Communism or Nazism - Which is more extreme?

[Frink]

You know the old line that the Soviet Union, and China weren't communist?

Yeah well, it's still true.

The USSR was communist and China still is. No credible person would ever deny that fact.

China hasn't tried to be Communist in any way but nominally for quite a while now.

[Roemerista]

Well I would say Communism. Nazism certainly is horrid, but its extreme is in bringing out the worst in us, and Communism's extreme comes from its going against the grain of human nature. I wish Nazism was "more extreme" but I'm afraid history can show us it is easier to get humans to act fearful and violent for nationalistic purposes then it would be to change the fundamental self-interested "rational" behavior of man, which "true" communism calls for.

[John Dibble]

I can't really say one is more extreme than the other, because their extremes are aimed at different things and it's hard to measure apples against oranges.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What's the point of arguing which is more extreme? Let's just do our best to avoid both.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You know the old line that the Soviet Union, and China weren't communist?

Yeah well, it's still true.

The USSR was communist and China still is. No credible person would ever deny that fact.

You seriously claim that modern-day China is communist ? Please...

[Phony Moderate]

And once again we reach the arguement between ideological theory and reality.  Libertarians like to argue that libertarianism/capitalism has never been practiced, while statists/liberals will argue that Somalia pretty much sums up what libertarianism looks like in reality.  Therefore, there is no reason as to why capitalists cannot argue that the USSR and PRC represent what communism looks like in practice.

Somalia never claimed to be Libertarian.
The USSR DID claim to be Communist.

True by the book communism would be impossible to create in the real world.

Charlie Crist claims to be a true independent, but that does not mean he is.

[tpfkaw]

If I create an ideology called Happicandyism, and declare that the end result of a truly Happicandyist society is that everyone will be happy and get free candy, and then when the Happicandyist Party takes over a country and governs according to Happicandyist ideology, yet they do not make everyone happy or manage to provide free candy, does that mean that said country isn't "really" Happicandyist?

[John Dibble]

You know the old line that the Soviet Union, and China weren't communist?

Yeah well, it's still true.

The USSR was communist and China still is. No credible person would ever deny that fact.

You seriously claim that modern-day China is communist ? Please...

Yeah, the ruling party calls itself communist, but in reality their modern philosophy is more along the lines of authoritarian capitalism, for lack of a better phrase.

[fezzyfestoon]

Nazism strikes me as more extreme because it's more specific. Communism is more universal in scope. That is the least silly way I can come up with when it comes to answering such a silly question.

Yeah, this.

[minionofmidas]

You know the old line that the Soviet Union, and China weren't communist?

Yeah well, it's still true.

The USSR was communist and China still is. No credible person would ever deny that fact.

You seriously claim that modern-day China is communist ? Please...

Yeah, the ruling party calls itself communist, but in reality their modern philosophy is more along the lines of authoritarian capitalism, for lack of a better phrase.

It was Wendell Willkie who noticed that of the Communist vision, the Soviet reality, the US Chamber of Commerce vision, and the US reality, the middle two had the most in common as far as labor/wage policy issues go. That was during WWII, and of course he was blissfully ignorant of the uglier bits of Soviet reality, but within the parameters of what he was talking about he was quite right.

[Phony Moderate]

If I create an ideology called Happicandyism, and declare that the end result of a truly Happicandyist society is that everyone will be happy and get free candy, and then when the Happicandyist Party takes over a country and governs according to Happicandyist ideology, yet they do not make everyone happy or manage to provide free candy, does that mean that said country isn't "really" Happicandyist?

Communist parties tend not to govern according to Communist ideology.

[??????????]

If I create an ideology called Happicandyism, and declare that the end result of a truly Happicandyist society is that everyone will be happy and get free candy, and then when the Happicandyist Party takes over a country and governs according to Happicandyist ideology, yet they do not make everyone happy or manage to provide free candy, does that mean that said country isn't "really" Happicandyist?

Communist parties tend not to govern according to Communist ideology.

Neither do Constitutional Republics either, apparently.

[Joe Republic]

Karl Marx argued that the eventual desired outcome of communism is no central government at all, with collectivist communities managing themselves.

With that in mind, it's always amusing to hear "Tea Partiers" and the like talk about "big government Marxists".

[Vepres]

If I create an ideology called Happicandyism, and declare that the end result of a truly Happicandyist society is that everyone will be happy and get free candy, and then when the Happicandyist Party takes over a country and governs according to Happicandyist ideology, yet they do not make everyone happy or manage to provide free candy, does that mean that said country isn't "really" Happicandyist?

Communist parties tend not to govern according to Communist ideology.

Well, one could argue that communism (at least the type seen in the first half of the 20th century) inherently concentrates power in the hands of a few. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Anyway, communism doesn't in and of itself require fascism (though it always seems to go that way in practice), so I'd say Nazism.

Karl Marx argued that the eventual desired outcome of communism is no central government at all, with collectivist communities managing themselves.

Yes, well, he forgot to take into account this thing called "human nature" Independent communities like that couldn't survive unless a strong totalitarian government is protecting them.

[Platypus]

Communism is more different from the current regime than Fascism broadly. To make this a fairer contest, I compared Nazism to Stalinism, its contemporary. Nazism is more unpalatable, but Stalinism is again more different from the status quo than Nazism, I think, but you could go either way.

[Frodo]

Nazism -while communism I am sure had its share of genocides conducted in its name, the elimination of entire peoples had never been central to its philosophy the way Nazism went after Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals among other 'undesirables' in its quest to create a pure 'Aryan' race, as exemplified by Adolf Hitler.

It is striking to me how Nazis of the time never noticed (or chose to ignore) the fact that the Fuhrer wasn't exactly of pure 'Aryan' stock himself.

[GMantis]

And once again we reach the arguement between ideological theory and reality.  Libertarians like to argue that libertarianism/capitalism has never been practiced, while statists/liberals will argue that Somalia pretty much sums up what libertarianism looks like in reality.  Therefore, there is no reason as to why capitalists cannot argue that the USSR and PRC represent what communism looks like in practice.

Somalia never claimed to be Libertarian.
The USSR DID claim to be Communist.

The Soviet Union never claimed to be Communist, it claimed it was socialist, as did all other Communist ruled states. Nor did they rule according to the principles of Communism, so you could indeed claim that a Communist state never existed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I find it ironic that communism was originally supposed to be a historical inevitability, and yet so many self-described communists are the first to point out that a true communist regime has never really existed.

[Phony Moderate]

I find it ironic that communism was originally supposed to be a historical inevitability, and yet so many self-described communists are the first to point out that a true communist regime has never really existed.

Not all Communists are Marxists.

[Earth]

I find it ironic that communism was originally supposed to be a historical inevitability, and yet so many self-described communists are the first to point out that a true communist regime has never really existed.

That's the stickiness, right there. It's like saying Go-Gurt was historically inevitable.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Nazism. Strictly speaking, there was only one Nazist state in history... and a very bad one that is. In the broadest sense, "Communist" could refer to governments ranging from current Cyprus to current North Korea, I suppose. And the difference between Cyprus and North Korea is as huge as the difference between the United States and Stalinist Russia.

When it comes down to communism vs. fascism, it definitely depends on the execution though.

[Frodo]

I wasn't aware that Cyprus (the Greek-controlled part of the island, I presume) is governed by Communists. 

[Хahar 🤔]

I wasn't aware that Cyprus (the Greek-controlled part of the island, I presume) is governed by Communists. 

They're eurocommunists.

[Gustaf]

I wasn't aware that Cyprus (the Greek-controlled part of the island, I presume) is governed by Communists. 

They're eurocommunists.

What's that, like europop?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Both are equally extreme and completely incompatible any true form of Democracy.