Simple question: What is the difference between communism and fascism? Is it that communism owns the methods of production and fascism lets you own it but tells you what to do with it? Does it have to do with communism making the state “god” and fascism making the people the end? Please tell me if you can, as i have just recently joined a fascist political party (a la Franco).
These are the best definitions I could find, in an effort to be objective. I think I remember vaguely from an European History class that “communists” was the term applied to those who believed that Marxist-Leninist ideals could only be brought about by violent, sudden revolutions. I hope that helped.
Those were the best definitions you could find – in an effort to be objective? 
If they were written by the same person (but they probably weren’t) they seem strongly preferential to Communism. There have been many Fascists, not just Mussolini, of diverse types. And only the Communist definition mentions the good of society but nevertheless neglects the two points that make Communism objectionable to many: no right to private property, and enforced atheism – not to mention overthow of peaceful governments (a la violent socialists).
But the good thing about Wikipedia is that if we ever come up with decent definitions of these terms, we can go online and change them for the benefit of others.
But if it’s true that fascism “engages in severe economic and social regimentation”, I might have to be a fringe element, as I believe in necessary occasional economic and social regimentation. The thing is, I thought economic regimentation was what liberals and other socialists were into!
Thanks for the look-up, though!
The definitions that most people have of Communism are not what Communism is. Those defintions arise from the Stalin School of Falsification and the Bourgeoisie School of Lies. The works of Marx and Engels are further proof of the real and original definition.
we still have a party 
The mechanics of Communism and Fascism are fundamentally different.
Communism: Nationalized and owned companies. Closed Market system. No invisible Hand. Low output. Despotic rule. The State is the religion.
Fascism: Nationalized but private owned company. Based off of capitalism. Invisible hand present. High output. Elected official. Free religion.
“Fundamentally different”? I would rather say the opposite.
Any “sm” is fundamentally the same, they all try to force you into a narrow minded state, and as the result, you’ll suffer eventually.
For me, the difference is, Fascism is no good whatsoever. Communism however, has a kind wish, a hope of the most, and eventuall shall be realised.
I think that some of you are mistaking Fascism as an ideology. Fascism is not an ideology in and of itself. It is an Economic system. During the 1920’s and 30’s Fascism was called Corporatism and greatly influenced the change in the American system of government and its relation to the FED, and its people. In fact, the very concept of planned capitalism is a direct component of Fascism. Also, the term Industrial Policy originated from Fascist economies.
As a philosophy, however, Communism and Fascism are not too far apart. But they are only connected to the point of holding the State above the individual, “Don’t ask what my country can do for me…†et cetera.
Rent control, worker’s compensation, and zoning all originate from the Economics of Fascism. Like Capitalism, private ownership is allowed—of businesses—but this is superficial in that the government plays a major role in the “partnership†between the two established ideals of individuality and the State.
The terms Fascist and Fascism have been widely abused in order to describe the ideologies of one pervert and an idiot with a Napoleon Complex. The Nazi party held ideologies that, in almost no way (except one) reflected the idea of Fascism. Similar for Mussolini’s party.
Communism is not an ideology either. It is the way of actions, the praxis, that stems from the ideology which is marxism. The objective of communism as an extension of marxism is to take humanity off the yolke of the technics. By technics it is not only intended technology, but also abstractions, ideas, all the instruments that at one point started to have an individuality of it’s own.
The capital is a perfect example. Born as an istrument for quickly symbolizing exchange now has become something that lives for itself. All western/libertarian economics is devoted to ever increase it, to make it grow ad infinitum, it has become what marx would call a fetish.
Now there as you can see there can be numerous forms of communism. The one you best know is stalinism, yet there are also maoist and trotskytes (which by the way were minimalists rather than maximalists)
Would you consider a Christian Heaven as being communist?
-One ruling power, no other class structure.
-No private property.
-“The state” is the religion.
-Opposition to the power brings elimination.
No. Heaven might be Fascist, though,…at least Franco and Salazar are probably there. No Communists in a Christian Heaven – everyone there believes in God.
Speaking of which, I read recently, to my dismay, that the socialists in Spain are moving to eliminate all tributes to Franco in their country. (Franco was the general who saved Spain from Communism during the Spanish Civil War, and gave over the country to be ruled by Juan Carlos as king. I believe the king recently handed over the country to other state powers, which have become socialist.)
Europe is ending up with some crpy governors – they don’t even want the Italian Buttiglione to rule either! Looks like the beginning of the end for the West.
So you couldn’t transplant the state with God? When i was a kid i was taught how heaven was this tangible cloudy wonderland where you get your own house and stuff and everyone was happy and God was this big old guy with white beard and sat on a thrown surrounded by angels. As i grew up i was always told heaven was simply the state of being, the essence of God and divine perfection. So wouldn’t God = heaven = the state?
Heaven equals that state of being, or like a political state? If the latter…maybe to a Hegelian?
The words Richtofen and Guernica have no association for you re: the Spanish Civil War? You know, Luftwaffe divebombers dropping bombs all over civilians?
Was Spain in danger of being taken over by Soviet communism? They had an elected republic that replaced the consititutional monarchy. The 1936 election was a marginal victory for the Popular Front, a coalition of parties whose amalgamation leaned to the left - hardly enough to impose communism on the country. Franco himself started the extremely bloody civil war, and when he died in 1975, after years of dictatorship, Juan Carlos became King of a constitutional monarchy in which his role is largely symbolic. The executive power in Spain is vested in the President, who is currently José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero (since the election right after the train bombing in Madrid). Damn right they’re removing all the Franco stuff - not to erase him from history, but to get rid of the stench of dictatorship.
And why is the rejection of Buttiglione the downfall of western civilization?
my real name - you are obviously fishing for answers so you can make yourself look smart…
anyway, being this is a philosophy forum, i would suggest “Escape From Freedom” by Eric Fromm… and as far as economics go, so long as society is based aroud any economic “ism” or system it will always suffer from the same economic problems of the haves and have nots… and they all they all share the same important characteristic that they are all doomed for failure.
Mmmmm…fish! 
Tilapia?
I seldom try to look smart. I usually refer to smarter heads than my own…which IS smart!
But no, I don’t know Spanish history too well – just that the Civil War was fascists vs. communists, and most of the international liberal elite were for the communists … which was the wrong side.
Zen can perhaps advise me on a history for the Spanish Civil War which is not written by communists?
As for Buttiglione, he is a decent man, and they can’t stand him – just doesn’t fit their agenda. (You and I will probably disagree on the salutariness of the Europeean social agenda.)
Regards,
un chevalier mal fet
-
I’ll try to find such a history if I get the time… I’ve been making the assumption that the general consensus of encylopedia articles (recently) and history textbooks (from memory) are not “written by communists” - am I the victim of a massive conspiracy?
-
What is the “international liberal elite”? Ain’t no such animal I ever heard of. It seems to hold about as much water as “capitalist-imperialist-bourgeois cabal.”
-
There is no “right” side in a war between fascism and communism… I would say the Allies took the Soviet side because a) Britain had already declared war on Germany and b) the Soviet Union was not at the time capable of menacing the world the way Germany was.
That said, the Spanish Civil War was more complex than just fascists vs. communists. The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was a volunteer force of Americans, largely WWI veterans, who fought on the Loyalist (Republican) side, against the Nationalists (Fascists). Few among them could be called “communists.”
Even to the extent that there were totalitarians on the left strong enough to match those on the right (which you’ll have to argue for much better), I can pick a “right” i.e. correct side in that conflict: the Syndicalists. Most visibly in Barcelona but in smaller projects all over Spain, a number of towns decided they had had enough of being governed and taxed and exploited, and formed their own anarchist communities, which were self-sustaining and only brought to a halt by specifically-targeted orders from Franco and from Stalin to the small contingent of Soviet-style Communists in the loosely-allied Loyalist side. Franco could not abide them because they were defying military rule and “the Will of the people”, Stalin could not abide them because the Soviet Union was “by definition” the only “legitimate” model for overthrowing the injustices of monarchy and unrestrained capitalism. I.E. neither side could handle the competition. There’s your just side of the conflict…
Thanks for your consideration of my post. I’ll have to find info on that conflict myself, i think. I didn’t think anarchists were better than fascists, but then, it might work in small towns.
As for “the international liberal elite”, by that I mean Hemmingway. 
But someone else mentioned Picasso too – although he had more right to protest, it being his country.
Given the scenario you gave, maybe I’ve been confusing the Communists with anyone fighting the Fascists?
There’s a world of difference between the two!
Communists don’t believe in a state. A communist society is one in which the means of production are collectively owned, there are no classes and no government.
Fascism generally rejects the concept of liberal democracy and advocates the state being supreme above the individual.
In Marxism, communism is, as lapafrax pointed out, the classless collective owning everything and no government or ruling power in place. But also in Marxism is the belief that communism is unattainable until all traces of capitalism and imperialism are wiped out. Some would also argue that a “re-education” is also needed for the people as a collective to embrace communism.
To do this, Marx and others created a transitional stage of Marxism that would be ran under central-planning and other systems of economic control, allowing the government to stomp out capitalism. Another aspect of this transitional stage is a proprietor of the masses, or a dictator, that has complete control over the state. The reason for such is that once capitalism is stomped out, the proprietor can realse all the chains of control and thus enter the stage of Marxism known as Communism.
The problem with this stage is that no dictator just releases all power and disbands all government offices. As they say “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly”, in this way, communism has become a vessel for fascism and power-hungry dictators.
It’s this transitional stage that all countries now known as “communist” are currently in. And thus it’s is better to call such countries “state-socialist” countries, and not communist.
So, communism is truely more like social anarchy, but reconizes the fact that human social progress hasn’t come far enough for such a state to be established. So instead of waiting it out and slowly, but surely, steer the world in a more “anti-capitialist” and “free” direction, they wish to fast-forward the whole thing by embracing a totalitarian government in hopes that it will free them from other totalitarian governments.
Also, in regards to the Spanish war, lets not forget the impact that the anarchists had on that war. I personally would give them just as much credit as the communist revolutionists.