What was worse for society? Communism or Fascism?

What was worse for society? Communism or Fascism?

...

It really depends on which period of Soviet history you take as example of Communism Because you know, it didn't last 12 years and had various leaders with different politics

Ahh~ I want to fill Mugi's womb with my semen!

question is too simplistic

many consider Franco or Pinochet fascists and I don't think their regimes were all that bad to live in for average people

I dont recall fascism causing famines

Communism is a rebellion against reality/nature, just need to look at a guy like Lysenko and realize it is an ideology for nut jobs huffing all the ideology they can and killing tens of millions for it

Fascism killed off Communism, and Fascism still exists, so I'd say Communism is just all around failure.

Fascism was a better system than communism and the current order adopted parts of it

what drugs are you on?

implying fascism is bad haha

Both the far-left and far-right are no different in practice, they are both authoritarian collectivists who end up committing mass murder and genocide.

Let's see...
Fascism resulted in complete downfall of their nations in a decade.
Communism resulted in two superpowers, one of which still exists, and the other did significantly better under communism than before or after

Fascism is condemned by general populace of the countries that experienced it.
Communism is overwhelmingly supported or has significant support by the general populace that experienced it or currently have it.

Communism has a major presence in a modern world.
Fascism has no presence whatsoever for at least half a century.

Really tough to answer your question to be honest.

Fascism killed more white people than communism. Far more, in fact.

This is about what is better for society, not who won wars

>Communism is overwhelmingly supported or has significant support by the general populace that experienced it or currently have it.
bias alert

It is in its' most major cases.
And who decides that? A random guy on the internet who seeks to indulge his fantasies and beliefs, or the society in question itself? And why does it matter for an ideology who won wars? Every ideology starts out in hostile environments to begin with. The viable and practical ones continue to live on no matter what. Did the defeat of Revolutionary France stop liberalism? Ironically, it only spread it instead. That is because Liberalism is viable and fascism is not.

Communism is international,
Fascism is national,
All modern communist nations are also nationalist.

Did you know that 2000 nuclear bombs were already detonated since they were discovered? Did you know that most of them were detonated on US soil?

>muh horseshoe retardation

Just because a part of the outcome is the same it does not mean they are the same. Fascism and Communism both express very different virtues and have impacted the world very differently. You can't be retarded and throw this away because you want to LARP as an ethical expert.

But both were better societies than liberal capitalist democracies

If you're a fascist, communism.
If you're a communist, fascism.

Communism resulted it failure because it was never implemented properly or because the leaders were corrupt
Fascism resulted if failure because it's a shit ideology that the people don't like

communism, but only because they lasted so long

Communism. Fascism is actually good, but faggots like Hitler ruined it.

Communism's weakness to corruption and difficulty of implementation are things that makes Communism a shit ideology

What

18 year olds actually believe communism can work.

There's no fucking difference.

do it again nazbol gang

every political system with a central government is weak to corruption
the difficulty of implementation is primarily because of the incompetence of the leadership
for example, mao didn't cause the death by starvation of tens of millions of chinese on purpose, he simply was fucking retarded and knew nothing about biology, he genuinely thought that by killing the sparrows he would save the crops

show em one example of communism being fully implemented and failing
>inb4 ussr, china, etc
these states were socialist
the had/have currency, governments, classes, etc
their end goal was communism, but it was never achieved

Trying to snag me on semantics. Communism can't work for the precise reason that it cannot be reached. Maybe on a very small scale where everybody os ideologically possessed but not imposed upon a large body of people.
Like Hayak said, Capitalism wasnt created from the top down, its a system that evolved with us because it applies and appeals to our nature.
If you have a problem with crony capitalism I'm with you comrade, but capitalism by itself has raised BILLIONS of people out of poverty in only thr last century.

not even a commie mate, just stating the facts
i agree that communism cannot be fully implemented in a large group/globally because sooner or later someone will want to do something to stand out, and with no central authority the system will collapse from within
yes, capitalism has raised millions out of poverty in the west, but at the cost of impoverishing Africa and a good part of Asia and Latin America
i haven't dug enough into political and economic theory to offer a different solution to Capitalism as of yet, but I think it's valid criticism

Fascists aren't far right. Centre right at furthest. National Socialists even less so

Fascism didn't survive long enough to compare.

they are both great

>mugi
>not yui

fuck off

One day the last communist will be strangled in the entrails of the last nazi, and humanity will know peace
Liberal democracy will always triumph over your failed ideologies

communism destroys community, anything that was "common" is now owned by the state, yes this is not real communism or whatever but this is what it turned out to be in practice

its poison, it destroys all and every bond you have around you, you will view the state as a 3rd entity that is there to steal from you and that makes it ok to steal from it

it will also turn the community into a network of spies and conspirators where you have to guess who is writing what about you as a report, maybe your best friend just made sure the other day your career is finished for his own benefit

i dont know about spain or chile where right wing dictatorships lasted long but i can imagine its not too different

hello Jew

Fascism, because it causes everyone else to declare war on you

>implying you live in a "liberal democracy"

>Yes, Germany was back then a democracy, before us and we’ve been plundered and squeezed dry. No more. What does democracy or authoritarian state mean for those international hyenas? They don’t care at all! They are only interested in one thing. Are you willing to be plundered? Yes or no? Are you stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no? And, when a democracy is stupid enough not to stand up, then it is good! But when an authoritarian state declares “You do not plunder our people any longer”, neither from the inside or outside, then that is bad. In reality, money rules in these countries. They talk about press freedom when in fact these newspapers have one owner and the owner is, in any case, the sponsor.
This press then shapes public opinion, these political parties don’t have any differences at all, like before with us. You already know the old political parties. They were all the same. Then people must think that especially in these countries of freedom and wealth, there should exist a very comfortable life for its people, but the opposite is the case.

In these countries, in the so-called “Democracies”, the people are by no means the main focus of attention. What really matters is the existence of this group of “Democracy makers”. That is, the existence of a few hundred of giant capitalists who own all the factories and shares and who, ultimately, lead the people. They are not interested at all in the great mass of people

--Hitler

Capitalism.

...

>mfw Hitler talks like a communist, then he kills all the left-wingers in his party and then he becomes friends with German industrialists

Yeah, he REALLY meant what he was saying.

They are both better than the fake democracy that we lives those days

...

Communism

In objective terms? Communism. The reason for this being that Marx's ideas were originally a scientific (if poorly scientific) reading of history that were supposed to describe reality as it was, rather than as it ought to be.

These days communists are 100% ideology. There is no rational underpinning of modern communism it's just nostalgia. Fascists at least acknowledge that they are ideologues operating off of subjective principles, "me and mine should survive, fuck everyone else," that's honesty. But blabbering about exploitation and huu-huuing about how being paid a wage is the same as being exploited isn't honest. It's bullshit, nobody actually believes that for a second.

Liberal democracy is evil. Forget about the platitudes for a second. Even in its purest state, Democracy can only exist as a system by which groups of people vote on how they should rob other people, and what the plunder should be spent on.

Democracy has no moral legitimacy. It merely makes claims to moral legitimacy based on consensus, but if morality is rational then consensus is irrelevant, and if morality isn't rational then NOTHING is relevant.

The entirety of liberalism is a sham. The idea that people ought to be free to do as they will--retarded. The idea that people ought to govern themselves--retarded. The idea that all of society ought to bend to the exception rather than the rule--retarded.

All retarded. There's no point to democracy.

"Communism" isn't something you're supposed to implement you fucking retard, communism is something that is supposed to occur INEVITABLY out of post-capitalist societies.

The fact that human corruption CAN defeat it is proof that it is a failed system.

How many people die of the direct result of fascism? Not that many.
How many dies of the direct result of communism?
Millions.

At least 50-60 million for fascism.

In 5 years.

>implying fascism is bad

>remember the 60 million goyim

He killed millions

It is. Autarky doesn't work, oppressive policies are bad, starting a world world and murdering millions of people is also pretty bad.

Idiot. The Germans and its allies murdered at least 12-14 million civilians. Add to this soldiers, people who died as a result of diseases and starvation and it will be at least 50 million.

Are you sure mate? When was the last time you made a trip in Eastern Europe ?, because from my experience what you just said is unfounded and surreal.

>Autarky doesn't work
A certain extent of autarky is needed for a country to be independent.
>oppressive policies are bad
I guess we should get rid of all laws then.
>starting a world war
The war was started by the people who made the "treaty" of Versailles
>murdering millions of people
which was done by every major country involved in that war (except France, who capitulated before they got the chance)

>people who died as a result of diseases were killed by fascism
sounds legit

What from war?
That doesn't count faggot.

>Capitalism wasnt created from the top down, its a system that evolved with us because it applies and appeals to our nature
lol

Why wouldn't it count? And if this doesn't count then why would starvation caused by the communist count? And of course 12-14 million non-combatants were deliberately killed or starved to death.

Autarky doesn't work. Simple as that. It didn't work in Spain, it didn't work in Germany or anywhere else.

From what I've heard the regimes themselves aren't well liked, but some people have a lot of positive things to say about the system.

I'm pretty sure fascist Spain was less bad compared to the west then democratic Spain is. And Germany would have been defeated a lot sooner without autarky.

>The war was started by the people who made the "treaty" of Versailles
The war was started by Germany, you little Nazi shit.

Then you will be wrong. Please read about the history of Spain. In 1950 Spain was doing worse than Poland which was completely ruined by war. Only in late 1950s Franco abandoned autarky and the Spanish miracle started. Seriously, educate yourself.

>promise peace according to Wilsons 14 points
>promise self determination of nations
>wait until Germany demobilizes it's army
>don't demobilize your own army
>break every single promise you made
wtf why would ebil Nazis fight against this?

I'm not very familiar with Spain, so you're probably right about that. In Germany autarky not only worked, but was necessary to not get immediately destroyed during the war.

Against what? Your lies? And spare me your shitty propaganda photos.

It worked so well they had shortages in 1937/1938 and they consumed less nutritious products than in 1928. Amazing policy.

>people actually believe this

>Against what?
The extortion of Versailles, obviously.
>And spare me your shitty propaganda photos.
No :^)

>war starts
>British blockade
>no more imports
Do you not see how autarky was useful?

They started a war and lost it. They also barely paid anything (they even stopped paying before Hitler came to power). All the territories they lost were majority not German.

Because i said the direct cause of both.
Communist go to war too, so do capitalist doesn't fucking mean it was the cause of the wars.
Communist literally starve to death.

>All the territories they lost were majority not German.
Blatant lie.

So it was useful because they were planning to start a war? Then this policy "works" only if you want to start a genocidal conflict with the whole world? Okay.

How is this a lie? Which territories had German majority?
Pro-tip: Sudetenland wasn't part of Germany.

This policy works if you don't want other countries to be able to easily destroy your country.

Nazi policy was the direct cause of WW2.

Gonna have to go with fascism with this one, as a car guy Hitler had the Silver Arrows Mercedes racing cars and developed the world's best selling car, the VW Beetle.
Communism gave us Lada. Which is arguably the worst car company in the world.

Why would other countries want to destroy you? European powers did nothing when Hitler re-militarized, annexed Austria, Sudetenland, invaded Czechoslovakia, annexed Klaipeda/Memel. Why would you even introduce autarky if you aren't planning a war?

>How is this a lie? Which territories had German majority?
Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, Eupen-Malmedy, large parts of west prussia, Alsace
>Pro-tip: Sudetenland wasn't part of Germany.
And yet Sudetenland was German.

Because 'other countries' might have a policy of not allowing any mainland country to become too strong. Other 'other countries' might want to 'spread freedom' against the will of the population.

That is not an argument neither proves your point, in fact i must say that it undermines it really, i can assure you that in every dictatorship they are some that have to say positive things about the system, Hitler had quite the support back in pre-WW2, he may not have won democratically, but still quite the support.
Pretty much all the territories of pre-WW2 Germany had a German majority, enough with these Polish threads.

No one really got these cars before the war. It was just another Nazi scam.

Forgot Memelland

>Austria
Not Germany.
>Sudetenland
Never part of Germany.
>Danzig
Free city.
>Eupen-Malmedy
Plebiscite lost by Germans.
>large parts of west prussia
Historically Polish territory. Majority of people were Poles.
>Alsace
They deserved it.

Show a better map. Not this blob. I can show you Polish censuses from these territories. Poles were the majority. And why should I trust German censuses more if one of their policy was forceful Germanization of Poles living in those territories?

:)

Yes the nazis wanted to take over the world just because they were evil.
Makes a lot of sense.

Can't tell who we have here: American wehraboo or just a G*rman who finally got access to his country history at the age of 18

The German population east of Oder-Neisse was estimated at over 11 million in early 1945. The first mass flight of Germans followed the Red Army's advance and was composed of both spontaneous flight driven by rumours of Soviet atrocities, and organised evacuation starting in the summer of 1944 and continuing through to the spring of 1945. Overall about 1% (100,000) of the German civilian population east of the Oder–Neisse line perished in the fighting prior to the surrender in May 1945. In 1945, the eastern territories of Germany as well as Polish areas annexed by Germany were occupied by the Soviet Red Army and Polish Communist military forces. German civilians were also sent as "reparations labor" to the USSR.The Soviet Union transferred former German territories in the east of the Oder–Neisse line to Poland in July 1945. In mid-1945, 4.5 to 4.6 million Germans remained on the territories under Polish control. Early expulsions in Poland were undertaken by the Polish Communist military authorities even before the Potsdam Conference ("wild expulsions"), to ensure the later integration into an ethnically homogeneous Poland as envisioned by the Polish Communists. Between seven hundred and eight hundred thousand Germans were affected. By early 1946, 932,000 had been verified as having Polish nationality. In the February 1946 census, 2,288,000 persons were listed as Germans and 417,400 became subject to verification aiming at the establishment of nationality.From the spring of 1946 the expulsions gradually became better organised, affecting the remaining German population.By 1950, 3,155,000 German civilians had been expelled and 1,043,550 were naturalised as Polish citizens. Germans considered "indispensable" for the Polish economy were retained; virtually all had left by 1960. Some 200,000 Germans in Poland were employed as forced labor in communist-administered camps prior to being expelled from Poland.
"Germanised Poles", yet you did exterminate them.

>Austria
>Not Germany.
Populated by Germans, wanted to be part of Germany
>Sudetenland
>Never part of Germany.
same as above
>Danzig
>Free city.
"Free" city that was forbidden from joining Germany and was put largely under control of Poland
>Eupen-Malmedy
>Plebiscite lost by Germans.
>The plebiscite itself was held without a secret ballot, and organized as a consultation in which all citizens who opposed the annexation had to formally register their protest
>Historically Polish territory.
Wrong, and that's not even what we were talking about. All of Poland was historic germanic territory.
On a side note, I should have known the anti-german would be Pole.
>Majority of people were Poles
In some areas, in other areas they most certainly weren't, see>Alsace
>They deserved it.
So you don't even have a false justification for this one.

This is true. China is basically National Socialist now.

How are these equivalent? Are you mentally retarded? do you not know that all wars have aggressors?