gotha Programme" by Karl Marx will be able to tell you that. Communism is about freeing the working class, not replacing it's oppression from capitalist industry to state industry.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I dunno, Germany managed to do it quite well without killing people.

"Wiping out every Nazi" is quite a comment to use on modern Germany given that they still had 1.1 million people who voted for the Nazis in 2013, 1.5 million in 2009, 1.6 million in 2005 and are the only European country to have an openly avowedly Nazi member as an MEP. Oh, and since you're far left, you probably consider AfD tyrannical fascists too, in which case, 6 million Nazis or circa 15% of society.

AfD has a very high anti-immigrant and I think anti-Islam stance, maybe even racist so yes, personally, I oppose them.
Also, Fascism, Nazism and any other kind of oppressive semi-racist ideology should be stamped out.

[Kavagrad]

I disagree with your definition, sadly. Stating in seriousness that you would support such killing is akin to endorsing it, which as far as I'm concerned, is more than enough to require immediate rehabilitation.

And endorsing it isn't against the law, nor should it be. If you believe that endorsing violence is enough to be "rehabilitated", then we better start throwing a lot of people in jail.

A nice misrepresentation of what I mean by rehabilitation. Look up through the chain, you'll see that I advocated for a program similar to the Aarhus Model.