|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 4, 2018 12:19:13 GMT
If you had to choose between having a communist or fascist government, which would you choose and why?
Both very undesirable, but if I had to, I would have to go with fascism for one simple reason: under fascism, economies can do well and people can eat.
Under communism, economies stagnate and people starve.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastenn on Jan 4, 2018 13:55:31 GMT
If you had to choose between having a communist or fascist government, which would you choose and why? Both very undesirable, but if I had to, I would have to go with fascism for one simple reason: under fascism, economies can do well and people can eat. Under communism, economies stagnate and people starve. Fascism. I trust the military more than the government. |
|
|
|
Post by zos on Jan 4, 2018 14:05:32 GMT
Communists helped save the world once, Fascists just want to take it all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 4, 2018 14:26:37 GMT
Communists helped save the world once True, but that doesn't make their system any good. Communism is rife with oppression, stagnation and starvation. Fascists just want to take it all over Germany did but Italy and Spain didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by drtokyo on Jan 4, 2018 15:14:46 GMT
If you had to choose between having a communist or fascist government, which would you choose and why? Both very undesirable, but if I had to, I would have to go with fascism for one simple reason: under fascism, economies can do well and people can eat. Under communism, economies stagnate and people starve. Communism is by definition stateless, so I'll take the freedom from government. A totalitarian socialist state, run by a nominal communist party, is NOT communism. Is Labour the ideal for workers? Are the Democrats the ideal of democracy? A party can name itself anything, and the Bolshies became "communists" because it was a misdirection for their totalitarianism. Facism lasted five minutes and left its people starving, too.. It would have been indistinguishable from the USSR had it lasted, and both systems were totalitarian. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 4, 2018 15:30:07 GMT
Facism lasted five minutes and left its people starving, too.. It would have been indistinguishable from the USSR had it lasted, and both systems were totalitarian. It lasted quite a while in Italy and Spain and both did quite well during those periods. No starvation, general economic prosperity, very different to the USSR. Those are the examples I would put forward of fascism, not Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by cryptoflovecraft on Jan 4, 2018 15:55:28 GMT
I'd rather a combination of the two, taking the best of both worlds and leaving the worst aspects of each ideology behind. National Communism, a "communist" system that rejects internationalism, favors isolationism over exporting revolution and allows or promotes traditional culture is fine with me.... or a left-leaning fascism that's more worker oriented, reins in the power of big business and promotes a non-imperialist form of nationalism is OK with me too.
|
|
|
|
Post by drtokyo on Jan 4, 2018 15:58:17 GMT
Italy lasted 21 years and left its people starving. Spain lasted, but only from the charity of western Europe or their p;eople would.ve starved, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by drtokyo on Jan 4, 2018 16:04:24 GMT
I'd rather a combination of the two, taking the best of both worlds and leaving the worst aspects of each ideology behind. National Communism, a "communist" system that rejects internationalism, favors isolationism over exporting revolution and allows or promotes traditional culture is fine with me.... or a left-leaning fascism that's more worker oriented, reins in the power of big business and promotes a non-imperialist form of nationalism is OK with me too. "National Communism" is an oxymoron. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 16:48:31 GMT
The problem is that as a species, we are incapable of forming a true communistic society. All the so-called "Communist" regimes have used it as a veneer to cover up it's totalitarian nature, just like fascism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 4, 2018 18:42:10 GMT
Italy lasted 21 years and left its people starving. Spain lasted, but only from the charity of western Europe or their p;eople would.ve starved, too. I see nothing about starvation: Italy fared better than most western nations during the Depression: its welfare services did reduce the impact of the Depression.[63] Its industrial growth from 1913 to 1938 was even greater than that of Germany for the same time period. Only the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian nations had a higher industrial growth during that period.[63] During the 1960s, Spain experienced further increases in wealth. International firms established their factories in Spain: salaries were low, taxes nearly nonexistent, strikes were forbidden, labour health or real state regulations were unheard of and Spain was virtually a virgin market. Spain became the second fastest-growing economy in the world, just behind Japan. The rapid development of this period became known as the Spanish Miracle. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jan 4, 2018 18:43:38 GMT
I'd rather a combination of the two You can't, you have to pick one! |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 4, 2018 18:56:01 GMT
If you had to choose between having a communist or fascist government, which would you choose and why? Both very undesirable, but if I had to, I would have to go with fascism for one simple reason: under fascism, economies can do well and people can eat. Under communism, economies stagnate and people starve. There is a lot in between communism and fascism. I would rather some form of democratic socialism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 19:07:42 GMT
Communism because in a fascist state, I'd have to still put up with SJWs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 20:23:41 GMT
I would be killed either way.
|
|
