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

[Verlzonia]

Well, not necessarily elected but he got into power through democratic means.

What part of that sounds like "democratic means" to you?

By "democratic means" he means that through the democratic institution's power and luck.

[Uxupox]

Fascism we know is a threat to society, many branches of Fascism do not try to hide it, and are generally frowned upon. The lack of education on the ills of Socialism though leads to it being seen as "not so bad". If you want, we can try to evade the USSR as an example, we can use Pot, Chavez, Castro, Kim, and so many others as examples of failure and bringers of ill in the name of Socialism.

"Democratic socialism"? I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote. And it is an oxymoron, at least it should be. Who openly votes for their economic rights to be taken away?

Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.

Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.

I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.

[Escocaria]

What part of that sounds like "democratic means" to you?

By "democratic means" he means that through the democratic institution's power and luck.

This.

[Novowarsawianka]

Fascism we know is a threat to society, many branches of Fascism do not try to hide it, and are generally frowned upon. The lack of education on the ills of Socialism though leads to it being seen as "not so bad". If you want, we can try to evade the USSR as an example, we can use Pot, Chavez, Castro, Kim, and so many others as examples of failure and bringers of ill in the name of Socialism.

"Democratic socialism"? I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote. And it is an oxymoron, at least it should be. Who openly votes for their economic rights to be taken away?

Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.

Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.

What socialist president was elected in France? What socialism in the East are you talking about, do say?

[Changjo]

I think you need to catch up on your history. Most of the land occupied by Nazi Germany was never even close to being a part of the German Empire

Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'and' which typically means there is an addition. The part where I said 'Take over Slavic Europe in order to secure the future of the German people' can be shortened down to 'Lebenschraum' if you want.

Yes that is usually where 'and' is used. But still doesn't change the content of your sentence which is incorrect regardless of whether you use 'and, or' or anything else. The word and in your sentence describes taking over the Slavlic countries in addition to taking over territories of the German Empire not Slavic Countries which were part of the German Empire which still wouldn't be correct.

Norway, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece etc were occupied by Nazi Germany and are not Slavic countries. Parts of France were once part of the German Empire but were annexed by Germany and never theirs to begin with. The majority of the Slavic countries were also never a part of the German Empire or never theirs to begin with. Generally they all were part the Austro-Hungarian Empire,the Polish-Lithuanian Empire or the Ottoman Empire following which they were independent in their own right and again annexed by German Empire.

[The Transhuman Union]

Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.

Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.

I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.

Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"Democratic socialism"? I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote. And it is an oxymoron, at least it should be. Who openly votes for their economic rights to be taken away?

You'd be surprised what stupid things some people will do when you word it correctly.

You have free healthcare because people in the forties did the "stupid" thing of voting for Attlee's Labour.

[Forsher]

[What happened to the people who got in the way of the British Empire conquering India?

Their company was dissolved and their holdings nationalised. The British Empire didn't conquer India... a company did, with said state's support.

Indeed, in many cases the metropole proved itself quite useless at reigning in the abuses of colonial governments, armies and agents... and arguably even worse at not being manipulated by them. I know it's not popular these days but "fit of absence of mind" has always struck me as having a ring of truth about it. The pattern of colony-centred crimes, though, certainly suggests systemic and systematic failings to address "managerial" issues so it's entirely fair to lay the blame for, say, the abuses of the Raj on the Empire's door even if you buy into my distancing of territorial acquisition from London.

[Uxupox]

I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.

Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.

So just an opinion and no real data to base off that comment?

[Esternial]

I see both communism and fascism as equally frowned upon.

In high school, we were shown how horrible both fascism and communism can be. Though Belgium was never steamrolled or occupied by commies, so fascism hits a bit closer to home. Makes sense that some people here would see fascism as worse.

[The Transhuman Union]

Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.

So just an opinion and no real data to base off that comment?

Are you completely missing the point or something?
Look at any Eastern country in the 19th century before they became socialist (or even communist). The evidence is right there.

[Verlzonia]

I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.

Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.

Economy is only one side of the coin, friend. Both China & Russia were having a rough time before their socialist revolutions. In China's case the revolution did next to nothing better until Deng Xiaoping started reforming the economy into capitalism. Russia much the same until Yeltsin. Both nations still have a long way still though.

[The Transhuman Union]

Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.

Economy is only one side of the coin, friend. Both China & Russia were having a rough time before their socialist revolutions. In China's case the revolution did next to nothing better until Deng Xiaoping started reforming the economy into capitalism. Russia much the same until Yeltsin. Both nations still have a long way still though.

But still, economically they were much better than their predecessors. It was just a first step.

[Uxupox]

So just an opinion and no real data to base off that comment?

Are you completely missing the point or something?
Look at any Eastern country in the 19th century before they became socialist (or even communist). The evidence is right there.

lol

How exactly do you know that China wouldn't have become an industrial powerhouse under Chiang Kai-shek? How do you know that after the Russian civil war that Russia wouldn't also become a industrial powerhouse under either the republicans or monarchists in control?

[The Transhuman Union]

Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.

Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.

What socialist president was elected in France? What socialism in the East are you talking about, do say?

I mixed social democracy and democratic socialism. So you win the argument.
But my opinion still stands. Was socialism good or bad for society? I think it was good for human society as a whole. Fascism was not.

[Verlzonia]

Economy is only one side of the coin, friend. Both China & Russia were having a rough time before their socialist revolutions. In China's case the revolution did next to nothing better until Deng Xiaoping started reforming the economy into capitalism. Russia much the same until Yeltsin. Both nations still have a long way still though.

But still, economically they were much better than their predecessors. It was just a first step.

Well yeah, but their economies never really grew much during their whole socialist lifespans.

[Novowarsawianka]

I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.

Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.

Imperial China was abolished long before Mao. Mao fought not the monarchists, but Chang Kai-shek. Chang leader left for Taiwan, where he founded the Republic of China, or Taiwan if you will. Today, Taiwan/RoC is one of the most developed Asian nations and has a far higher living standard than mainland China/PRC.

Imperial Russia was the most backwards European country, yes, but we can't safely assume that the White Army winning would be worse than the Red Army winning. The Russian Empire in fact ended in march 1917. It would not have been a monarchy even if the White Army won, probably ending up as a dictatorship under Kolchak rather than under Lenin.

[Antarctic Commonwealth of Equality]

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.

[Forsher]

What part of that sounds like "democratic means" to you?

Hitler's acquisition of the Chancellorship is not all that different to how John Major, Jenny Shipley, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd (the second time) or Malcolm Turnbull and many others became prime ministers of their respective countries. You could even say that Angela Merkel, John Key, David Cameron, Theresa May (post election) or Jacinda Ardern became chancellors/prime ministers of their respective countries is all that different. I refuse to label these acquisitions as anti-democratic, and certainly not when the alternatives are presidentialism or direct democracy (both of which I loathe).

When you look at the way the NSDAP conducted their electoral campaigns, the widespread perception that Weimar was an invalid state, the forced elections, the post-chancellorship behaviour and the crucial fact of widespread rejection of democracy by people and parties in Weimar Germany (I believe at any given time fully half the seats in the Reichstag were occupied by members of parties opposed to democracy)... that's where you find the anti-democracy.

It's interesting... had Hindenburg lived a bit longer (i.e. until the next election) or died a few months earlier, we might today think of WWII purely in terms of the Asian and Pacific theatres... if even we would have a sense of a WWII.

[Escocaria]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'and' which typically means there is an addition. The part where I said 'Take over Slavic Europe in order to secure the future of the German people' can be shortened down to 'Lebenschraum' if you want.

Yes that is usually where 'and' is used. But still doesn't change the content of your sentence which is incorrect regardless of whether you use 'and, or' or anything else. The word and in your sentence describes taking over the Slavlic countries in addition to taking over territories of the German Empire not Slavic Countries which were part of the German Empire which still wouldn't be correct.

Norway, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece etc were occupied by Nazi Germany and are not Slavic countries. Parts of France were once part of the German Empire but were annexed by Germany and never theirs to begin with. The majority of the Slavic countries were also never a part of the German Empire or never theirs to begin with. Generally they all were part the Austro-Hungarian Empire,the Polish-Lithuanian Empire or the Ottoman Empire following which they were independent in their own right and again annexed by German Empire.

Alrighty then, let's start with Norway. Norway was invaded for two reasons, these reasons have names. They're called Alfred Rosenberg and Erich Raeder, Alfred wanted to invade because 'Muh Ubermensch' and Erich wanted to invade because Germany needed control of the North Sea to beat Britain.

France was occupied because they bloody border Germany and would have been restored (minus Alsace) with a puppet government in place because the French are Honorary Aryans.

Netherlands because of racial reasons (Probably 'cause they're more German than French and because they were part of the Holy Roman Empire which was basically Germany).

Belgium because whenever Europe goes right it goes right through Belgium...also to avoid the Maginot Line.

Greece because debt that was Italy because 'Muh Roman Empire.'

Pretty much everything else was also for racial or strategic reasons.

[Verlzonia]

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.

Ah yes, lets only count racial genocide. Any other genocide is truly not worth the time discussing!

[The Transhuman Union]

Are you completely missing the point or something?
Look at any Eastern country in the 19th century before they became socialist (or even communist). The evidence is right there.

lol

How exactly do you know that China wouldn't have become an industrial powerhouse under Chiang Kai-shek? How do you know that after the Russian civil war that Russia wouldn't also become a industrial powerhouse under either the republicans or monarchists in control?

Because it wasn't. Care to explain it to me? Was China an industrial powerhouse under any leader before Deng Xiaoping? If it was, then my history books, which I read a lot of, must be wrong.
'How do you know that after the Russian civil war that Russia wouldn't also become a industrial powerhouse under either the republicans or monarchists in control?' Because the Russian people had no idea how to manage a company for goodness sake (no offense). Russia becoming capitalist in 1917 would meant a massive economic crisis and pretty much collapse.

[MERIZoC]

you're literally a nazi lol

you're literally a socialist lol

Correct.

[Escocaria]

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. Yeah, they don't care who you are, they'll still kill you for being richer than they are.
2. Thanks for the laughs but I refuse to acknowledge a nation that indicates a successor through someones Will as a 'Democratic Nation' as well as placing that person in power for life.
3. HDI was introduced in 1990 so that's not a valid point
4. Yes, there's a lot of opportunities as a conscript
5. Yes, so Anti-Imperialist that they gave the nations conquered by the Russian Empire independence...oh, wait.

[Antarctic Commonwealth of Equality]

Ah yes, lets only count racial genocide. Any other genocide is truly not worth the time discussing!

What genocide? You mean the few kulaks? (Kulaks were the cause of the ukraine famine as they hoarded food. The collectivisation of their farms was necessary.)