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

[Novowarsawianka]

If Stalin didn't have absolute power, who did?

Nobody. It was a democracy. I don't have time to argue about it though. If you want to know my what I think happened look at the finnish bolsheviks videos or videos from other Marxist-Leninists. About stalin.

Video about the holodomor.

We might as well ask the Nazis to educate us on the Holocaust and how the Poles actually caused WWII by that logic.

[Salandriagado]

Because socialism is an incredibly wide spectrum, much of which has very little in common with the regimes responsible for said atrocities, whereas there is no non-disgusting variety of fascism.

[Sanctissima]

Are you talking about the areas that Mao had specifically controlled? If so, then it isn't much of an accomplishment. The areas that Chiang had controlled was bombarded by the Japanese and at constant war, while Mao and his cronies were hiding in the mountains of Shaanxi.


Building backyard steel furnaces doesn't count as modernisation, even if his intentions were as wholehearted as you can get, the results were lacklustre at best.
Even if his five year plans were in your opinion "successful", it only sounds impressive if you completely ignore the famines caused by the Great Leap Forward, and let's not forget the Cultural Revolution, which halted education for over 10 years, and completely destroyed any sort of progress attained by the Communists.


"only" sounds like you're making it out to be a bad thing, not saying you are, but it certainly sounds like it.

1. No. I'm comparing Mao after the Civil War to Chiang-Kai Shek before or even after the Civil War.
2. Then what does? Pre-Civil War China had produced barely any major industrial good before Mao. RoC leaders were not famous for 'industrializing' and 'modernizing the nation'. Mao actually cared about the economy of the nation, whatever the violence it costed. And it did have effect. Those steel industries you are talking about? Those stimulated the Chinese economy to grow, and other industries to modernize.

Now I don't want to sound like some kind of tyrannical psychopath, but the Great Leap Forward caused between 15-30 million to die, which relative to China's population in 1963 (700 million), is about 4.3% of population, it didn't really matter. The population quickly regrew back to the pre-Great Famine numbers. The Cultural Revolution didn't destroy progress of the communists... What are you talking about? It lasted 5 years. Mao has ruled the PRC for 27 years, there is no way all of that progress would be destroyed.

3. It doesn't sound like it at all. It's just your context.

It's worth noting that those "steel industries" were mostly backyard mini-smelters that produced very poor quality steel and ultimately harmed the Chinese economy far more than it assisted it.

Actually, on that note, Mao is pretty much the pinnacle of political incompetence, in pretty much the entire history of humanity. And I'm not even remotely exaggerating in this regard. For starters, not even Stalin or Hitler are even close to matching the man's kill count (if we combine the death tolls of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolutions, the man succeeded in killing off between 60-100 million of his own people), and to make it even worse, none of his major reforms actually helped the Chinese economy to grow. The Kill a Sparrow Campaign accidentally caused a massive increase in the locust population that severely damaged crop yields, with Mao's policies on grain storage further exacerbating the problem and causing the Great Chinese Famine, wiping out people in the tens of millions, many of which died in the vicinity of fully-stocked grain silos. His policies on Confucianism, Daoism and pretty much everything culturally relevant to the Chinese destroyed millennia of societal development and traditions, eroding the family unit and replacing it with a cold, inflexible Marxist morass of a system that was eventually thrown away by his successors (nevermind all the ancient artifacts and temples his lackeys destroyed during the Cultural Revolution).

Frankly, the only semi-decent thing Mao did for his country was introducing the sweet potato to Chinese agriculture, which somewhat increased crop yields. Otherwise, all of his reforms were literal cancer that nearly destroyed China as a nation, and were eventually gutted by Deng Xiaoping & Friends, who are the ones that actually deserve credit for the modern PRC's success. Mao's just the incompetent failure of a leader who's idolized by Western and Oriental pseudo-intellectuals for fulfilling their wet dreams of turning China red.

[Central Asian Republics]

Now I don't want to sound like some kind of tyrannical psychopath

Posting "it really didn't matter" doesn't help your case at all.

the Great Leap Forward caused between 15-30 million to die, which relative to China's population in 1963 (700 million), is about 4.3% of population

4.3% is still quite a sizeable chunk. You are talking about what is at least a quarter of the UK, or more than the entirety of Taiwan.

The Cultural Revolution didn't destroy progress of the communists... What are you talking about? It lasted 5 years. Mao has ruled the PRC for 27 years, there is no way all of that progress would be destroyed.

It lasted from 1966 to Mao's death in 1976.
Obviously I was being hyperbolic about "all progress", but you cannot ignore that the halt of the education system and the complete chaos that ensued would have had a major impact had it not been for Mao's death and the economic reforms implemented thereafter.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

1. The USSR did not mass murder jews.
2. The USSR was a democratic nation. Video by The Finnish Bolshevik
3. The USSR had high human development.
4. The USSR had more equality of oppertunity than western countries.
5. The USSR was anti-imperialist.

The worst thing about the USSR was the revisionism after stalin died. Market socialism was a mistake.

1. Yes it did, it just mass murdered murdered other groups too.

2. Nothing says you're living in a democratic nation like having your leader have almost every other original 1917 member of your ruling party executed or exiled. "Video by The Finnish Bolshevik" Spicy.

3. I don't care. Nazi Germany probably had a decent HDI as well. It's not measure of a good country.

4. What "opportunity?" The opportunity to labor in the fields?

5. tfw you invade half of Europe to show how anti-imperialist you are.

[Novowarsawianka]

Because socialism is an incredibly wide spectrum, much of which has very little in common with the regimes responsible for said atrocities, whereas there is no non-disgusting variety of fascism.

There are non-racist variants of Fascism. If Mussolini wasn't a sell-out, there would be no racial laws in Italy. His early writing notes that races don't exist, and how he wants strong Africans as part of Italy.
His early xenophobia was aimed at cultures not people. If you were a Croat or Slovene resisting Italianzation, you'd end up in a death camp yes, but if you changed you name to Giovanni and spoke Italian they saw no issue. It is the same as the Communist rhetoric of "submit to our ideology or die". Some Italian Fascist were in fact angered about siding with Hitler, as even Mussolini himself made fun of Hitler and begged the west to go to war with him. But, again, Mussolini is a sell out and opportunist. A republican who backed a monarchy, an atheist who backed the church, a man with a Jewish lover who backed anti-Semitism in the end.

Fascism is, I'd say, a larger spectrum. While all forms of Socialism and Communism stem from basic Marxist teachings, Fascism often stems from the nation's own history and reinvention there of, making for at least one form of it per nation. That said, both are obviously stuck in the past, which is their crucial flaw and undoing.

So yes, you have Fascist variations which are devoid of racism, but also those who'd put race above nation (sadly the latter is more prominent it seems). It leaves a huge space for diversity, just like for Socialism and Communism, you have variations which are utterly bestial and inhuman, while you also have a few which could be at best said to be only lightly problematic. I'd say that Tito's Socialist Yugoslavia and a possible, yet never accomplished, Fascist Italy under Balbo (given that Balbo was against Hitler in every way), are no where near as bad as their respective peers.
Either way, people give up on more than they can gain from these ideologies, as is the flaw of all collectivist ideologies. All collectivist ideologies in the end failed in their promise, and ended horribly, but their end lead to a chance at a better system. For instance, Poland's GDP rose to 500% of what it was in it's last years under Soviet influence, Germany became a respected regional leader without waging any sort of war, and so on.

In conclusion, the modern way of things fulfilled the promises which these ideologies could not. Economic and diplomatic influence replaced the militarism which Fascists used to give importance to their nation, worker rights and happiness is greater than it was ever under those Socialist and Communist states which claimed to have fought for workers.
Ideologies which live on the past (be it the thinking of an old man who lived in the time of the industrial revolution two centuries ago, or the veneration of the nation's past) belong in the past and not our present let alone our future.

[San Marlindo]

It boils down to ideology.

Modern society looks upon most fundamental tenets of fascism as being undesirable: the hyper-militarism, the extremist nationalism, the authoritarian streak.

The tenets of communism and socialism, which espouse various forms of equality, are by contrast regarded as desirable in modern society.

People who don't look at the ideology but at the results of said ideology say communism is as bad as fascism, citing Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, as well as numerous authoritarian forms of communist government in Cuba, Laos, and various former people's republics in Africa. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its results, not its theoretical basis.

People who look at the ideology rather than its implementation - ideologues - say communism is morally superior to fascism, because it is on paper. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its theoretical basis, not by its results.

[Telconi]

It boils down to ideology.

Modern society looks upon most fundamental tenets of fascism as being undesirable: the hyper-militarism, the extremist nationalism, the authoritarian streak.

The tenets of communism and socialism, which espouse various forms of equality, are by contrast regarded as desirable in modern society.

People who don't look at the ideology but at the results of said ideology say communism is as bad as fascism, citing Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, as well as numerous authoritarian forms of communist government in Cuba, Laos, and various former people's republics in Africa. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its results, not its theoretical basis.

People who look at the ideology rather than its implementation - ideologues - say communism is morally superior to fascism, because it is on paper. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its theoretical basis, not by its results.

But can we reasonably ignore results?

[UKCS]

I'd say it's more to do with A) That fascism (or rather a fascist nation) started a World War, and B) The way in which they went about their crimes, and the reason for doing so, was much more horrific.

[San Marlindo]

It boils down to ideology.

Modern society looks upon most fundamental tenets of fascism as being undesirable: the hyper-militarism, the extremist nationalism, the authoritarian streak.

The tenets of communism and socialism, which espouse various forms of equality, are by contrast regarded as desirable in modern society.

People who don't look at the ideology but at the results of said ideology say communism is as bad as fascism, citing Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, as well as numerous authoritarian forms of communist government in Cuba, Laos, and various former people's republics in Africa. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its results, not its theoretical basis.

People who look at the ideology rather than its implementation - ideologues - say communism is morally superior to fascism, because it is on paper. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its theoretical basis, not by its results.

But can we reasonably ignore results?

It's possible to handwave results of any experiment by claiming it wasn't done right.

The communist apologists' equivalent is to maintain that communism resulted in undesirable results all over the world because it just because it wasn't implemented right, or it wasn't even really implemented at all.

[Novowarsawianka]

It boils down to ideology.

Modern society looks upon most fundamental tenets of fascism as being undesirable: the hyper-militarism, the extremist nationalism, the authoritarian streak.

The tenets of communism and socialism, which espouse various forms of equality, are by contrast regarded as desirable in modern society.

People who don't look at the ideology but at the results of said ideology say communism is as bad as fascism, citing Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, as well as numerous authoritarian forms of communist government in Cuba, Laos, and various former people's republics in Africa. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its results, not its theoretical basis.

People who look at the ideology rather than its implementation - ideologues - say communism is morally superior to fascism, because it is on paper. From their perspective, they judge the ideology by its theoretical basis, not by its results.

I do not see the moral superiority in theft though, nor in violent, undemocratic revolutions, even on paper. On paper, Fascism was meant to be just about the nationality, not about race or so. That means, on paper, both want to just kill you for not submitting to them.

But theory is nothing without the real implementation. In practice, both these ideologies have failed and lead to great ill. Though, even on paper they do not sound any less bad.

But can we reasonably ignore results?

It's possible to handwave results of any experiment by claiming it wasn't done right.

The communist apologists' equivalent is to maintain that communism resulted in undesirable results all over the world because it just because it wasn't implemented right, or it wasn't even really implemented at all.

A government system tried everywhere, at different times, under different circumstances, with different people, yet, it was the same result. Yet someone is bold enough to claim that the next try will be right one? What lunacy.

[Liriena]

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.

[Auze]

I've struggled to understand this myself and my best guess is something to do with history being written by the victors.

The Soviets helped us win World War II, therefore history will record them as being "the good guys" and totally gloss over the fact that Stalin killed far more people than Hitler did.

As for Mao, I suspect that realpolitik and the fact that he became considerably more friendly to the west after the Sino-Soviet split is a huge factor in why his crimes have disappeared from our understanding of history (despite the fact that he is actually the single biggest mass murderer in history).

Every history book for schools I've read says communism is synonymous with dictatorship

[Len Hyet]

40 years of Soviet agitprop that has continued to show its effects long after the fall of the USSR

[Liriena]

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.

Broadly speaking, the crimes of fascism were not simply the incidental means to an end, but ends in and of themselves. They were fundamental necessities of the ideology. Fascism can hardly be fascism without its extreme militarism, ultranationalism and totalitarianism. The crimes of socialism, on the other hand, are not written into the foundations of the ideology. Tyranny and mass murder are not fundamental necessities of socialism. You don't necessarily have to install a Stalinist regime to achieve socialism (or so many socialists believe). Socialist dictatorships are often framed as the means to an end, not an end in and of itself, and for every socialist who sees dictatorship as the means to achieving socialism, you have a socialist who sees democracy as the means to achieving socialism.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Because at least some parts of Socialism/Communism work.

Free healthcare, welfare, ect.

China, Cuba, the Socialist aspects of the nordics countries, ect.

It works and is stable enough.

Nazism is an ideology of failure. It never works.

[Salandriagado]

Because socialism is an incredibly wide spectrum, much of which has very little in common with the regimes responsible for said atrocities, whereas there is no non-disgusting variety of fascism.

There are non-racist variants of Fascism. If Mussolini wasn't a sell-out, there would be no racial laws in Italy. His early writing notes that races don't exist, and how he wants strong Africans as part of Italy.
His early xenophobia was aimed at cultures not people. If you were a Croat or Slovene resisting Italianzation, you'd end up in a death camp yes, but if you changed you name to Giovanni and spoke Italian they saw no issue. It is the same as the Communist rhetoric of "submit to our ideology or die". Some Italian Fascist were in fact angered about siding with Hitler, as even Mussolini himself made fun of Hitler and begged the west to go to war with him. But, again, Mussolini is a sell out and opportunist. A republican who backed a monarchy, an atheist who backed the church, a man with a Jewish lover who backed anti-Semitism in the end.

Fascism is, I'd say, a larger spectrum. While all forms of Socialism and Communism stem from basic Marxist teachings, Fascism often stems from the nation's own history and reinvention there of, making for at least one form of it per nation. That said, both are obviously stuck in the past, which is their crucial flaw and undoing.

So yes, you have Fascist variations which are devoid of racism, but also those who'd put race above nation (sadly the latter is more prominent it seems). It leaves a huge space for diversity, just like for Socialism and Communism, you have variations which are utterly bestial and inhuman, while you also have a few which could be at best said to be only lightly problematic. I'd say that Tito's Socialist Yugoslavia and a possible, yet never accomplished, Fascist Italy under Balbo (given that Balbo was against Hitler in every way), are no where near as bad as their respective peers.
Either way, people give up on more than they can gain from these ideologies, as is the flaw of all collectivist ideologies. All collectivist ideologies in the end failed in their promise, and ended horribly, but their end lead to a chance at a better system. For instance, Poland's GDP rose to 500% of what it was in it's last years under Soviet influence, Germany became a respected regional leader without waging any sort of war, and so on.

In conclusion, the modern way of things fulfilled the promises which these ideologies could not. Economic and diplomatic influence replaced the militarism which Fascists used to give importance to their nation, worker rights and happiness is greater than it was ever under those Socialist and Communist states which claimed to have fought for workers.
Ideologies which live on the past (be it the thinking of an old man who lived in the time of the industrial revolution two centuries ago, or the veneration of the nation's past) belong in the past and not our present let alone our future.

Racism is not the fundamental shittiness of fascism.

[Liriena]

There are non-racist variants of Fascism. If Mussolini wasn't a sell-out, there would be no racial laws in Italy. His early writing notes that races don't exist, and how he wants strong Africans as part of Italy.
His early xenophobia was aimed at cultures not people. If you were a Croat or Slovene resisting Italianzation, you'd end up in a death camp yes, but if you changed you name to Giovanni and spoke Italian they saw no issue. It is the same as the Communist rhetoric of "submit to our ideology or die". Some Italian Fascist were in fact angered about siding with Hitler, as even Mussolini himself made fun of Hitler and begged the west to go to war with him. But, again, Mussolini is a sell out and opportunist. A republican who backed a monarchy, an atheist who backed the church, a man with a Jewish lover who backed anti-Semitism in the end.

Fascism is, I'd say, a larger spectrum. While all forms of Socialism and Communism stem from basic Marxist teachings, Fascism often stems from the nation's own history and reinvention there of, making for at least one form of it per nation. That said, both are obviously stuck in the past, which is their crucial flaw and undoing.

So yes, you have Fascist variations which are devoid of racism, but also those who'd put race above nation (sadly the latter is more prominent it seems). It leaves a huge space for diversity, just like for Socialism and Communism, you have variations which are utterly bestial and inhuman, while you also have a few which could be at best said to be only lightly problematic. I'd say that Tito's Socialist Yugoslavia and a possible, yet never accomplished, Fascist Italy under Balbo (given that Balbo was against Hitler in every way), are no where near as bad as their respective peers.
Either way, people give up on more than they can gain from these ideologies, as is the flaw of all collectivist ideologies. All collectivist ideologies in the end failed in their promise, and ended horribly, but their end lead to a chance at a better system. For instance, Poland's GDP rose to 500% of what it was in it's last years under Soviet influence, Germany became a respected regional leader without waging any sort of war, and so on.

In conclusion, the modern way of things fulfilled the promises which these ideologies could not. Economic and diplomatic influence replaced the militarism which Fascists used to give importance to their nation, worker rights and happiness is greater than it was ever under those Socialist and Communist states which claimed to have fought for workers.
Ideologies which live on the past (be it the thinking of an old man who lived in the time of the industrial revolution two centuries ago, or the veneration of the nation's past) belong in the past and not our present let alone our future.

Racism is not the fundamental shittiness of fascism.

Yeah. I mean, the racism sucks, but fascism is garbage even without it simply by being totalitarian.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because communism didn't start a war that killed 70 million people.

[Telconi]

Racism is not the fundamental shittiness of fascism.

Yeah. I mean, the racism sucks, but fascism is garbage even without it simply by being totalitarian.

But socialism isn't because...?

[Liriena]

Yeah. I mean, the racism sucks, but fascism is garbage even without it simply by being totalitarian.

But socialism isn't because...?

As I explained above, totalitarianism isn't built into the foundations of socialism. Which is why, for every unironic Stalinist unironically advocating for gulag-ing everyone in sight, you have a democratic socialist who at least wants the majority's consent and democratically earned legitimacy before going FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM.

[Shikihara]

Probably because socialism has a pretty decent philosophical backing,

Not really, at least no more than capitalism, feudalism, or any other economic system. If you mean ideologically, both Fascism and Marxism have their roots in the same Neo-Hegelian trend of the 19th century, and the former was inspired by the philosophical theories of French Marxist Georges Sorel. Some political scientists have even argued that Fascism was a form of "heretical Marxism."

some success stories,

Please be joking.

and doesn't necessarily entail the sort of horrifying tyranny that is one of the core features of fascism?

Maybe some forms of democratic socialism, but most Communists and anarchists make clear they don't believe in parliamentary reform and are in favor of violent revolution.

[Novowarsawianka]

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?

Because communism didn't start a war that killed 70 million people.

No, it just helped the guys that started it until they attacked them too. The USSR invaded Poland together with Germany and was sending them resources for their war in the West.

Communism indeed didn't start a war, but the loss of life due to communism is well over 70 million.

Because at least some parts of Socialism/Communism work.

Free healthcare, welfare, ect.

China, Cuba, the Socialist aspects of the nordics countries, ect.

It works and is stable enough.

Nazism is an ideology of failure. It never works.

There is no such thing as "free" healthcare, it is just paid by taxes. Cube is an under-developed hellhole, the average person in China lives in misery. As for Nordic countries, they are still fully capitalist. In fact, Norway was considering to privatize even more of it's own economy. That they put their tax revenues into such things is another thing. The Nordic countries have small populations, no real need for a military force, and Norway for instance is rich in oil.

China, before it accepted the open market, was a third world country. Venezuela is far more rich naturally than Norway, in fact, Norway was once quite an impoverished nation, they both claim to cater to the social needs of their people, yet one is a country with a high living standard while one is absurdly poor. The key difference? Capitalism.

Nazism is an ideology of failure, as are all collectivist ideologies.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Depends on whom you ask. That may certainly be the case in Western Europe or the States, but ask just about any person from the Baltics or Ukraine, and you'll be surprised that Nazis will usually be looked upon rather favourably when compared to Communists. It all boils down to which side visited more destruction and misery in the respective region, and in much of the Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe, it's pretty much a no-brainer (hint - it's not the Nazis).

[Reutoa]

Because communism didn't start a war that killed 70 million people.

You should read the Black Book of Communism then.