Forums / Discussion / General

Personally I think Fascism is much worse than Communism. Because unlike Communism, Fascism actually works, but it works in a way that produces monstrous results. Plus the creepy obsession with genetics and "purity".

First I want to say that millions died under countries that adopted both systems. Some due to gross negligence, but more notably, many through deliberate actions of those in power.

Second, these are not perfect opposites. Fascism is authoritative nationalism, while communism is more about an economic system.

The "ideal" communist system would treat every person equally, with good and services being provided by the government. This hypothetically could be done through a scale of supreme dictatorship (which, yes, is extremely contradictory), to non-representational "true" democracy (which all have their own pros and cons.) Obviously, there are big differences between theory and practice.

Fascism seems to inherently rely on dictator power to some degree, as well as some people will never be seen as equal to others no matter what they do.

Ideally, a "perfect" communist system (like in say, Star Trek) would be a much better alternative that any form of fascism by a long shot.

They both suck. They both kill shit loads of people. They both are supported by useful idiots that think that if they support them all the problems of the world will go away and we'll all be living in peace and harmony singing holding hands together with our fellow brethren while their government figures out how to fix homelessness, unemployment, hunger, find a cure for cancer, find a non-gene engineering cure for HIV and find unicorns…. Wait I think one of those is literally impossible; I'm pretty sure it's a non-gene engineering cure for hiv cause the virus is in your cells for literally the rest of your life and you can only suppress the virus.

As YHBF said their are around the same…in reality,however shitpost wise? I would say Fascism is worse as Communism is a solid mid-tier in the dank meta being (while it is not saying much) the arguably dankest political meme(below deep fried memes and Pepe Prime but definitely above standard liberal memes and Neo Pepe), while fascism memes aren't a thing for good reason.

There's a reason why Star Trek is considered science FICTION. The probability of it happening is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000%
"What's the digit after that last zero?"
zero
"After that?"
cero
"After that zero?"
Ling
"After that zero?"
Nulla
"After that zero?"
ゼロ
"After that zero?"
صفر
"After that zero?"
noll-

As a concept, I have to say fascism is worse, but the so called "communist states" we're familiar with (USSR, China, etc.) aren't really any better, and are only communism in the broadest sense of the term. The common link between the two is authoritarianism, and that's where the major problem lies.

As for the "ideal communist society", I wont say its impossible, but the chances of there being enough of a material surplus for it to happen are pretty damn low.

Really depends on what variations of which ideology you compare.
If you try comparing Nazism to Stalinism. Both of these ideologies are horrible.
Basic a.k.a Italian Fascism Vs basic communism. A difficult question. Fascism is dictatorial and totalitarian, while communism was supposed to be workers self-rule. Both ideologies state that those who oppose the new order should be silenced. Both promote expansion. Of the state and ideology in fascism case, just ideology in communisms case. Both are for changing the current state. Only the ways in which they wish to change the system differ.
Communism is an idea that many of the problems faced by lower classes would be fixed if they rose up against the upper ones and would topple the capitalist system. Nationality, statehood and religion should be discarded in this new system, as they are only there to easily control the working class. Workers should govern and rule themselves, and own their places of work and tools. As mentioned previously all those who oppose such system a.k.a the upper classes, must be silenced or exterminated. Communal organisation is stated to be the ideal economic system.
Fascism on the other hand strives to create a stronger, more unified state. They believe absolute devotion to the state will lead to a better future. Statehood and religion are embraced as these are unifying elements. State is raised above all. Thus as long as a person is devoted to the state, his race, religion or ethnicity doesn't matter. The ideal economic system of Fascism is massive corporations controlled and subservient to the government. As mentioned previously those who oppose the new system must be silenced or destroyed.

Fascism is much worse. But of course I’d say that, I’m a communist. One thing I want to point out though, is that communism is an extremely varied set of ideologies many of which are irreconcilably opposed to one another. What most people think of when they hear “communism” is either the USSR (Marxism-Leninism) or the People’s Republic of China (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). But there are a much wider variety of ideologies, including some which firmly reject Lenin’s contributions to Marxist thought and some which even predate Marx. My particular branch, anarcho-Communism firmly rejects vanguard parties and the powerful states that were responsible for so many of the deaths that get attributed to the entire concept of communism. Many other branches do as well.

If it's about the deaths, communism is worse
If it's about the human rights, fascism is worse
If it's about the censorship, communism is worse
If it's about the racism, fascism is worse
If it's about what's happening currently such as North Korea (and maybe China and Venezuela), communism is worse
If it's about what's happening in USA such as the alt-right, fascism is worse
If it's about in general, both are worse and are just stupid

Jesus, it's like saying which two would you like to be killed more effectively

As an enlightened galaxy brain horseshoe theorist my belief is that both ideologies are completely identical and that attempting to parse their differences is an exercise in futility.

First I want to say that millions died under countries that adopted both systems

Communism is not a system to be adopted, nor is it an ideology.

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” – Karl Marx

Most likely what the OP is referring to is Marxism-Leninism, an ideological strain of the communist movement codified by Joseph Stalin, adopting and combining ideas found in works by Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, and Frederich Engels. Marxism-Leninism is the socioeconomic policy adopted by the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. It is commonly referred to as "Stalinism" by other leftists.

First, we should clarify what Marxism-Leninism entails. Marxist-Leninists wish to establish a communist society via the use of an intermittent socialist state ran by the vanguard party. The vanguard party is a communist party comprised of "professional" revolutionaries and economic philosophers. The vanguard party is a direct auxiliary to the working class via democratic means.

To achieve full communism, Marxist-Leninists focus on industrial and scientific development, as well as ostracism of working class enemies such as the bourgeoisie.

Now, on to fascism.

Fascism is a form of extreme authoritarian nationalism -- the state directly controls and dictates market forces, as well as individual livelihoods. Because of fascism's extreme nationalism, this often leads to a form of ethnonationalism (such as Nazi Germany), which logically leads to mass migration or genocide of ethnic, religious, political, sexual, or gendered minorities.

Like Marxism-Leninism, fascists advocate for a one-party state -- however, this party is not directly subservient to the majority or working class, as democracy is deemed ineffective by fascists. Because of this, fascism is inherently dictatorial by a minority, such as the bourgeoisie or military.

While Marxism-Leninism advocates national liberation (the right of a nation to be self-reliant and independent) in the name of international cooperation in the hopes of creating a global communist society, fascists advocate for extreme global unitary political control via their own nation. This is an inherent good in fascism, and as such, methods such as war and imperialism are seen as useful tools rather than an evil to avoid.

These are self-admitted characteristics of both ideologies. So, yes, fascism is far, far worse than communism.

@memciki
"The only reason you could argue why Fascism was bad for Germany is because they lost the war."
If that's the case wouldn't that mean that capitalism and democracy are superior since they won out in the end? :P (Yes I am being a smartass cause I know you identify as a communist so I'm using your own logic of "the winner is right" against you)

@Memciki

"What exactly is wrong with Fascism? Surely you evaluate a system by what it promises and delivers to a nation that adopts it."

Hitler found Berlin a city of bricks and left it a city of rubble. There's not much else to say, really.

"The only reason you could argue why Fascism was bad for Germany is because they lost the war."

There was Generalplan Ost which would most likely have resulted in the enslavement and genocide of pretty much every Eastern European, which isn't really nice, considering 100+ million people would be killed and replaced by German settlers. You're partly right, since I or other europeans wouldn't be able to question or argue against the Nazis, the Holocaust, or Generalplan Ost if the nazis were to win the war without instability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

"But even that’s a weak argument, because then would liberal democracy be intrinsically bad for a country if it loses a war while being a liberal democracy?"

Not really, no. I guess it depends if the liberal democracy starts a war of racial extermination and conquest, then loses against one of the races they'd like to exterminate, and then has their own country divided into two parts with numerous sectors controlled by the ones that said liberal democracy tried to occupy/exterminate.

"How many Germans were killed by Nazis? Italians by Italian fascists? Spanish people? And now compare to how many Russians or Chinese have died under their respective governments."

German jews or political dissidents don't count, apparently. Is it somehow worse if the killed are one's own countrymen, and not other races or people (and the other way around)? Nazi Germany invaded Eastern Europe with the intent of killing and enslaving pretty much anyone non-aryan, then colonising with German settlers. The Soviet Union and China's deaths come from a mix of forced labour, famine, and political mass killings. Sources for deaths under Mao Zedong, some go as far as 80-100 million, while Stalin's a mix of 5 to 20 million depending on who you ask. Mao and Stalin are considerably propagandised for and against, some would claim that they've killed up to 200 million while others shrug and say that they dindu nuffin.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

-C.S. Lewis

YourHigherBrainFunctions wrote:

There’s a reason why Star Trek is considered science FICTION

And why do you think I put quotations around "ideal" and "perfect". Star Trek works on the premise that the economy is pretty much marked invalid because technology has eliminated the middlemen, as replicators produce everything a person needs and energy is nearly freely available. While we do have some advances in eliminating the workforce for a more efficient economy (automation in many businesses) I don't see things like literal replicators like Star Trek has in the immediate future.

I'm just making this point that in my opinion, the hypothetical best case scenario of communism (which, again, is purely hypothetical) I think is better than the hypothetical best case scenario of fascism. That does not inherently mean I think we need to abandon what we're doing right now and try to go to it, especially as it relies on technology that does not exist.

@YourHigherBrainFunctions

But I'm not arguing that "the winner is right". I'm saying that I don't think that you should judge a system based on how a particular country that implemented it has performed in a war. WWII at it's core was clearly a Russo-German war. Had it been alternative history with Nazi Japan and Communist China, maybe it'd be different, who knows. There's much more to winning a war than just choosing a "superior" ideology.

@Big Brother

You're whole answer is bizarre. Did you even read what I wrote?

Hitler found Berlin a city of bricks and left it a city of rubble.

Well, yes, like I said, they lost the war. The last Polish prime minister before the war also found Warsaw a city of bricks and left it a city of rubble. What exactly does your argument imply?

Generalplan Ost

Holy shit, you even directly quote me asking why Fascism was bad for Germany. How would Generalplan Ost be bad for Germany? Had they succeeded they probably would have become a superpower, with great territories, slaves and resources. Hell, maybe I'd be a slave if alive at all. How could you possibly argue that all of this would be bad for Germany and Germans?

Is it somehow worse if the killed are one’s own countrymen, and not other races or people

Well obviously. Hitler was not responsible for the well-being of Eastern Europeans. Mao was indeed responsible for the people he ruled. Why the heck would you judge a leader based on how good or bad he was for other nations? Great leaders are by definition bad news for everyone surrounding their country, from Alexander the Great to Stalin, right?

memčiki memosiki wrote:

I’m saying that I don’t think that you should judge a system based on how a particular country that implemented it has performed in a war

So, normally I would agree with this, as this is only one aspect of a country, and is not something that a country inherently has to do if it can work it's diplomacy right. The problem is, nazi Germany wasn't minding it's own internal affairs and other countries decided that it wanted their land, nazi Germany billed it's future on trying to conquer most of the rest of the world. Fighting wars is an inseparable part of nazi Germany, not some minor detail that happened to not work.

memčiki memosiki wrote:

Had they succeeded

There are a lot of hypothetical situations that could potentially make every situation work. What I'm getting from this was if they had a better military, it would have worked, of which you previously said that "don’t think that you should judge a system based on how a particular country that implemented it has performed in a war".

memčiki memosiki wrote:

Big Brother wrote:

Is it somehow worse if the killed are one’s own countrymen, and not other races or people

Well obviously. Hitler was not responsible for the well-being of Eastern Europeans. Mao was indeed responsible for the people he ruled. Why the heck would you judge a leader based on how good or bad he was for other nations? Great leaders are by definition bad news for everyone surrounding their country, from Alexander the Great to Stalin, right?

Okay, let's look at the full context of what Big Brother said:

Big Brother wrote:

German jews or political dissidents don’t count, apparently. Is it somehow worse if the killed are one’s own countrymen, and not other races or people

Germans who were Jewish, Communist, homosexual, physically or mentally disabled, just straight up did not agree with nazisim were all German citizens who were deemed inferior, were rounded up to be used as slave labor/ human experiments/ executed. How is it you managed to completely miss the part about these being German citizens who suffered under nazi Germany's rule?

Please note, I'm not saying that this inherently makes communism better. By all means, many communists countries did exactly as described above to an even larger degree.

@Jacob

I kind of agree with your first point. Though I think it was a case of biting off more than you can chew. Even having a "better" military is not always enough.

Germans who were Jewish, Communist, homosexual, physically or mentally disabled, just straight up did not agree with Nazism

Well German Jews weren't Germans. If I were to get a German citizenship, it wouldn't exactly make me any more German than I am now. But even if we consider all the people I think from their point of view it's a case of sacrificing the few for the many to build their thousand year Reich. Should a leader sacrifice a few to build the most powerful empire in the world?

But regardless, far fewer German citizens perished from Nazi repressions than Russians, Chinese, etc. from Communist repressions. I think this is the most important point. Generalplan Ost is not an argument when you're trying to prove that Nazism is inherently bad for Germany.

To sum up, would you agree that the worst thing about Nazism from the German point of view is that they lost the war?

So you support active genocide? 17 million people died in the Holocaust, shut the fuck up. It's pretty clear that was because of Fascism because Hitler was building a facist dictatorship. Don't try and be that "One million is a statistic" person either.

I thought it was 6 million. Is it 17 already? Are you sure it's not more?

There's no need to get so emotional. I don't care about the Holocaust, whether it was 6, 17, or 170 million people. It's just history. Mongol conquests resulted in great destruction and tens of millions of people dead when they were building their great empire. Surely you don't feel some great animosity toward Genghis Khan.

And no, I don't really support "active genocide" because my ancestors would have been the ones genocided, lol. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

It all depends on how you want to define "worse"; the only thing that can be said with certainty is that both are terrible and we probably shouldn't try them again.

Both do have positives, of course, but they're far outweighed by their negatives, shortcomings, failures, and pogroms.

To all who think that Nazism is a correct representation of Fascist ideology, explain these quotes from Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" 1932.
These are taken from the section "REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE"
"No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State"
"Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality."

Also, here is an interesting quote
"Race: it is a feeling and not a reality; 95 %, a feeling."
E. Ludwig "Talks with Mussolini"

I am tired of this idiocy. When people claim that Stalinists or Maoists did this or that, people claim that these ideologies are not real communism. When someone reminds democratic folks that the greatest massacres and imperialist conquests were under liberal democracies and constitutional monarchies, they claim that this does not represent democracy. But when someone starts screaming that Fascism is inherently evil because National Socialism exists, everyone just nods in agreement.
If your analyzing and comparing ideologies do it properly.

@Memciki

"Well, yes, like I said, they lost the war. The last Polish prime minister before the war also found Warsaw a city of bricks and left it a city of rubble. What exactly does your argument imply?"

If the Polish prime minister started a war with an ideology and state system almost entirely based around the funding of, and extermination, during the war … And then had their asses kicked, then yes, I would say that. But I doubt that was the case. World War 2 as we know it wouldn't have happened if the nazis were absent.

"Holy shit, you even directly quote me asking why Fascism was bad for Germany. How would Generalplan Ost be bad for Germany? Had they succeeded they probably would have become a superpower, with great territories, slaves and resources. Hell, maybe I’d be a slave if alive at all. How could you possibly argue that all of this would be bad for Germany and Germans?"

Depends who or not is German to you, really. The slaves, the murdered and the oppressed would all be a part of Germany should Germany become a superpower, but that would never happen, they'd all be a part of the enslaved, murdered, and oppressed. No one is responsible for them.

"Well obviously. Hitler was not responsible for the well-being of Eastern Europeans. Mao was indeed responsible for the people he ruled. Why the heck would you judge a leader based on how good or bad he was for other nations? Great leaders are by definition bad news for everyone surrounding their country, from Alexander the Great to Stalin, right?"

If Germany invades and takes over Eastern Europe, then Eastern Europeans are inside German borders, and since they are under Nazi Germany authority and with no actual autonomy, then Germany would be responsible for its subjects. If that is not the case, then who is going to be "responsible" for these slaves and soon-to-be-exterminated people? If someone's state, government, or culture is gone, then do they no longer have right to life or freedom?

"Well German Jews weren’t Germans. If I were to get a German citizenship, it wouldn’t exactly make me any more German than I am now."
No true German.

"But even if we consider all the people I think from their point of view it’s a case of sacrificing the few for the many to build their thousand year Reich. Should a leader sacrifice a few to build the most powerful empire in the world?"

Destroying or enslaving entire countries, ethnicities, or races is far from "a few".

Let's say that I take control of a country and then kill anyone who doesn't fit my arbitrary definitions of race and heritage. Sure, it's """good""" for anyone who does fit my arbitrary definition of race and heritage, but that also means that even those who consider themselves "Big Brotherian" but do not fit my arbitrary definition of "Big Brotherian" must also be a part of the list of undesired people. Even if these people were born in "Big Brotherstan", had "Big Brotherstan" families in the hundreds, spanning several centuries, they would not be real "BB-ian" to my definition of "BB-ian" because they prefer strawberry milk instead of chocolate milk.

You know: now that there's no classically defined fascist countries left the world has been a lot better and better yet since the collapse of communism as a global force to the point there's only four communist countries left the world has been even better.

Obviously there's still dictator fucktards, but most of those countries don't consider ethnic puritism a end goal. Not really about communism or fascism but since communism has been falling and fascism is dead the world has been a better place, all we really gotta do is wait for theocracies to end also. There's 8 theocracies left so once they're gone the world might be nice.

Tldr;
Fascism is pretty much dead.
Communism is dying, only four communist countries left.
Theocracy is dying, only eight countries left.

I think it's fair to point out that not all fascism is Nazism and that fascism doesn't necessitate a racial component. That being said, I find what Mussolini actually wrote (or had written in his name) abhorrent. Mussolini's fascism was all about suppressing everything, freedom, religion, culture, morals, and molding them until they served the needs of the state. If you're going to do all that you better have an immense payoff. But you don't. You get the subjective betterment of the state, which itself is an abstraction. Italy, America, whichever country you live in, they don't actually exist. There's line's we draw on a map and tell others not to cross. There are laws passed by politicians that we agree to follow, and there are people hired to commit or threaten violence against you if you don't. But there's no concrete entity or person called Italy or America that actually benefits from people being patriotic, or from the fact that people are now more pliable. But some people do benefit from these things, the politicians. The people who form the government are given even more power over a pliable populous. As long as they can justify that whatever position they are taking is for the good of "the state" then the people will be happy to sacrifice whatever liberties they need in order to make their nation strong.

@Big Brother

Depends who or not is German to you, really.

There are two simple definitions: a citizen of Germany, or an ethnic German. I'm talking about ethnic Germans. I'm not well versed in Communist theory, so I guess an "ethnicity" is a social construct for you, but it isn't for me, Hitler, or anyone else who lived back then. Therefore I was talking about the advancement of Germany as a nation of ethnic Germans. Nazis had very clear rules for whom they accepted, which even included people with considerable non-German ancestry.

@YourHigherBrainFunctions

You're talking as if the biggest problems in the world come from Communist countries or dictators. Which they're not, so they disappearance won't make the world any better.

@Tchefuncte Bonaparte

There is no concrete entity called America because there are no concrete entities called Americans. Any country that exists as a multicultural amalgamation of different ethnicities only exists on paper. Obviously, one can't say the same thing about monoethnic countries, which have their own unique cultures and gene pools. Their states, therefore, exist to directly represent their interests and ensure their existence and development. Without a strong nation their continuous existence and prosperity is endangered. Without a strong state they are going to be destroyed or exploited, as it has always happened and is still happening now.

P.S. Holy shit, I think I just realized what's wrong with communists. They argue for things that would be true or would work in a world where Communism has won without actually living in a world like that.

@memciki

Keep lying to yourself.

Well, I got absolutely btfo, well done. I don't like how it doesn't include civilians though.

It literally says "The majority of battle deaths will be combatants, however, deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire are also included" so civilian deaths are included.

I didn't mean battle deaths. I meant civilians dead due to unnatural reasons.

Then communist and fascist number of people killed would be MUCH MUCH MUCH higher. If you want to count that then the number of people dictators and shit directly or indirectly killed would break well over a hundred million easily.

China's "Great Leap Forward" starved to death fifty million people.
The USSR just shoved people onto islands to intentionally starve them to death.

Well I was talking about modern times since you mentioned how there're less and less dictators, and how that's great. You posted an interesting graph, but it would be great to see the overall number of unnatural deaths since the early 2000's.

Also we should definitely switch to using messages if you're planning to continue this any further.

http://necrometrics.com/wars21c.htm
(wait that is a bit outdated)
I hate to use wikipedia, but they have a updated version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
Afghanistan, Mexican drug war, Syria and Iraq are the big wars right now.

Before you go "That proves the USA are all horrible monsters that come in the night and kill children and sacrifice them to satan" the USA does publish the number of civilians we accidentally kill in wartime now. The number of civilians we accidentally killed in Iraq was several thousand. The reason why the civilian death is so high though is insurgents and ISIS were not kind to any civilians who didn't submit to them.

ISIS beheaded a lot of people. About 40000 Yezidi, 20000 Kurds and other groups went "missing" under ISIS.

That proves the USA are all horrible monsters that come in the night and kill children and sacrifice them to satan

Bingo. ISIS and all of these insurgencies were directly caused by a certain democracy, not an ebil dictator. What can we do about the United States? I don't know. Personally I hope that China becomes some hyper-ultra-superpower in the future and overshadows the US. Some modern dictator stepping down won't change the world for the best. If anything, it would probably be the other way around.

@memciki
"Bingo. ISIS and all of these insurgencies were directly caused by a certain democracy, not an ebil dictator."
Wow you really no nothing about ISIS do you? They literally believe it's the end of the world and that forcibly converting people at gunpoint is "saving them". It'd be like if a bunch of Christians that believe in "The Rapture" started rounding up Non-Christians, forcibly at gunpoint trying to convert people to "save your soul from the anti-christ".

Basically imagine Far Cry 5 but instead of Christians it's Muslims.

Wow you really no nothing about ISIS do you?

Lmao. Please do enlighten me, my American friend, about the circumstances under which ISIS came to be as powerful as it was. And all of these other insurgencies. And Libya literally moving back to the Middle Ages, with slavery and other nice stuff like that. I heard it might have something to do with a certain democracy that enjoys overthrowing foreign governments.

At this point we derailed the thread way too much, I'm afraid of getting cucked by the mods, let's use messages pls.

ISIS aren't the only ones.

Historically, they're both pure shit and will lead their country to famine or near complete destruction. They both have a supreme authority in charge, whether it's a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or a fuhrer/duce. They both demand state control of the economy. They both advocate the destruction of any opposition to their cause. They both use conspiracies--whether Jewish or Bourgeoisie in origin--to control their countries and eliminate opponents. And they both advocate a grand vision that, ultimately, can never actually be realized.

You can argue about a utopian communism where there's no money and everyone's treated rightly or a utopian fascism where the state strictly uses nationalism with no racial element to unify and protect its citizens but, in reality, you're far more likely to end up dead in a mass grave in either than in a perfect society.

The problem with ISIS is more of a problem with Islam. The issue of terrorism is still as heated of a topic in Islam as it has been, because people want to sweep it under the rug and act as though their countries have moved past it. A example of what I mean is that 20% of Turkey thinks ISIS is the good guys.

The problem with the middle east is Islamic fundamentalism that pretty much views any other religion merely existing to be "persecuting them". In a lot of countries if you convert away from Islam they'll kill you. Sure you can argue your point about Iraq, Libya or such, but can you argue that about Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries the USA has never taken military action against?

"So you are islamaphobic?"
No, groups like the Kurds or such don't persecute minorities, other religions, women or lgbt.

Tldr; religious fundamentalism regardless of the religion is bad.
Theocracy is bad
Communism is bad
Fascism is bad
The goal off those four isn't to better the countries they operate in, rather it's goal is to forcibly change someone to believe like they do at gunpoint.

Thank you for understanding my point. One of the biggest problems with people comparing ideologies is that they lump all the variations of ideology together and then everything devolves into screeching how one ideology is this and that and killed this many people.
Can't we have a discussion where we compare not the actions of those who claimed to support the ideology, but rather how the creators of the ideology wrote it's points and ideals down?

Okay then: Marx was a dumbass that was a obsessive fanboy of the french revolution. If he was alive today he'd have a dakimaru of napoleon.

Here's a question for the communists in the forum: hypothetically speaking the USA did become """"""true"""""" communism:
Who would make anime, porn, video games, sex toys, dakimaru and the million other things that aren't basic necessities serve purely as entertainment.
"The government"
…I don't see Kim Jong Un making porn. Then again he would probably be popular with chubby chasers and his porn name would probably be "The DICKtator".

And Mussolini was a control freak who LARPed as a Roman emperor. If he lived today he would probably be a /pol/ack.

@Crystal James :Cooler's right hand

If he lived today he would probably be a /pol/ack.

No, he didn't care much about race, like you said yourself. He'd be an alt-lite civic nationalist cuck.

@YourHigherBrainFunctions

a problem with Islam

There's literally no problem with Islam. And don't get me wrong, I hate Muslims as much as the next guy, but they've never bothered anyone until you and your puppets bothered them. "Islam" is not the problem, Western imperialism is the problem. Well, I don't know if it's fair to call it "Western" imperialism, but whatever.

The government

There's no government in a """""true""""" communist country.

I don’t see Kim Jong Un

I have never ever seen a commie claim that Best Korea is a """"true"""" communist country.

/pol/ is not only about race. It's about wanting to change the system. There's plenty of people on /pol/ who don't care about race, but rather are there to express their dissatisfaction with the current system.
/pol/ has plenty of people from various ideologies from anarcho-capitalists to non-ironic monarchists. Most of them are there because there's nowhere else to express their opinions and ideas.
Considering that Mussolini's ideas would be very much against the ideals of today, it wouldn't be surprising if he, if he lived today with the same opinions and ideals, would express them in /pol/

My Grandfather escaped to Uzbekistan during the Holocaust when the Nazis came into Ukraine. Of the 13 brothers and sisters, only 4 survived. My grandfather was lucky, he met my grandmother in Uzbekistan when she and her family fled Romania. This was after, of course, having his own father grow up and raise his children during the Holodomor. After WW2 and the horrors that was produced by the Nazi regimes, my grandfather came back to Odessa, Ukraine, where he raised his family under the Soviet regime. To this day, my grandfather's greatest achievement was that he was employed by a renowned anti-Semite, the logic being that the anti-Semite boss valued my Jewish grandfather's work ethic so much that he kept him employed.

My father was a rebellious during the Soviet era, being part of a youthful dissident movement. (in this image he is the dude with the sunglasses, long hair and mustache. ) and I myself grew up in the Soviet Union as a child, being very intimately connected to both the fascist and communist ideologies, as it was manifested in government and society.

Now that I am lucky as all hell that I was able to come to the United States as a refugee when the old Soviet Empire collapsed, and can absolutely appreciate the wonderful life in Western Democracy, and appreciate the liberties and freedoms I have, I stand in constant disgust that the large social conflicts of the Internet are revolving around the old Fascist vs Communist ideological battles.

@Chewybunny
Simply put: it's cause a lot of those people that support either of them are young teens that have drank the koolaid super hard.

Update: Taryn is no longer a communist. I take full credit.

Fascism is must worse than Communism. Its a truth!!