Why is nazism thought so much worse than communism?

Truly, what's this bloody double standard about? We have nazis being hated on, and rightly so in my view, because their ideology caused the death of some sixteen million people and a freaking world war, but the commies are free of any guilt despite killing several times that. some estimates place communist murders to well over 80 million! And yet, we have the youth wing of the communist party recruiting in my school and nobody gives a damn. Imagine the reactions if the nazi party did the same! Wearing a swastika is likely to get you arrested and assaulted but wearing a red t-shirt with a hammer and sickle is just likely to give you a few "hey man, you're so brave for standing up against the system man! down with the bourgeoise!" even tho more murders have been commited under that symbol.

I seriously cannot understand this! And then there's the people who try to negate that communism is a crime against humanity by saying something like "oh, but they had a good purpose". Good purpose my ass, the nazis thought they were good too, doesn't mean squat.

 

Good question. And it makes even less sense if one considers the villification of the Italian Fascisti who had no gulags and no concentration camps, and policy wise in most other regards weren't much different than the communists. After all the only diffrence between killing business owners out right like the Soviets did and making them essentially slaves as the Nazis and Fascists isn't a lot...

 

Indeed, although if memory serves they were quite authoritarian. But italian fascism is already not viewed that negatively, espcially not in italy itself. It's viewed more negatively than communism though for some reason. And they enslaved them? I thought they were just corporatists, working together with business as long as the state benefited.

 

To me at least, Naziism is more ideology than a form of Government.

Here in the U.S. the ideology is associated with racism, and thus screams hate group.

Communism is associated with a Socialist Government takeover.

Basically......it is easier to pick out a skinhead or white robe, than a guy in a suit.

 

Why capitalism is not mentioned ? capitalism murdered 10's of millions of native Americans, Asians and Europeans, took ~20m of Africans into slavery , put kids to work 18 hour shifts in mines , turned 20% of London women into prostitutes during Victorian era.. heh lol i can go like that forever.

See political ideas themselves are always harmless it is the implementation that screws things up . Why Stalin is considered a communist and not Lenin or Trotsky ? Did Marx personally harmed anyone ?

A Swedish MP made the same question in the European parliament and he was trashed for being a bigot .
Oh look at the OP !

 

Good thread.

Marxism-Leninism (like Nazism) was bad from the beginning: Lenin Paints Himself Black With His Own Words

Communists killed far more than the Nazis: The Black Book of Communism

Communists were as guilty as the Nazis in starting WW II: Time to Face the Truth About World War II

Communism lasted longer and constituted a greater threat.

More facts about Communist atrocities: Mao's Great Leap to Famine

Yet the corporate media can't stop talking about Hitler. Their intention is to conceal the truth.

 

Now, I agree that the crimes of the Soviets here horrendous. I'll go a step further and say that Stalin was a worse dictator than Hitler. The Holodomor genocide by starvation in Ukraine was a horrible crime against humanity. What is nonsensical is that you blame a hypothetical economic system that had never existed in Russia aside from the peasant communes and occasional workplace takeovers during revolutionary times, for the deaths of millions of people. This is made even more ridiculous when you consider that the group most persecuted by Soviet authorities were communists. A side note: your figures are ridiculous and sound like they come from a certain completely discredited book called the "black book of communism". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and I would love to see a credible source.

The killings under the Stalinist authorities must also be blamed of the previous authorities in Russia. People were starving on the streets in Russia under Tsarism, and most people in Russia didn't even have shoes. When you treat people that badly you can't blame deaths caused by the following social upheaval entirely on some new force - people do not live in an ideological vacuum where new political groups spring from nothingness and for no reason.
The thing that creates communist movements, for better or for worse, is capitalism. Communist movements exist as an entirely human reaction towards capitalism. People don't rebel because the devil told them to, they rebel because of the unique environmental factors in their life - the most domineering one being the modern capitalist system.
You can ban communist movements, but as long as the capitalist system remains the same you'll keep getting the same reaction - rebellion. We live in a materialist universe of cause and effect.

Nazism is also a reaction. But Nazism is the reaction of the petty bourgeoisie to capitalist crises - capitalism going into emergency mode. And again, as long as capitalism exists and continues going through periodic crises we will see fascist movements like Nazism. The latest "real" fascist group is Golden Dawn.
Skinhead Nazi groups aren't the same as the original Nazis, these guys are just racist thugs that use Nazi symbolism because they know it is connected to racialist ideas. However annoying they are it's not like if you let these groups do their thing you'd automatically end up with another Nazi Germany, because material conditions are different now - these groups don't even mostly hail from petty bourgeoisie families, a lot of them are working class kids with silly ideas and misdirected anger.

 

Naziism was a specific manifestation of governance; communism is a general ideological theory with various examples of application.

Naziism vs Stalinism would be a legitimate parallel. Or capitalism vs communism.

 

Lenin openly states the abandonment of socialist elements (worker's councils, democracy with regards the economic planning apparatus) in the country for state-capitalism, with the statement that the economic advancement would open the way for social advancement and the autocratic structure then made fully democratic. i.e., nonsense.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country."

"To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism."

"Try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step . . . towards socialism. . . ."

"socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. . . ."

Pure nonsense.

 

Who says "commies are free of any guilt"? Names please-don't include Stalin.

 

Both are ideologies, neither are forms of government really. it's different things actually, in the same way that conservatism and liberalism isn't forms of rule (although they prefer certain systems) and that democracy isn't an ideology.

And to be fair, communists are to me as easily idntifyable as nazis.

I'm inclined to say that it wasn't really caused by capitalism.. atleast not all of it. more like imperialism and stuff.

for the records I consider lenin and trotsky communists too. No marx didn't harm anyone directly but he created a monstrosity of a ideology that would.

That's because they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing commies to begin with. ESSR is what it is.

What would the corporations get from hiding the truth about communism? Communism is the bane of corporations and nazis are corporatists. it should be the other way around actually.

Communism pretty much can't exist because it's contrary to human nature so I think it'll suffice to call any attempts at achieving that impossibility for communism. I mean what were the soviets if not communists? Communism itself, what it strives to be might not be bad in itself, neither is nazism i'm sure, but the process of getting there is what makes it a horrible ideology. wherever it's tried it ends with bloodbaths and there's a reason for that. That commies go after other commies doesn't make it any less worse. I just took the numbers off wikipedia to be honest, but anyhow I'm quite sure that the combined killings of all communist regimes far surpass that of the nazis. but yet no one cares, and that's my point.

Because of the previous absolute monarchy the soviets just had to murder people? I don't follow on that one. I think it's more because they tried to achieve some communist utopia. If it would've been liberals in power do you think they would murdered people, or atleast as many? I doubt it. There's a major difference in how the ideologies think. Also the russians didn't rise up against capitalism but extreme conservatism.

As I've said earlier I think it's fair to call the attempt of communism for communism, it would be a pretty worthless word otherwise no? And what would we call these ideological murderes if not communists? But yes, it's mainly a comparison between nazism vs stalism (and leninism iirc) and maoism and other minor strains.

 

society does. do you think you'll get different results if you walk out with a swastika on your t-shirt or with a hammer and sickle?

 

Mussolini personally did not identify Fascism with Nazism. But even with the dictatorship perhaps not being as atrocious as others in some sense, the Fascist regime was still not a very stable or successful one. The worker's didn't like it and the rich lost interest when state interference was advanced in the economy during the war. Defending it is a moot point. It was just a front for cartels, and they abandoned it when it no longer towed their line. Not a viable ideology.

 

Look at China today, its closer to fascism than communism.

 

The MSM and the American Communist Party, pretty much one and the same today, not so much in days of yore.

After the Nazi/Soviet non aggression pact was signed just before Poland's partition and right up till the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviert Union in June, 1941 the American Communist Party agitated mightily to keep the United States out of WWII. After Germany became the Soviet Union's enemy number 1, the ACP abruptly reversed course. Its pretty much stayed that course ever since 1945, although the ACP has made even further inroads into American Society, especially since 1968 and the Vietnam War. We even have a card carrying member of the ACP ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania today.

 

There sure are a lot of double standards, good questions. Id throw Islam in the mix as well, look what Mohammed did look at the area they conquered and we're told its more than compatible.

We can see Hitler saw himself as a Prophet

Almost straight out of the Koran that.

 

Using the word Communism is a source of confusion. CPUSA, for instance, would not be stupid enough to take up Stalinism as it's ideology, and only makes reference to Marx.

 

Many liberals are corrupt and agree with communism for its killing of religious Christians and Muslims.

 

I think it's because communism empasize 'equality' (by killing people who are rich and GREEDY!! ARGH!!)

 

Stalinism did not tend toward the killing of religious persons, as a totalitarian state it demanded churches conform with the party line. Technically, rich people were not killed as a policy either, except in the random slaughter.

 

I am guessing because the Nazis were race based and Commies just killed those that didnt agree or submit to having all their stuff taken away. Remember, we are in a time where "why" you killed someone, is more important than the actual killing. And killing someone based off race is far worse than anything else.

 

England and France should have some high numbers attributed to them for them in WW2 imo, despite imperialism (although as i understand it, it can all be linked back to that pre WW1). The Brits gave Poland a war guarantee which stopped them dealing with Germany who tried to negotiate a Danzig corridor. Plus Germany asked for peace many times with the Brits, they couldve stopped the war at any time. Im far from convinced the Nazis planned to conquer the world, if all along the plan was Poland then Russia why no anti freeze oil, no suitable clothing? Conquer the world as we're told, what with no navy? Doesnt add up. Stalin saw the opportunity to take Europe, he invades Poland sits and waits for Germany, England and France to weaken. Hitler figures it out and has to strike first as theres no way they could win otherwise.

 

I think the OP is trying to simplify something that is very complex .
The revolution had to deal with a myriad domestic enemies and an international force, then came the world war , famine , political strife , cold war and a series of bad decisions that created a big bureaucracy that it was impossible to penetrate.
Communism as an evolution from capitalism also requires evolved social structures and class conscious educated citizens, this was never the case in Russia or China and no you can not jump from A to Z skipping everything between and not crash on landing .

As the OP admitted in other posts he has never read any of the works of Marx yet he has the audacity to call them "monstrous" ...
it will be very helpful if you at least read the very basics before we can go a bit deeper from head counting the victims .

 

Why the treaty with Palestine for free safe passage with belongings out of Germany? Why didnt they just kill those jews if that was the plan? Before WW2 started German Pols were being cleansed, Stalin had slaughtered millions, who had the Germans killed? We'd chosen our side with the murderers, why?

 

It's hard to popularize the Nazis. But the ideological descendents of Marx and the later collectivist wackos infected the intellectual community and so they have successfully propagated and glamorized as almost a religion while painting it as a "peoples' ideology - one that best provides the needed correction to the evils of greedy, OPPRESSIVE capitalism. In other words, it's a bullsh!t class envy/warfare (feel good about yourself) scheme that the idiot intellectuals, whose brilliance is obviously debatable but whose egos aren't, have been swallowing hook, line, and sinker ever since because it elevates their status in their own eyes and that's about all they are really about.

All the harsh intolerance (in the name of freedom and power to the people, of course) and the resultant genocides and mass human misery aren't seen as anything consequential to the ideology. But rather, they're dismissed as merely coincidental actions of specific and unrelated dictators. It can't be fudged and glossed over quite as easily with Hitler and the Nazis.