fascist or communist (title changed for the politically correct)

[MaC]

As long as the person in power is routinely killing his own people and has extremely strict limits on economic and/or personal freedom-isn't the fact he's a fascist or a communist arbitrary?  I mean it's about the difference between getting punched in the stomach and kicked in the stomach-they still hurt and they're both undesirable....

[John Dibble]

It may matter to an extent, and the primary extent is in the economic sphere - a facist has a better chance of making an economy that functions at a decent level. Communist economy is ideologically driven, while facist economy simply does what it feels is best for the state at any given time. Aside from the economic issues though, they are pretty much the same. Basically both types of leaders will kill you if you resist, but under a facist you might not starve.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Of the above I would pick facist even though contrary to popular belief I am not one

[MaC]

It may matter to an extent, and the primary extent is in the economic sphere - a facist has a better chance of making an economy that functions at a decent level. Communist economy is ideologically driven, while facist economy simply does what it feels is best for the state at any given time. Aside from the economic issues though, they are pretty much the same. Basically both types of leaders will kill you if you resist, but under a facist you might not starve.

Starve or getting killed by a military policeman thinking something's funny with you-I'd say the difference is null...

[John Dibble]

It may matter to an extent, and the primary extent is in the economic sphere - a facist has a better chance of making an economy that functions at a decent level. Communist economy is ideologically driven, while facist economy simply does what it feels is best for the state at any given time. Aside from the economic issues though, they are pretty much the same. Basically both types of leaders will kill you if you resist, but under a facist you might not starve.

Starve or getting killed by a military policeman thinking something's funny with you-I'd say the difference is null...

Well, sure, dead is dead, but with communism you get both kinds of deaths, and probably more of them too. So, at the very least in terms of sheer numbers there's a difference. Also, you generally don't get beaten to death, taken to death camps, or be made to dissapeared unless you're perceived as some sort of threat. You'd be relatively safe so long as you keep your head down and didn't piss off your informant neighbor.

Also, keep in mind that starvation is likely a lot more slow and grinding than getting shot or beat to death.

[jokerman]

Dibble is rather right.

Fascism is all about efficiency.  It's a sort of ultra-tribalism that's intent is to maximize the ultimate power of a state as great as possible.  Wheras Communism or mere totalitarianism may on be interested in ideological concerns or preserving the regime when it imposes deep interventions in personal activity, with Fascism it's all about intervening in that person's life to get the most out of them as possible.  It's about maximizing a nation's production and maximizing growth.

[Colin]

Why did you include socialism in there? That would be like including anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and liberalism together in the same question.

[MaC]

Why did you include socialism in there? That would be like including anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and liberalism together in the same question.

what's the line between socialism and communism?  Karl Marx considered himself a socialist.  The USSR was considered a socialism...

[Colin]

Why did you include socialism in there? That would be like including anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and liberalism together in the same question.

what's the line between socialism and communism?  Karl Marx considered himself a socialist.  The USSR was considered a socialism...

Well I could call myself a communist but that doesn't mean I am. I don't think anyone would doubt that there is a difference between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was communist, and Sweden, which is socialist/social democratic in nature. China calls itself a People's Republic but that doesn't mean squat when it comes to the actual running of the country. Socialism a different stream of thought from Communism, though they both grew out of the same mold. As always there are degrees of difference and there are seperations on the left just as there are on the right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

what's the line between socialism and communism?

Nice to know there's no difference between me and Stalin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he was one. What he was very clearly not was a Marxist-Leninist of any stripe (ie; the Russian heresy that eventually became known as "Communism").

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...by the U.S.S.R, it's supporters/sympathizers and (of course) by the Right.

[Colin]

what's the line between socialism and communism?

Nice to know there's no difference between me and Stalin.

Of course their isn't Al. You're ruthless despotic reign of terror in Atlasia will come to an end. What did the Kulaks ever do to you?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As pure 100% Socialism has never been tried in theory we can't yet compare it to Soviet Communism (Al is correct in saying that the Soviet Union was despotic mutation of Marx, which was inspired by Lenin & Trotsky, then by Stalin - despite what modern day 'communists' try to make us think.) or Fascism. We might as well have included Anarcho-Primitivism. Now that's an ideology which would kill millions of people.