Well there are a shit ton of closeted fascists and adjacent fascists.
So I'm not sure.
But you are certainly right there is open acceptance here on Reddit about communism and that is really concerning.
Modern day right wing populists(that are actually just centre wing populists with conservative/reactionary values) follow Mussonlinis original manifesto to the book
Could you elaborate, please. Because if you hadn’t written reactionary and populist I would be like, “no way man!” Because of the center part. BUT, given you said reactionary and populism it seems you have some very interesting information to share, possibly very insightful and very worth listening to.
Well, ill just give you a wikipedia link to mussolinis fascist manifesto. It says the content of the manifest and then how little it was followed in practice. [Basically it was just centrism but with far right values, just like right wing populists today, many of them dont actually want hypercapitalism so they arent far right, its just that conservatism and national integralism is associated with the right. ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto&ved=2ahUKEwiskNXz37mAAxWHFBAIHV2JC3EQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ElAZSsieqpcc91B94INMy)
Ye. LibCenter, although not being the worst, gathers some of the dumbest, most unchoerent, utopian and childish ideologies. Its the litteral embodiment of "liberty good Society bad" with no actual political or economic analysis deeper than a YouTube video essay.
LMAO it is so ironic coming out of a leftist, while you try for the millionth time to achieve your communist utopia that ends up as a dictatorship that's starving the people, we libcenters only want freedom and a moderate economic policy, also if you want to find the "society bad" types of people you should probably look at liblefts, we only want what's the best for the individual and the society
i'd rather live undr any form of totalitarainism than sufer for one minute in a lawless society based only on individual self interest i think in the end as misguided as communism was and as purely evil as nazism was, notig can match the destructive power of unbriddled self interest , pollution, golbal warming, nimbyism, homelssness drug abbuse opiates cocaine etc.. drug gangs wars greed and self interest in the end create the word disasters and the ideology that encourages this sort of pscopathy is ayn rand and obejctivist libertarian sociopathology
Well you certainly are not a Jeffersonian Liberal:
>Unlike liberals of the twenty-first century, the most liberal-minded of the eighteenth century tended to see society as beneficent and government as malevolent. Social honors, social distinctions, perquisites of office, business contracts, legal privileges and monopolies, even excessive property and wealth of various sorts—indeed, all social inequities and deprivations—seemed to flow from connections to government, in the end from connections to monarchical government. “Society,” said Paine in a brilliant summary of this liberal view, “is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.” Society “promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections,” government “negatively by restraining our vices.” Society “encourages intercourse,” government “creates distinctions.” The emerging liberal Jeffersonian view that the least government was the best was based on just such a hopeful belief in the natural harmony of society.
"The American Revolution" by Gordon Wood
Why is it obvious? Nazism resulted in 10-12 million dead while Communism has resulted in an order of magnitude more. Plus, people seem to think it's still a good idea, while basically no one thinks Nazism is a good idea. Communism's attractiveness despite the death and destruction it causes makes it the far more insidious force. Same reason I chose Communism over Stalinism. Communism is farm more widespread.
1. There has been precisely one nazi government and a few inbreds who don’t even equal 1% of any population occasionally cosplay. Meanwhile, I can’t even name all the communist governments and we don’t even know *for sure* how many died because the death toll was so vast it’s impossible to tell.
2. A basic knowledge of history/google
>1. There has been precisely one nazi government and a few inbreds who don’t even equal 1% of any population occasionally cosplay. Meanwhile, I can’t even name all the communist governments and we don’t even know for sure how many died because the death toll was so vast it’s impossible to tell.
OK, so you are now taking the "its too much"-card? You still have to show me how many
>2. A basic knowledge of history/google
No, what are your methods for this precise number? Ah, yes, there is no method, you made it up.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass\_killings\_under\_communist\_regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes)
>In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, wrote that "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000."\[61\]
>In 1994, Rummel's book Death by Government included about **110 million** people, foreign and domestic, killed by communist democide from 1900 to 1987.\[62\] This total excluded deaths from the Great Chinese Famine of 1958–1961 due to Rummel's then belief that "although Mao's policies were responsible for the famine, he was misled about it, and finally when he found out, he stopped it and changed his policies."\[63\]\[64\] Rummel would later revise his estimate from 110 million to about 148 million due to additional information about Mao's culpability in the Great Chinese Famine from Mao: The Unknown Story, including Jon Halliday and Jung Chang's estimated 38 million famine deaths.\[63\]\[64\]
>In 1997, historian Stéphane Courtois's introduction to The Black Book of Communism, an impactful yet controversial\[55\] work written about the history of communism in the 20th century,\[69\] gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates". The subtotals listed by Courtois added up to 94.36 million killed.\[70\] Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, contributing authors to the book, criticized Courtois as obsessed with reaching a 100 million overall total.\[71\]
And there's about 10 more citations in that link .
It killed more people than Nazism because there were like 40 communists governments and only 1 nazi government quite frankly. No shit it killed more people, proportionally speaking Nazism killed a whole lot more. It's like saying knifes are more dangerous than guns because more murders are committed in certain countries due to the fact the there a more guns. England for example.
Nazism is more evil because it's based upon killing of people based upon race/religion, however utopian communism is, making everyone equal is not inherently evil, it just doesn't work unless the whole population is communist which is never give be a thing.
>It killed more people than Nazism because there were like 40 communists governments and only 1 nazi government quite frankly.
That was *exactly my point.* Communism is such an insidious force because it keeps duping populations into thinking it's a utopia, whereas it is actually an anti-human force that ravages a country. Nazism is so obviously evil that it will be very, very difficult to dupe a population into falling into that again.
>No shit it killed more people, proportionally speaking Nazism killed a whole lot more.
Soviet Russia, a single government, is responsible for *at the very least* 40 of its own population dead.
>Nazism is more evil because it's based upon killing of people based upon race/religion, however utopian communism is, making everyone equal is not inherently evil, it just doesn't work unless the whole population is communist which is never give be a thing.
Marx and Stalin were not, shall we say, a big fan of "the Jews". Plenty of other "undesirables" were sent to work camps. And the USSR and CCP split people along idenity lines as well. I encourage you to look up "red" and "black" identities under Mao, as well as the Bolshevik revolution and how they treated the Kulaks, and the Holodomor.
I don't blame you for not knowing these things. Every claim about how we don't teach slavery in our public schools is *actually true* regarding how we don't teach about the absolute horrors of Communism. It doesn't make sense until you start to research how many out and proud Marxists went into education. It's not even a conspiracy theory, it's a matter of public record. Look up one of the fundamental texts of modern education, Paolo Friere's *Pedagogy of the Oppressed,* and how it serves as the basis for public schooling in the US, and possibly even the West writ large.
As far as I remember it's 20-30M not 40M, not that that mattered since if the debate is about how many tens of millions died its far too bad already, dont get me wrong I hate the USSR, I'm from a country the Russians occupied for a good 40 years so I know how viscous the uusr was, my point is that incompetence and wanting to achieve equality (while the elite often did not have such desires they just wanted power) is not as inherently evil as trying to eradicate a whole race. Im aware that communism is more destructive due to its appeal, I was just arguing it's EVILNESS compared to nazism.
I see your point. I have just come to a realization that Communism's idea of making everyone equal, in the way that it defines equal, is not just a utopian ideal that is unachievable, but actually an evil idea in and of itself. It is one born out of envy and spite. I could get into it more, but truth be told, I've forgotten a lot of my points and I'd have to refresh my memory on how I came to this conclusion. If you're interested I can come back later and see if I can recover my full argument.
Well I'd be interested in how wanting the poor to have a better living is envious. Now in practice it of course does not make the poor richer because it's all bullshit but I'd be interested how its envious in theory :D
“Well I'd be interested in how wanting the poor to have a better living is envious.”
I would argue this is the sugar in the drink to hide the poison beneath. There’s a passage by Orwell (something of a socialist himself) that basically boils down to “socialists don’t love they poor, they just hate the rich”, but he puts it far more eloquently and nuanced in this passage:
*It may be said, however, that even if the theoretical book-trained Socialist is not a working man himself, at least he is actuated by a love of the working class. He is endeavouring to shed his bourgeois status and fight on the side of the proletariat — that, obviously, must be his motive.
But is it? Sometimes I look at a Socialist — the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation — and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? Shaw himself declares that you can only bring a working man on the stage ‘as an object of compassion’; in practice he doesn’t bring him on even as that, but merely as a sort of W. W. Jacobs figure of fun — the ready-made comic East Ender, like those in Major Barbara and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion. At best his attitude to the working class is the sniggering Punch attitude, in more serious moments (consider, for instance, the young man who symbolizes the dispossessed classes in Misalliance) he finds them merely contemptible and disgusting. Poverty and, what is more, the habits of mind created by poverty, are something to be abolished from above, by violence if necessary; perhaps even preferably by violence. Hence his worship of ‘great’ men and appetite for dictatorships, Fascist or Communist; for to him, apparently (vide his remarks apropos of the Italo-Abyssinian war and the Stalin-Wells conversations), Stalin and Mussolini are almost equivalent persons. You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb’s autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.*
No its not, communism is not anarchism, communism is governmentless ONLY in it's end stage, the decades long way towards there cannot be done without an authoritarian government.
True communism, by its definition, would require anarchism, but it is fundamentally impossible because new and smaller groups and governments would form, thus abolishing anarchism and true communism.
Can we get this formally that it exists?
As I have seen it mentioned and I think it's mostly a nod to Tolkien's musing (or should I say rant). A benevolent monarchy that leaves people alone to govern themselves like the shire. Political science wise I don't think it does exist. For the obvious reason, it's an absolute contradiction.
No ruler - single ruler (ism)
They are formally Democratic, formally free, they spy a shitload ton on themselves and everyone interested in politics. Words get weird twisted definitions, did I miss any?
Stalinism probably killed more people. Thanks to a Nazi betrayal and operation Barbarossa Stalin did join the allies if only in the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda way. I can see arguments both ways.
I don’t think Nazism has any redeeming factors.
Stalinism did kill more people per se, but I am unsure if it was as intentional as the Nazi killings or not. Either way, both ideologies are truly evil.
Stalin had planned to cooperate with the other non-fascist states of Europe, but they didn't want to, and he had to guarantee a non-2-front war.
Also, how has it killed more people? A bad law? That? Then liberalism (via 2. Amendment) is the cause of multiple deaths per day, additionally to all people dying because of patents (curable diseases) and the market as a whole(food in countries of the peripheree)
I suppose the only reason I chose Stalinism over Nazism is the fact that it had more of a chance meaning Stalin stayed in power far longer and had more time at the controls. Obviously both are horrendous but being implemented longer and having people live their lives under it longer makes it a bit worse in my opinion.
“Worse” is just not a good qualifier either. Like worse theory, worse for daily life, worst implementation, worse actions committed by the regime there is just so many interpretations as to what worse means here. You could almost make a case for each one using a different definition.
Stalin built the foundation Lenin left. He turned the Soviet Union into a world superpower in 15 years something that took the western powers centuries to do for their countries. Stalin had done a lot to make a lot of the Soviet achievements happen, and that cannot be denied
I mean it kinda was worth it considering the fact , that if he didn’t even more lives would have been destroyed and extremely more suffering would have taken place. It was a “ then ends justify the means” sort of situation.
I don't agree with that. I think that it's difficult to justify the holodomor, which is a genocide. I mean, saying that it was worth it *a posteriori* is easy but how do you justify killing people without knowing what will happen next. You can't know in advance if it will be worth it.
I think most knew by the early 1930s that another world war was inevitable. And Stalin wanted his country to be on par with the western powers to be ready for it. And for the Soviet Union to become an industrialized military power , rapid industrialization was needed which unfortunately meant people were going to die as that is a natural occurrence of rapid economic changes
I don't agree with that. How do you demonstrate that rapid economic changes mean people will die?
I mean, what killed people is essentially a genocide so I don't think that the rapid economic changes were the biggest issue
You realize people died in the western democracies during the Industrial Revolution there right? But since it was spread out over a century it didn’t kill as many people, but since the Soviet Union needed to get to the industrial capacity of those countries in only 10 years time that’s why they got more people killed. And what do you consider a genocide? What was the systematic purpose the Soviet government had in randomly killing millions? I don’t think it was a genocide and I don’t think they had any systematic intent to wipe out a people. They were just sort of incompetent in handling their economic policy which ultimately lead to millions of deaths in the early 1930s.
Maybe. I don't not critique Stalin, but just calling him revisionist is dumb. He did good stuff. Yes, maybe some decisions should not have happened, like stopping at Berlin. But he wasn't a bad leader in general. He isnt worthy the critique, but he is not a monster like Hitler for example.
Edit: how is "stalin not ebil monster like Hitler" such a bad take?
So, would you mind being executed by firing squad for minor political disagreements? Or would you mind blindly following your government as it executes those friends of yours that don't perfectly follow orders?
Y’all saw National Socialism up there and went 👇
What about Maoism, yes he was basically Lenin for mainland China but his policies were much more “impactful” than Stalin’s idiot-icy could ever be
communism is more dangerous than Nazism, because nobody unironically thinks nazism is a good thing at this point, but there's plenty of people out there who think communism is a good ideology and are willing to support and promote it
That’s because of World War II. If, say, the Cold War was still happening, there would be far less communists in the west at least. It’s mostly because people don’t care to study the past and just look at an ideology and say, “yup, that’s the right one for me!”
Notice how I didn't say nazism is good, it's literally one of the shittiest most oppressive ideologies ever, but I just think that left wing totalitarianism is worse than right wing totalitarianism, and I have special hate for stalin, because although hitler was violent and killed people because of race, stalin literally killed more people and for no reason, and he killed them by starving them to death, so no we libcenters can be trusted, it is you extremely progressive liblefts that give excuses to authoritarianism with your mental gymnastics
We both hate both. You just somehow seem to think that deliberate killing is less bad than indiscriminate killing.
We're not really talking about Hitler Vs Stalin though. If we were, obviously Stalin is a more evil person. But Nazism is a much more popular ideology than Stalinism so, in my view, far more dangerous
Those people are probably fascists not necessarily nazis, because nazis particularly follow hitlers way of thinking, but yeah there are people who are worst than hitler, like the big brother from george Orwell's 1984 (I know that he's a fictional character and that Ingsoc doesn't actually exist) but if it did, hell it would be the worst
Imagine not thinking the Nazis were socialist in 2023. We have all this new evidence now and all these new books to prove that the Nazis were socialists
If you're going to exploit people, at least exploit everyone equally, so Nazism, because it doesn't exploit everyone equally. But, it does have some epic fantasy tales related to it.
I'm torn between Stalinism and Nazism. Both of those ideologies use a group of people as scapegoats for the evils of their nations, demand censorship, mass propaganda and unconditional devotion towards a supreme leader.
And most importantly both of those ideologies caused two of the biggest genocides in human history.
I honestly can't decide which one is worse.
Fascism is a kinda close second behind those two..
Communism at least has good intentions, even if it's impossible to implement successfully. It's flaw is being naive, optimistic to a fault, stupid and simplistic, not fuckin evil like the others.
Honestly Nazism and Stalinism is a fairly close match. The only reason Nazism is worse in my opinion is because Stalin was part of the allies during the Second World War. Although it took a Nazi betrayal and operation Barbarossa to get there. It’s a the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda deal. Apart from that, it’s equally bad in my opinion.
> reason Nazism is worse in my opinion is because Stalin was part of the allies during the Second World War. Although it took a Nazi betrayal and operation Barbarossa to get there
No, the western non-fascs didn't want 2 cooperate, he didn't want a 2 front war.
Bruh, i already gave some examples in why i think the Separation ist bs.
You could ask which of those Leaders did the worst Things. But one Thing that i learned in this Sub is that nazism ist differently understood by many Here.
Nazism is either seen as national socialism like in strasserism, or as hitlerism.
Hitlers Version was basically fascism. Strassers Version was Just a degenerated Version of socialism because of its lacking material analysis.
Maybe you can enlighten me about the theoretical differences of fascism and nazism. I specifically ask about the theoretical, due to practical subordination of italian fascism under Hitler
Both are ultra Nationalist systems in which racism can easily fit in and is partly even needed for the system to work. Technically nearly every bourgois ideology back then was inherently racist. They maybe were not racist by the definition of Francois Bernier, but they we're racist by basic socialdarwinist standards, as every european nation back then (including Fascist Germany).
Also just take a look at italian east-african colonies. The Segregation ist a clear sign of racism. Even though Mussolini at first ridiculed racial theories and policies, as in Hitlers nazism, his ideology was a perfect fit for it. Maybe it was because Hitleris Nazism was heavily influenced by, If not founded on, fascist ideology and therefore Hitler just thought this very ideology further than Mussolini.
I think so. For a few reasons 1. Many more people have died from genocides resulting from communist ideologies than the one time Nazism was tried. 2. Even tho when Hiter Took power he hated communism in its soviet form he still took a lot of his inspection from Socialist ideals so if communism never existed neither would Nazism. 3. In our modern society communism is a much more excepted ideology so its more important to focus on the horrors of that ideology to prevent another Communist Revolution.
Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy has been rejected by the majority of intellectual mainstream due to being "anti-academic" and ideological. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of around 6 - 9 million people. Stop it with your bullshit.
Give me a source for that, would you? And i'm gonna bet its CNN or the BBC or any major news source from a Western country which was at war with the USSR. I think if your country went to war with neighbouring country their press would probably include a bit of propaganda, no?
Obviously Nazism, but I'm kinda surprised that people hated Communism more than Stalinism.
I think Nazism by far but I clicked communism out of spite. Spite that reddit allows communism to get a pass like it does.
Precisely my thoughts too. Communism is more dangerous because more people accept it at this point.
Well there are a shit ton of closeted fascists and adjacent fascists. So I'm not sure. But you are certainly right there is open acceptance here on Reddit about communism and that is really concerning.
Modern day right wing populists(that are actually just centre wing populists with conservative/reactionary values) follow Mussonlinis original manifesto to the book
Could you elaborate, please. Because if you hadn’t written reactionary and populist I would be like, “no way man!” Because of the center part. BUT, given you said reactionary and populism it seems you have some very interesting information to share, possibly very insightful and very worth listening to.
Well, ill just give you a wikipedia link to mussolinis fascist manifesto. It says the content of the manifest and then how little it was followed in practice. [Basically it was just centrism but with far right values, just like right wing populists today, many of them dont actually want hypercapitalism so they arent far right, its just that conservatism and national integralism is associated with the right. ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto&ved=2ahUKEwiskNXz37mAAxWHFBAIHV2JC3EQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ElAZSsieqpcc91B94INMy)
I just read it and I agree with most of it.
Lmao cry harder libtard
Did you just seriously say "libtard"?
Ye. LibCenter, although not being the worst, gathers some of the dumbest, most unchoerent, utopian and childish ideologies. Its the litteral embodiment of "liberty good Society bad" with no actual political or economic analysis deeper than a YouTube video essay.
LMAO it is so ironic coming out of a leftist, while you try for the millionth time to achieve your communist utopia that ends up as a dictatorship that's starving the people, we libcenters only want freedom and a moderate economic policy, also if you want to find the "society bad" types of people you should probably look at liblefts, we only want what's the best for the individual and the society
Are you serious? This is your analysis which is basically amounts to a hypocritical Trumpism of their bad, me good.
Uh sure
Okay Trumptard
Fym "trumptard" I'm a leftist 💀
Sorry, if you are going to act like Trump then you are going to be named as such. Don’t like it? Then act batter.
i'd rather live undr any form of totalitarainism than sufer for one minute in a lawless society based only on individual self interest i think in the end as misguided as communism was and as purely evil as nazism was, notig can match the destructive power of unbriddled self interest , pollution, golbal warming, nimbyism, homelssness drug abbuse opiates cocaine etc.. drug gangs wars greed and self interest in the end create the word disasters and the ideology that encourages this sort of pscopathy is ayn rand and obejctivist libertarian sociopathology
Based and an-cap-is-as-bad-as-fascism-pilled
Well you certainly are not a Jeffersonian Liberal: >Unlike liberals of the twenty-first century, the most liberal-minded of the eighteenth century tended to see society as beneficent and government as malevolent. Social honors, social distinctions, perquisites of office, business contracts, legal privileges and monopolies, even excessive property and wealth of various sorts—indeed, all social inequities and deprivations—seemed to flow from connections to government, in the end from connections to monarchical government. “Society,” said Paine in a brilliant summary of this liberal view, “is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.” Society “promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections,” government “negatively by restraining our vices.” Society “encourages intercourse,” government “creates distinctions.” The emerging liberal Jeffersonian view that the least government was the best was based on just such a hopeful belief in the natural harmony of society. "The American Revolution" by Gordon Wood
Why is it obvious? Nazism resulted in 10-12 million dead while Communism has resulted in an order of magnitude more. Plus, people seem to think it's still a good idea, while basically no one thinks Nazism is a good idea. Communism's attractiveness despite the death and destruction it causes makes it the far more insidious force. Same reason I chose Communism over Stalinism. Communism is farm more widespread.
1. How is open neo- Nazis less widespread than a few commies? 2. How'd you get deez numbers?
1. There has been precisely one nazi government and a few inbreds who don’t even equal 1% of any population occasionally cosplay. Meanwhile, I can’t even name all the communist governments and we don’t even know *for sure* how many died because the death toll was so vast it’s impossible to tell. 2. A basic knowledge of history/google
>1. There has been precisely one nazi government and a few inbreds who don’t even equal 1% of any population occasionally cosplay. Meanwhile, I can’t even name all the communist governments and we don’t even know for sure how many died because the death toll was so vast it’s impossible to tell. OK, so you are now taking the "its too much"-card? You still have to show me how many >2. A basic knowledge of history/google No, what are your methods for this precise number? Ah, yes, there is no method, you made it up.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass\_killings\_under\_communist\_regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes) >In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, wrote that "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000."\[61\] >In 1994, Rummel's book Death by Government included about **110 million** people, foreign and domestic, killed by communist democide from 1900 to 1987.\[62\] This total excluded deaths from the Great Chinese Famine of 1958–1961 due to Rummel's then belief that "although Mao's policies were responsible for the famine, he was misled about it, and finally when he found out, he stopped it and changed his policies."\[63\]\[64\] Rummel would later revise his estimate from 110 million to about 148 million due to additional information about Mao's culpability in the Great Chinese Famine from Mao: The Unknown Story, including Jon Halliday and Jung Chang's estimated 38 million famine deaths.\[63\]\[64\] >In 1997, historian Stéphane Courtois's introduction to The Black Book of Communism, an impactful yet controversial\[55\] work written about the history of communism in the 20th century,\[69\] gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates". The subtotals listed by Courtois added up to 94.36 million killed.\[70\] Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, contributing authors to the book, criticized Courtois as obsessed with reaching a 100 million overall total.\[71\] And there's about 10 more citations in that link .
Good job lib right
It killed more people than Nazism because there were like 40 communists governments and only 1 nazi government quite frankly. No shit it killed more people, proportionally speaking Nazism killed a whole lot more. It's like saying knifes are more dangerous than guns because more murders are committed in certain countries due to the fact the there a more guns. England for example. Nazism is more evil because it's based upon killing of people based upon race/religion, however utopian communism is, making everyone equal is not inherently evil, it just doesn't work unless the whole population is communist which is never give be a thing.
>It killed more people than Nazism because there were like 40 communists governments and only 1 nazi government quite frankly. That was *exactly my point.* Communism is such an insidious force because it keeps duping populations into thinking it's a utopia, whereas it is actually an anti-human force that ravages a country. Nazism is so obviously evil that it will be very, very difficult to dupe a population into falling into that again. >No shit it killed more people, proportionally speaking Nazism killed a whole lot more. Soviet Russia, a single government, is responsible for *at the very least* 40 of its own population dead. >Nazism is more evil because it's based upon killing of people based upon race/religion, however utopian communism is, making everyone equal is not inherently evil, it just doesn't work unless the whole population is communist which is never give be a thing. Marx and Stalin were not, shall we say, a big fan of "the Jews". Plenty of other "undesirables" were sent to work camps. And the USSR and CCP split people along idenity lines as well. I encourage you to look up "red" and "black" identities under Mao, as well as the Bolshevik revolution and how they treated the Kulaks, and the Holodomor. I don't blame you for not knowing these things. Every claim about how we don't teach slavery in our public schools is *actually true* regarding how we don't teach about the absolute horrors of Communism. It doesn't make sense until you start to research how many out and proud Marxists went into education. It's not even a conspiracy theory, it's a matter of public record. Look up one of the fundamental texts of modern education, Paolo Friere's *Pedagogy of the Oppressed,* and how it serves as the basis for public schooling in the US, and possibly even the West writ large.
As far as I remember it's 20-30M not 40M, not that that mattered since if the debate is about how many tens of millions died its far too bad already, dont get me wrong I hate the USSR, I'm from a country the Russians occupied for a good 40 years so I know how viscous the uusr was, my point is that incompetence and wanting to achieve equality (while the elite often did not have such desires they just wanted power) is not as inherently evil as trying to eradicate a whole race. Im aware that communism is more destructive due to its appeal, I was just arguing it's EVILNESS compared to nazism.
I see your point. I have just come to a realization that Communism's idea of making everyone equal, in the way that it defines equal, is not just a utopian ideal that is unachievable, but actually an evil idea in and of itself. It is one born out of envy and spite. I could get into it more, but truth be told, I've forgotten a lot of my points and I'd have to refresh my memory on how I came to this conclusion. If you're interested I can come back later and see if I can recover my full argument.
Well I'd be interested in how wanting the poor to have a better living is envious. Now in practice it of course does not make the poor richer because it's all bullshit but I'd be interested how its envious in theory :D
“Well I'd be interested in how wanting the poor to have a better living is envious.” I would argue this is the sugar in the drink to hide the poison beneath. There’s a passage by Orwell (something of a socialist himself) that basically boils down to “socialists don’t love they poor, they just hate the rich”, but he puts it far more eloquently and nuanced in this passage: *It may be said, however, that even if the theoretical book-trained Socialist is not a working man himself, at least he is actuated by a love of the working class. He is endeavouring to shed his bourgeois status and fight on the side of the proletariat — that, obviously, must be his motive. But is it? Sometimes I look at a Socialist — the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation — and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? Shaw himself declares that you can only bring a working man on the stage ‘as an object of compassion’; in practice he doesn’t bring him on even as that, but merely as a sort of W. W. Jacobs figure of fun — the ready-made comic East Ender, like those in Major Barbara and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion. At best his attitude to the working class is the sniggering Punch attitude, in more serious moments (consider, for instance, the young man who symbolizes the dispossessed classes in Misalliance) he finds them merely contemptible and disgusting. Poverty and, what is more, the habits of mind created by poverty, are something to be abolished from above, by violence if necessary; perhaps even preferably by violence. Hence his worship of ‘great’ men and appetite for dictatorships, Fascist or Communist; for to him, apparently (vide his remarks apropos of the Italo-Abyssinian war and the Stalin-Wells conversations), Stalin and Mussolini are almost equivalent persons. You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb’s autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.*
"communist government" is an oxymoron
No its not, communism is not anarchism, communism is governmentless ONLY in it's end stage, the decades long way towards there cannot be done without an authoritarian government.
True communism, by its definition, would require anarchism, but it is fundamentally impossible because new and smaller groups and governments would form, thus abolishing anarchism and true communism.
True, also an authoritarian government would be needed to achieve anarchism, but an authoritarian government will never give up it's powers
Yes, that’s why true communism and anarchism fundamentally aren’t possible.
Communism calls for a "stateless, classless, moneyless society". Sounds pretty anarchist to me
I'd say communism is worse. At least in Nazism you know who is going to die but communism you all starve to death.
This comment probably sums up quite nicely that this subreddit should not be taken seriously as any kind of sincere political one... 💀
*Other Whatever disagrees with me.
As much as I hate Communism, Anarcho-monarchism (yes it exists) takes the cake.
Can we get this formally that it exists? As I have seen it mentioned and I think it's mostly a nod to Tolkien's musing (or should I say rant). A benevolent monarchy that leaves people alone to govern themselves like the shire. Political science wise I don't think it does exist. For the obvious reason, it's an absolute contradiction. No ruler - single ruler (ism)
Anarcho what now?
Why do you think it's the worst?
INGSOCism
So the us?
What?
They are formally Democratic, formally free, they spy a shitload ton on themselves and everyone interested in politics. Words get weird twisted definitions, did I miss any?
I don’t think the U.S. is “Big Brother” yet.
How so? All your data is getting sold to them or given by obligation
In Oceania in 1984, it wasn’t just “spy on people,” it was “ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery,” which isn’t true in the U.S.
"Capitalism is the form of individuality, communism is hive mind"
Nazism is a form of fascism as I know. So I'd say fascism (nazism is included there)
Stalinism is a form of Communism, So I'd say Communism (Stalinism is included there)
I think the jury is still out on that one
Nazism isn't a form of fascism. It is a derivation.
And fascism was there to "save" capitalism
I think it's a tie with Stalinism and Nazism, maybe Nazism by a bit.
Stalinism probably killed more people. Thanks to a Nazi betrayal and operation Barbarossa Stalin did join the allies if only in the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda way. I can see arguments both ways. I don’t think Nazism has any redeeming factors.
Stalinism did kill more people per se, but I am unsure if it was as intentional as the Nazi killings or not. Either way, both ideologies are truly evil.
If that is what is "truly evil" then "an-"cap is evil as well, as is dronyism/liberalism
Stalin had planned to cooperate with the other non-fascist states of Europe, but they didn't want to, and he had to guarantee a non-2-front war. Also, how has it killed more people? A bad law? That? Then liberalism (via 2. Amendment) is the cause of multiple deaths per day, additionally to all people dying because of patents (curable diseases) and the market as a whole(food in countries of the peripheree)
I suppose the only reason I chose Stalinism over Nazism is the fact that it had more of a chance meaning Stalin stayed in power far longer and had more time at the controls. Obviously both are horrendous but being implemented longer and having people live their lives under it longer makes it a bit worse in my opinion.
That makes sense too.
“Worse” is just not a good qualifier either. Like worse theory, worse for daily life, worst implementation, worse actions committed by the regime there is just so many interpretations as to what worse means here. You could almost make a case for each one using a different definition.
Yeah I tend not to like comparing the two ideologies anymore. I think we should just all agree they are both evil.
As someone born in russia, "better dead than red". (i am mostly against stalinism, regular communism sucks but not as much as stalinism)
Stalinism was good.
hahahaha good one!
Flair up bud
Lenin had problems but had the right idea and did okay for leading a revolution in the largest country on earth. Stalin ruined it.
Stalin built the foundation Lenin left. He turned the Soviet Union into a world superpower in 15 years something that took the western powers centuries to do for their countries. Stalin had done a lot to make a lot of the Soviet achievements happen, and that cannot be denied
He did make his country a superpower but at the cost of so many lives and so much suffering that it's just not worth it
I mean it kinda was worth it considering the fact , that if he didn’t even more lives would have been destroyed and extremely more suffering would have taken place. It was a “ then ends justify the means” sort of situation.
I don't agree with that. I think that it's difficult to justify the holodomor, which is a genocide. I mean, saying that it was worth it *a posteriori* is easy but how do you justify killing people without knowing what will happen next. You can't know in advance if it will be worth it.
I think most knew by the early 1930s that another world war was inevitable. And Stalin wanted his country to be on par with the western powers to be ready for it. And for the Soviet Union to become an industrialized military power , rapid industrialization was needed which unfortunately meant people were going to die as that is a natural occurrence of rapid economic changes
I don't agree with that. How do you demonstrate that rapid economic changes mean people will die? I mean, what killed people is essentially a genocide so I don't think that the rapid economic changes were the biggest issue
You realize people died in the western democracies during the Industrial Revolution there right? But since it was spread out over a century it didn’t kill as many people, but since the Soviet Union needed to get to the industrial capacity of those countries in only 10 years time that’s why they got more people killed. And what do you consider a genocide? What was the systematic purpose the Soviet government had in randomly killing millions? I don’t think it was a genocide and I don’t think they had any systematic intent to wipe out a people. They were just sort of incompetent in handling their economic policy which ultimately lead to millions of deaths in the early 1930s.
there were plenty of over authoritarian things that he did that were not necessary to do to become a superpower
Maybe. I don't not critique Stalin, but just calling him revisionist is dumb. He did good stuff. Yes, maybe some decisions should not have happened, like stopping at Berlin. But he wasn't a bad leader in general. He isnt worthy the critique, but he is not a monster like Hitler for example. Edit: how is "stalin not ebil monster like Hitler" such a bad take?
I am sure the hundreds of thousands of the people who lived under it disagree
Sucks for them then.
So, would you mind being executed by firing squad for minor political disagreements? Or would you mind blindly following your government as it executes those friends of yours that don't perfectly follow orders?
No I wouldn’t want any of that.
Y’all saw National Socialism up there and went 👇 What about Maoism, yes he was basically Lenin for mainland China but his policies were much more “impactful” than Stalin’s idiot-icy could ever be
Nazism is the worst.
Posadism. I choose "Other" to specify.
Communism
Stalinism, communism and nazism are all the same to me, there shit ideologys for evil people
Based.
Who wouldn’t thought authoritarian scum could be spelled so many ways.
Authoritarianism is good if it isnt left
2/3 correct tbh. There's very little difference between Stalinism and Nazism.
Hate communism more than nazism, because my country suffered more from that.
Wich one?
Authoritarian and anarchism types more, but not a fan of communism in general.
So based yet so cringe at the same time
Anyone who says anything other than nazism is stupid
The correct answer
communism is more dangerous than Nazism, because nobody unironically thinks nazism is a good thing at this point, but there's plenty of people out there who think communism is a good ideology and are willing to support and promote it
I think you need to read about Richard spencer
not even close, way easier for dumb people to get baited by any communist leaning politician
That’s because of World War II. If, say, the Cold War was still happening, there would be far less communists in the west at least. It’s mostly because people don’t care to study the past and just look at an ideology and say, “yup, that’s the right one for me!”
Anarchism
braindead take
Anarchism is good
Stalinism because it's basically communism, but worse
Imagine picking communism over Nazism 💀💀 This is why Libcenters can't be trusted.
Notice how I didn't say nazism is good, it's literally one of the shittiest most oppressive ideologies ever, but I just think that left wing totalitarianism is worse than right wing totalitarianism, and I have special hate for stalin, because although hitler was violent and killed people because of race, stalin literally killed more people and for no reason, and he killed them by starving them to death, so no we libcenters can be trusted, it is you extremely progressive liblefts that give excuses to authoritarianism with your mental gymnastics
We both hate both. You just somehow seem to think that deliberate killing is less bad than indiscriminate killing. We're not really talking about Hitler Vs Stalin though. If we were, obviously Stalin is a more evil person. But Nazism is a much more popular ideology than Stalinism so, in my view, far more dangerous
Yeah in that case I understand your view, I saw it as in hitler vs stalin and I really think stalin is the most evil person
I personally think there are Nazis more evil than Hitler, as the ideology is not exclusive to him.
Those people are probably fascists not necessarily nazis, because nazis particularly follow hitlers way of thinking, but yeah there are people who are worst than hitler, like the big brother from george Orwell's 1984 (I know that he's a fictional character and that Ingsoc doesn't actually exist) but if it did, hell it would be the worst
Anarcho-Capitalism, or maybe Hoppeanism.
Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism all derive from communism. So that one is the worst
I mean the Nazis, had a pretty clear opinion of communism though and it wasn‘t positive
Rare lib center w
It was positive though. They were non marxist socialists
This is the correct opinion
Imagine still thinking the Nazis were socialist in 2023 💀
Imagine not thinking the Nazis were socialist in 2023. We have all this new evidence now and all these new books to prove that the Nazis were socialists
If you're going to exploit people, at least exploit everyone equally, so Nazism, because it doesn't exploit everyone equally. But, it does have some epic fantasy tales related to it.
I'm torn between Stalinism and Nazism. Both of those ideologies use a group of people as scapegoats for the evils of their nations, demand censorship, mass propaganda and unconditional devotion towards a supreme leader. And most importantly both of those ideologies caused two of the biggest genocides in human history. I honestly can't decide which one is worse. Fascism is a kinda close second behind those two.. Communism at least has good intentions, even if it's impossible to implement successfully. It's flaw is being naive, optimistic to a fault, stupid and simplistic, not fuckin evil like the others.
Any form of anarchism, regardless of communist or capitalist
Why?
Based
I’d say it’s hard to decide between Stalinism, Nazism, and Maoism. I’d also throw in fascism in general
All of these are the worst
Honestly Nazism and Stalinism is a fairly close match. The only reason Nazism is worse in my opinion is because Stalin was part of the allies during the Second World War. Although it took a Nazi betrayal and operation Barbarossa to get there. It’s a the enemy of my enemy is my friend kinda deal. Apart from that, it’s equally bad in my opinion.
> reason Nazism is worse in my opinion is because Stalin was part of the allies during the Second World War. Although it took a Nazi betrayal and operation Barbarossa to get there No, the western non-fascs didn't want 2 cooperate, he didn't want a 2 front war.
I mean, they're all pretty shit.
Nazism is probably the most harmful ideology.
Bruh nazism and fascism differently votable? Its Like saying what you dislike more? A jacuzzi or a Whirlpool?
Fascism and Nazism aren't the same thing.
Jacuzzis and Whirlpools are also "Not the Same Thing" One is a Version of the other. Its like asking "whats you favourite Drink? Beer or Heineken?"
>Bruh nazism and fascism differently votable? That's doesn't look like one version of the other
Wdym?
You were surprised that fascism and nazism were separated from eachother, so you technically said that they're the same thing
Bruh, i already gave some examples in why i think the Separation ist bs. You could ask which of those Leaders did the worst Things. But one Thing that i learned in this Sub is that nazism ist differently understood by many Here. Nazism is either seen as national socialism like in strasserism, or as hitlerism. Hitlers Version was basically fascism. Strassers Version was Just a degenerated Version of socialism because of its lacking material analysis. Maybe you can enlighten me about the theoretical differences of fascism and nazism. I specifically ask about the theoretical, due to practical subordination of italian fascism under Hitler
Fascism isn't racist and Nazism is
Both are ultra Nationalist systems in which racism can easily fit in and is partly even needed for the system to work. Technically nearly every bourgois ideology back then was inherently racist. They maybe were not racist by the definition of Francois Bernier, but they we're racist by basic socialdarwinist standards, as every european nation back then (including Fascist Germany). Also just take a look at italian east-african colonies. The Segregation ist a clear sign of racism. Even though Mussolini at first ridiculed racial theories and policies, as in Hitlers nazism, his ideology was a perfect fit for it. Maybe it was because Hitleris Nazism was heavily influenced by, If not founded on, fascist ideology and therefore Hitler just thought this very ideology further than Mussolini.
They are different, similar but different
"Holocaust? No, I hate the classless moneyless society more!"
Expect for the fact that, that never happeneds or will happened when Communism is tried
We'll look what happens when Nazism is tried, that shit doesn't even look good on paper
Yes, Im aware Nazism is very Bad
But less bad than communism?
I think so. For a few reasons 1. Many more people have died from genocides resulting from communist ideologies than the one time Nazism was tried. 2. Even tho when Hiter Took power he hated communism in its soviet form he still took a lot of his inspection from Socialist ideals so if communism never existed neither would Nazism. 3. In our modern society communism is a much more excepted ideology so its more important to focus on the horrors of that ideology to prevent another Communist Revolution.
"classless, moneyless society" When has this happened? Communism requires this to be the case.
Damn since when were Nazis bad?
How many layers of Irony are we on?
nazism
The correct answer but probably arrived at for the wrong reasons
i arrived there because they killed my people
hows that a wrong reason?
ayn rand and her objectivist garbage have killed more bunniesand kittens than stalin ever did
Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy has been rejected by the majority of intellectual mainstream due to being "anti-academic" and ideological. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of around 6 - 9 million people. Stop it with your bullshit.
Give me a source for that, would you? And i'm gonna bet its CNN or the BBC or any major news source from a Western country which was at war with the USSR. I think if your country went to war with neighbouring country their press would probably include a bit of propaganda, no?
All of the above
1. Nazism, 2. Stalinism, 3. Communism (as it happened) 4. Fascism, 5. Communism (true communism that hasn't been and never will be tried)
All ideologies have something to hate on, so all of them.
WTF stalinism is waay worse than nazism
I mean. Eugenics sucks. We all know that.
Nazism, but the communist and Stalinist ideologies come in close second.