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

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.

In what way? If anything, I thought fascism was a reaction against socialism.

[Internationalist Bastard]

not really, if the soviets had kicked off WW2(hell, they had there own plans and were also responsible for dividing Poland) it would have been the other way around.

People just want to hear what they want to hear...

A very interesting line of thought. Would let's say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is never signed, would the Axis at this point in time defend Poland?

The Allies wouldn't have (See secret clause in the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty).

I imagine that without the treaty the stopping of communism was more important

[Uxupox]

FDR wanted to go to war with Japan and Germany both. He had laid out a coordinated strategy with Churchill on the matter, he had already authorized naval warfare against Germany in the Atlantic. The one and only thing hindering him from fully entering the war was the non-interventionist sentiment in the American populace and government, which pretty much disappeared in one night after Pearl Harbor.
I don't see why and how FDR would have gone to war with Japan but shied away from confronting Germany.

Because he had no legal basis for it since it wasn't dejure act. Not to mention the war powers of 1941 might not have even passed if confrontation was limited to Japan and not the whole entire axis.

[Kash Island]

not really, if the soviets had kicked off WW2(hell, they had there own plans and were also responsible for dividing Poland) it would have been the other way around.

People just want to hear what they want to hear...

A very interesting line of thought. Would let's say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is never signed, would the Axis at this point in time defend Poland?

The Allies wouldn't have (See secret clause in the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty).

it's speculation, but I don't think so, however if the soviets had kept going west then I believe you would have the same situation except it would be Axis/Allies vs Soviets

again, the "hate" of Fascism in America is vastly overblown, the west wasn't that critical of it, they were critical of Germany and National Socialism.

Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.

[Kash Island]

Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.

In what way? If anything, I thought fascism was a reaction against socialism.

as Third Position it incorporates elements of left-right

it was supposed to be a "new order"

[Celestini]

Probably because socialism has a pretty decent philosophical backing, some success stories, and doesn't necessarily entail the sort of horrifying tyranny that is one of the core features of fascism? Contemporary socialists who unironically, actively support and advocate for totalitarianism and gross human rights violations are rare. The same cannot be said for fascists.

The horrors of fascism are a core feature, not a bug. The horrors of some socialist movements and regimes, on the other hand, could be argued to be historical specificities founded on a very particular school of socialist thought, rather than the core of all socialism. Maoism and Stalinism are not synonymous with all socialism ever; they represent their own varieties of socialism, and have little to do with variants like Luxemburguism and democratic socialism.

Decent philosophical backing? It is insanity to believe that we are all equal or that we should all be given according to our need. It is insanity to want to abolish money, which has been and always will be the best way to trade goods.

The core ideals of socialism are based on theft. How can you view any ideology which, in all aspects, is based on stealing people's property? You worked hard to build your company, but some lowlife suddenly comes to steal it away from you because he thinks all capitalists are that guy from the box of Monopoly?

Economics is where fascism and communism/socialism get interesting. You can really see their similarities, but the ideological reasoning backing the motivations is different. I don't agree that when Marx wrote about socialism he had theft in mind, he more likely had the thought, "sharing is caring."

The core of socialist (/communist, whatever) economics is not theft but unity, as Marx originally wrote it. He wanted to achieve a 'utopian' society by having people live in peace, which meant sharing with each other. When people give up their their share, they allow a distribution of wealth and promote equality around them. Modern communism has taken this idea and used it as a reason for why the government should have control over privatized industry, because who else is trustworthy enough to make sure that the wealth is distributed evenly? *note the sarcasm

Fascism is on a similar wavelength. They favored a little bit of capitalism (but Europeans have the tendency to kill anyone who wouldn't give them a good price on bread), so they opted for a corporate collaboration. On paper, private industries was separate from the government, but, in reality, the state held control over private industries. They dictated what was to be sold and what wasn't needed to glorify the nation (ie. if the state had a higher demand for purple shirts, all clothing companies would produce a higher supply of purple shirts). Everything is about the glory and honor of the nation.

The issue is that fascism does have one major bug, just as socialism does. Socialists expect their participants to be willing to give up some their little wealth to help other people when human beings aren't hardwired to be like that. We're selfish creatures and when we gain a little bit of power we're unwilling to give that up. This can be noted in Stalin (who was supposed to be the guiding hand of sorts after Lenin's death) who, instead of attempting to implement a true communist nation per his predecessor's wishes, decided to become a dictator.

Fascism's bug is that people are expected to be less than others. In any capitalist nation this is also a true statement, but, unlike capitalism, fascism doesn't allow growth. There is a hierarchy and you're expected to live all your days in the bracket that you were born in. If you were poor, you stay poor, and if you are wealthy, you stay wealthy. This wouldn't necessarily be that big of an issue, studies have shown that people are happier when they're poorer rather than wealthier, if you didn't combine this system of government with a racist ideology. When you do, well, I think we all know the results...

However, the question isn't about that, it's about perception. It's not about which one is better, or which one caused the least number of deaths.

This is all from an American point of view, so bare (bear? sp) with me:

When one hears the word communism, one instantly associates the word dictatorship with it. We remember the Cuban missile crisis, the Iron Wall, the flooding into Eastern Europe. All bad things.

With fascism, the word that comes to mind is Hitler, and, of course, his name drudges up loads of bad association. Do I even need to discuss it?

Socialism is the one that gets the most slack. We think of Europe and how successful they are with 'free' healthcare, a stable welfare system, and their education system is brilliant.

I think you're arguing this as a person who has a thorough understanding of both communism and fascism but not as an everyday Joe, you know? Most people think only about what they remembered from their History class, and, if they didn't take an advance course, their knowledge may be lacking. Plus humans always play the word association game, and, with Americans, it's definitely drilled into our heads that communism is bad, fascism is bad, and socialism is a'ight.

[War Gears]

Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.

In what way? If anything, I thought fascism was a reaction against socialism.

Fascism was born out of socialism, being a form of national syndicalism.

[Internationalist Bastard]

A very interesting line of thought. Would let's say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is never signed, would the Axis at this point in time defend Poland?

The Allies wouldn't have (See secret clause in the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty).

it's speculation, but I don't think so, however if the soviets had kept going west then I believe you would have the same situation except it would be Axis/Allies vs Soviets

again, the "hate" of Fascism in America is vastly overblown, the west wasn't that critical of it, they were critical of Germany and National Socialism.

Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.

Yeah, we're still debating on if there was nearly a fascist coup against FDR

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

In what way? If anything, I thought fascism was a reaction against socialism.

as Third Position it incorporates elements of left-right

it was supposed to be a "new order"

In a way, it is revolutionary like socialism. They are both rallying against the same status quo, but look at it from a different angle and for a different purpose.

[Kash Island]

as Third Position it incorporates elements of left-right

it was supposed to be a "new order"

In a way, it is revolutionary like socialism. They are both rallying against the same status quo, but look at it from a different angle and for a different purpose.

essentially yes, both revolutionary ideas of a future, one born out of class struggle, the other out of the horrors of ww1.

[War Gears]

Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.

I would say that Mussolini was seen a lot like Putin is today. People had no desire to emulate his political system but he still evoked awe for his personality and achievements.

You’re the top!
You’re a Coolidge dollar.
You’re the nimble tread
Of the feet of Fred Astaire,
You’re Mussolini,
You’re Mrs. Sweeney.

[Genivaria]

it's speculation, but I don't think so, however if the soviets had kept going west then I believe you would have the same situation except it would be Axis/Allies vs Soviets

again, the "hate" of Fascism in America is vastly overblown, the west wasn't that critical of it, they were critical of Germany and National Socialism.

Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.

Yeah, we're still debating on if there was nearly a fascist coup against FDR

Are you referring to the Business Plot?

[Kash Island]

Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.

I would say that Mussolini was seen a lot like Putin is today. People had no desire to emulate his political system but he still evoked awe for his personality and achievements.

You’re the top!
You’re a Coolidge dollar.
You’re the nimble tread
Of the feet of Fred Astaire,
You’re Mussolini,
You’re Mrs. Sweeney.

Mussolini was popular however, only when things started going badly in the war, tension with the royalists, among other things caused his "unpopularity".

He still did many great works for italy, whether people want to admit it or not.

as for those claiming italian fascism was racist, no more racist than many other powers of that day, including the United States. Racism was pretty much everywhere at that time, in all areas of life.

as for anti-semitism, there were more than a few Jewish Fascists, though when Hitler began to exert his influence(which is blindingly obvious) this changed.

[Genivaria]

In a way, it is revolutionary like socialism. They are both rallying against the same status quo, but look at it from a different angle and for a different purpose.

essentially yes, both revolutionary ideas of a future, one born out of class struggle, the other out of the horrors of ww1.

More like the revanchism and dissolution of the old order I reckon, the 'horrors' of the Great War I'd think contributed to anti-war sentiment.

[Ceannairceach]

Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.

Only if you don't know what words mean.

[War Gears]

Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.

Only if you don't know what words mean.

Nope, I'm pretty aware of what it means.

[Ceannairceach]

Only if you don't know what words mean.

Nope, I'm pretty aware of what it means.

Then you should hopefully be aware that fascism, as an ideology, though historically tied to a "socialist" movement, if you can even call national syndicalism that, is not socialist itself.

[Genivaria]

Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.

Only if you don't know what words mean.

Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.

All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.

[Ceannairceach]

Only if you don't know what words mean.

Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.

All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.

And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.

[Kash Island]

Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.

All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.

And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic standpoint.

the soviet union under Stalin was immensely nationalist and also socialist

nationalism itself is not left or right wing

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.

All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.

And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.

I take it you don't see eye to eye with Uncle Joe's socialism in one country shtick.

Why can't socialism be nationalistic as well as internationalist?

[Ceannairceach]

And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic standpoint.

the soviet union under Stalin was immensely nationalist and also socialist

nationalism itself is not left or right wing

Marxist-Leninism and its bizarre "socialism in one country" theory is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself, and I'd argue that it doesn't quite fit the bill of nationalism.

Also, nationalism is DECIDEDLY right wing.

[Ceannairceach]

And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.

I take it you don't see eye to eye with Uncle Joe's socialism in one country shtick.

Why can't socialism be nationalistic as well as internationalist?

Because the two are contradictory. You are focus on the development of the nation, or focus on the development of the international movement. The two are not able to be reconciled.

[Kash Island]

the soviet union under Stalin was immensely nationalist and also socialist

nationalism itself is not left or right wing

Marxist-Leninism and its bizarre "socialism in one country" theory is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself, and I'd argue that it doesn't quite fit the bill of nationalism.

meh, agree to disagree.

[Genivaria]

Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.

All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.

And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.

I disagree.

Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralised; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of—and critical of—unions; and present in both industrialised and developing countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism