Worst influence in History

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Which of the following government/economic types have had the worst influence on human history?

[Geoffrey S]

Governments have had the worst influence on human history.

[FactionHeir]

Of those listed, I'd say capitalism. While not being a commie, I still think that with everything revolving about profit margins and company value, our world is worse off.

[Fragony]

Other, emperialism.

edit, did I just say that? Emperialism brought a lot of good as well.

[KarlXII]

Which of the following government/economic types have had the worst influence on human history?

I don't think political/economic ideology is the sole contributor to bad influence. People are significant in making governments bad. Communism is a nice ideology, everything for the people, yet Stalin has left his bad mark on it.

[seireikhaan]

I voted communism. Reason? USSR. After World War II, the U.S. became obsessed with stopping the 'spread of communism'. What'd result in? Vietnam War, anti-communist hysteria(Joe McCarthy, anyone?), Cuban missile crisis, arms buildup that left the U.S. and Russia with enough nuclear missiles to literally anihiliate the entire planet, leaving the world potentially hanging by a thread of nuclear obliteration. Plus, Reagan's method of melting down the USSR was based around the fact that the U.S. could outspend it to death, resulting in the continued growth of a mega-government in what was originally one of the benchmarks for a limited government. And of course, now, all it takes is for one of those nuclear weapons to 'go astray' into the hands of a terrorist organization and we get a whole 'nother barrel full of monkeys.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Communism has killed more people than fascism, and was part of the problem that almost destroyed the world.

Actually, come to think of it, I'd say Eurovision.

[CountArach]

As much as I loathe Capitalism I would say Fascism. Though Stalinism/Leninism (Not Communism) do come close.

[HoreTore]

Actually, come to think of it, I'd say Eurovision.

Seconded!!!!

[LittleGrizzly]

I went for facism but stalinism would have been as accpetable choice if included

[CountArach]

Other, emperialism.

edit, did I just say that? Emperialism brought a lot of good as well.
What good did Imperialism bring?

[Caius]

Everything listed above was the worse thing.

[Reverend Joe]

Fascism. At the very least, Communism and Capitalism had honorable intentions. Fascism is purely :daisy: up from the very start; nothing good will ever come from it.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Fascism. Communism at least had good intentions.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Fascism. At the very least, Communism and Capitalism had honorable intentions. Fascism is purely :daisy: up from the very start; nothing good will ever come from it.

What do you mean nothing good will ever come of it? It's a practical idea that does more for the economy and the citizens of the nation than capitalism. Fascism had excellent intentions - to revitalize the country. Communism had the intention to steal from people who had made money.

Which sounds better to you?

EDIT: Better question. Which worked better?

[Geoffrey S]

:laugh4: Just what I needed after a long reading session! :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

From wiki
Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism (i.e., opposition to political and economic liberalism)

Yes that sounds alot worse than communism to me!

[GeneralHankerchief]

In theory:

Communism is the most noble but the least effective.
Facism is the least noble but the most effective.

Communism has the edge because it loses all of its nobility in trying to gain effectiveness, but it can never gain any effectiveness since it's a flawed concept, resulting in a totally repressive, worthless system.

[Tribesman]

It has to be capitalism .
it was the influences of capitalism that gave us communism and the influences of communism that gave the surge to fascism .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes that sounds alot worse than communism to me!

Doesn't matter how something sounds, but what it does. The post below yours took the words straight from my mouth.

[rotorgun]

Facism was a blight upon the civilized world the likes of which has not been seen since Medieval times. To me, it is right wing extremism brought to its ultimate expression - ethnic and cultural cleansing, complete government control of free speech, religious intolerance, and rampant injustice. Of course there is also the way some problems are solved:


"In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power, it was in the first instance only the Jewish race that received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the state and with it that of the whole nation and that I would then among other things settle the Jewish problem...but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevising of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!".
Adolf Hitler - Speech to the Reichstag - 30th January 1939

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Facism was a blight upon the civilized world the likes of which has not been seen since Medieval times. To me, it is right wing extremism brought to its ultimate expression - ethnic and cultural cleansing, complete government control of free speech, religious intolerance, and rampant injustice.

And communism was a blight on what, the uncivilized world? Had to be, since they chose communism.

Communist Tally

Ethnic and Cultural Cleansing - Officially, no. Practically, yes.
Government Control of Free Speech - Very much so.
Religious Intolerance - Intolerant of all religions. Another point.
Rampant Injustice - Communism, check.

Communism matches all of the points you made.

[rotorgun]

And communism was a blight on what, the uncivilized world? Had to be, since they chose communism.

Communist Tally

Ethnic and Cultural Cleansing - Officially, no. Practically, yes.
Government Control of Free Speech - Very much so.
Religious Intolerance - Intolerant of all religions. Another point.
Rampant Injustice - Communism, check.

Communism matches all of the points you made.

I knew this would come up, but I had to pick someone. I'd say they were the second runners up.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Like I said, where's the Eurovision option?

[LittleGrizzly]

Doesn't matter how something sounds, but what it does.

Communism has never been achieved i suppose it could be blamed for causing the revolution which allowed stalin to take power.

If your talking stalinism which i strongly suspect you are im willing to argue pure numbers would show facism to be a far deadlier ideaology, you have to take into account length of rule and population available to kill, of course this isn't even taking into account all the lives lost because of world war 2.

[PanzerJaeger]

What exactly, if I may ask, were the good intentions of communism again?

It seems to me that demonizing an entire group of people, stealing their wealth, and eventually eliminating them for the betterment of society is wrong whether it is the Jewish race or the bourgeoisie.

While communism is based on destroying the upper class, fascism is not inherently antisemitic.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Communism has never been achieved i suppose it could be blamed for causing the revolution which allowed stalin to take power.

What has been done in the name of communism, or what is commonly understood to be communism, is the heart of the argument.




If your talking stalinism which i strongly suspect you are

I'm talking communism et al, which includes Stalinism as well as Juche, Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism.

You are also talking Hitler when you say fascism, even though National Socialism and fascism are different - nonetheless, Stalinism is a brand of communism, as National Socialism is a brand of fascism.

im willing to argue pure numbers would show facism to be a far deadlier ideaology, you have to take into account length of rule[/QUOTE]

That means averages, not pure numbers. Doesn't work. Even presuming WWII was completely the fault of Hitler, the Soviet Union alone still killed more - and most of these during the reign of Stalin, a similar time period to the rule of Hitler.


and population available to kill, of course this isn't even taking into account all the lives lost because of world war 2.

Presuming you can blame WWII entirely on Hitler, which I do not believe you can. Even then, we can take into account nice regimes like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Khmer Rouge...

[LittleGrizzly]

Doesn't work. Even presuming WWII was completely the fault of Hitler, the Soviet Union alone still killed more - and most of these during the reign of Stalin, a similar time period to the rule of Hitler.


Hitler ruled from 1934-1945 11 years
Stalin ruled from 1922-1953 31 years

Stalin had almost 3 times the length of rule of hitler, i can't find the figures on kills at the moment but if we just adjust for the extra 20 years stalin had to kill im pretty sure hitler kills more, if not just take into account the total population both leaders presided over and hitler is clearly the far deadlier leader

I'm talking communism et al, which includes Stalinism as well as Juche, Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism.


well stalinism is simply not communism, it was called it and perhaps somewhat based on it but it was perverted to something which isn't communism, i can't comment on whether hitler is facism or not i just assumed it was.

Presuming you can blame WWII entirely on Hitler, which I do not believe you can.

Then you presume wrong, blame can be put in a multitude of places but hitler and his ideaology can take a large percentage of the blame.

[KarlXII]

What exactly, if I may ask, were the good intentions of communism again?

Everything was given to the people. Everyone was equal. Everyone had equal footing in terms of financial success.

Good ideology, poor execution.

[Pannonian]

Facism. All the other choices at least governed based on ideology, but facists governed based on looks.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Stalin had almost 3 times the length of rule of hitler, i can't find the figures on kills at the moment but if we just adjust for the extra 20 years stalin had to kill im pretty sure hitler kills more, if not just take into account the total population both leaders presided over and hitler is clearly the far deadlier leader

Look at it this way - how many more could Hitler have killed? The Jewish population was almost wiped out. The discussion of averages strikes me as odd - one did kill more than the other.

EDIT: Just for you.

Stalin
Rule - 31 years

2,200,000 - NEP period
11,440,000 - Collectivization
4,345,000 - Great Terror
5,104,000 - 1939 to 1941, Pre-War
13,053,000 - War period
15,613,000 - Post-war to end of regime
Plus a few more deaths for 1922, which is not included in these totals.
Source (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM)

Per Year Average - 1.7 million

Hitler
Rule (in combined office) - 11 years

16.3 million (not including blame for WWII, but including murders of Slavs, Poles, Jews, Roma, and homosexuals)
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history)

Average - 1.48 million

Stalin still has more.


well stalinism is simply not communism, it was called it and perhaps somewhat based on it but it was perverted to something which isn't communism, i can't comment on whether hitler is facism or not i just assumed it was.

It is a form of communism, and that's backed up by the Wiki page:


"Stalinism" refers to the brand of communist regime that dominated the Soviet Union, and the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence, during the leadership of Joseph Stalin. The term usually defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was "Marxism-Leninism theory", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a theoretician, in contrast to Marx and Lenin, and prided himself on maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet Union and the future Socialist world. Stalinism is of the order of an interpretation of their ideas...



Then you presume wrong, blame can be put in a multitude of places but hitler and his ideaology can take a large percentage of the blame.

Certainly a percentage, but it was predicted immediately after and during the Treaty of Versailles that the Paris peace would lead to war. The Allies, in their infinite wisdom, knew what would happen, but chose to ignore it.


Facism. All the other choices at least governed based on ideology, but facists governed based on looks.

...Sure...

[PanzerJaeger]

Everything was given to the people. Everyone was equal. Everyone had equal footing in terms of financial success.

Good ideology, poor execution.

Was it? Who makes up the people? It certainly wasn't the people who already had things.

For the betterment of the people, other people had to be punished. Hitler felt the same way.

[Lemur]

None of the above. Vote: Theocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)

Germany and Italy recovered from Fascism in a generation or two. Many ex-Communist nations are coming around nicely. But theocracy jacks up your nation for centuries.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

None of the above. Vote: Theocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)

The Vatican's doing just fine. ~;)

[Lemur]

Sure, now that they don't have a standing army they're fine. But let's talk about some of the earlier Medicis and see how that worked out for the middle ages ...

[LittleGrizzly]

Look at it this way - how many more could Hitler have killed? The Jewish population was almost wiped out. The discussion of averages strikes me as odd - one did kill more than the other.


There we alot of jews who survived the holocaust, don't forget jews were not hitlers only target, gypsys, slavs, coloured people and im sure theres a few groups im forgetting, imagine hitler kept all the land he had at the nazis peak, early 1942 i think, and held it for a similar time to stalin, the numbers would be astronomical.

It is a form of communism, and that's backed up by the Wiki page:

well it branched from it i would agree to, true communism as envisioned by marx would look drastically different from stalinism, seen as marx is the founder of communism i find it hard to pick a more esteemed judge.

[PanzerJaeger]

well it branched from it i would agree to, true communism as envisioned by marx would look drastically different from stalinism, seen as marx is the founder of communism i find it hard to pick a more esteemed judge.

Stalin was a dictator, but he was also a true communist. He tried his hardest to impose the communist principles proposed by Marx & Lenin including collectivization, wealth redistribution, elimination of the free market, etc. Thats why the USSR failed and China scrambled during the '90s to open its markets.

[LittleGrizzly]

I have been told by various people on this board that Reegan caused the collapse of the USSR by making it over spend, now assuming stalin did implement marx economics policys fully (which he didn't but we'll get to that later) it powered one of the military power houses for the duration of the cold war, if it wasn't for the sudden abondment of these policys the USSR could have probably chugged along for a good while with its ridiculous military expenditure.

Stalin may have had some pure marxist vision to start with but as we know power corrupts. I don't pertend to be an expert on communism but im sure it calls for the destruction of class (or the removal of the upper class creating just one class ?) stalin simply replaced one elite with another.

Know imagine if you will the immense economic power brought about by partail undertaking of marx economic policys had actually been used for the good of the russian people, the workers shared in the spoils of thier hard work as marx envisioned rather than have this wealth they created support a huge military budget, a secret police to control them and thier sateliette states.

[Geoffrey S]

Has the last century tought us nothing!? :dizzy2:

[CountArach]

If we can restrict this conversation to Communism without refering to Stalinism (Which is authoritarianism) then I will join, otherwise count me out...

[Andres]

Other : Eurovision.

Definitely.

[InsaneApache]

The Commies murdered far more people than all the others put together. So Commie it is then.

[CrossLOPER]

Are we forgetting colonialism and western expansion again?

[LittleGrizzly]

Stalin still has more.

As we can stalin has a yearly kill rate of 220,000 extra and thanks for finding figuring that out.

The figures still need to be adjusted though based on populations, if we want to figure out simply who killed more it was obviously stalin but we have to take into consideration the available population to kill.

for example country A has population of 1 million they kill 10,000 people
country B has a population of 10 million they kill 20,000 people

Now country A's leader has killed of 1% of his population country B has killed 0.2% of its population, so country A's leader is far deadlier in comparison even though the leader of country B has killed more.

You look at Hitlers available to kill population and it was limited to Germany until about '36 (forgot the name and unsure on date the joining with austria) and im pretty sure even at the peak of Hitlers empire which would have only lasted about a year the soviets had a far bigger available population after WW2. Probably still a comparable population when Hitlers empire was at its peak.

[InsaneApache]

Stalin was an amateur compared to Mao.

[TinCow]

Voted Other, because my answer is None. Worst Influence implies that there is a Best Influence. It is not possible to make such a determination without first identifying what is desirable and undesirable in human history. On an objective level, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' history, society, or civilization. Therefore I reject any notion that any particular ideology or government could have been good or bad for history as a whole. History simply is, it is not something that should be considered good or bad. You might as well ask whether gravity had a positive or negative influence on science.

[drone]

Other - Organized religion.

[LittleGrizzly]

Other - Organized religion.

Now how the hell did i forget this one, facism is more of a second placed vote, as far as im concerned Organised religion is the worst influence in history and to the present day.

[cegorach]

Fine to me - organized atheism is already here as communism and to lesser degre (varies from much lesser to slightly lesser) fascism.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't see how you can call atheism one of the worst influences, the very fact Stalinism was deviod of religion doesn't mean it was the reasons for the deaths, infact the reason for the deaths was mainly stalin's economic policys (which have nothing to do with atheism) and stalin keeping control (which also has nothing to do with atheism)

I realise most of the deaths to do with organised religion aren't actually directives from that religion but people using the religion and perverting it so people will believe what they want them to, or more importantly believe that god wants them to do such and such. With atheism no such thing is possible, there is no atheist god you can convince the atheist populace to do crazy things because off.
Atheism by its very nature cannot influence you to do anything, it also takes away alot of 'good' reasons to do bad things, facism throughout its history has been side by side with religion so the second comment is nothing more than a throw away.

[cegorach]

I don't see how you can call atheism one of the worst influences, the very fact Stalinism was deviod of religion doesn't mean it was the reasons for the deaths, infact the reason for the deaths was mainly stalin's economic policys (which have nothing to do with atheism) and stalin keeping control (which also has nothing to do with atheism)

I realise most of the deaths to do with organised religion aren't actually directives from that religion but people using the religion and perverting it so people will believe what they want them to, or more importantly believe that god wants them to do such and such. With atheism no such thing is possible, there is no atheist god you can convince the atheist populace to do crazy things because off.
Atheism by its very nature cannot influence you to do anything, it also takes away alot of 'good' reasons to do bad things, facism throughout its history has been side by side with religion so the second comment is nothing more than a throw away.


Stalin is not the only one mr Grizzly.

Early communism in Russia and later in the Soviet Union is full of militant atheism before and during Stalin's rule - similar with the franchises 'opened' in occupied countries and between its followers worldwide.

Too much time and effort was spent on attacking religion in those countries to see this as something of no consequence.
Atheism was essential to the existence of communism - a total controll through getting rid off any competition, independent thought or opposing guidiance.

There might be no atheist god, but it is as with all real fanatics - give one the ability to lead a country and they will do anything for thought control.

Of course in communism it was all 'for the good of the subjects' - after all religion is such a terrible evil it cannot be tolerated.

It always ends like that - every active movement needs to do something and organised atheism certainly doesn't mean apathy.
Because its purpose is spreading its word it eventually ends in organized violence the final tool of all extremists.


'Organized atheism' - or rather militant atheism which takes over a country is nothing better than a reign of fanatical believers, it has only been implemented for much shorter periods of time and killed less people.
Hardly a difference to the people who die if it is because they don't believe, believe in something else or just believe in a god/-s.

Any fanaticism is dangerous - every movement has its extremists - there are several we seen 'in action' and a lot we never gave any chance. Good.



With fascism - true, I said that on purpose, though the hard core nazism was quite the same against religion as hardline communism.

[Pannonian]

Stalin was an amateur compared to Mao.
Most of Mao's kills were due to idiotic incompetence, rather than malice. He had the idea that one could change reality through concerted communal effort, resulting in the massive failure to feed his people. Deng Xiaopeng's famous saying was a repudiation of ideology in favour of pragmatism.

[PanzerJaeger]

If we can restrict this conversation to Communism without refering to Stalinism (Which is authoritarianism) then I will join, otherwise count me out...

Heh, lets keep Hitlerism out of this too.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think i see what your saying, militant atheism, i think militant anti-religion is a better term (ill explain why later in the post), actually becomes dangerous to the religous because it commonly has the view of organised religion as a bad thing, so one thing leads to another and you have the militant anti-religous going round killing religous people. I see how in this way atheism could be described as a bad influence.

Atheism was essential to the existence of communism - a total controll through getting rid off any competition, independent thought or opposing guidiance.

I would argue this point though, many leaders throughout history have used religion to help them control a populace, i would say by the removal of organised religion you remove a useful tool in population control, of course an orgnaised religion can be a problem to a dictator but too many times this has simply not been the case and organised religion has helped various dictator's keep control and allowed them to claim they are on the side of god and the enemy are a bunch of heathens. To anyone that can be convinced of this there can be no greater reason for doing something.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There we alot of jews who survived the holocaust, don't forget jews were not hitlers only target, gypsys, slavs, coloured people and im sure theres a few groups im forgetting, imagine hitler kept all the land he had at the nazis peak, early 1942 i think, and held it for a similar time to stalin, the numbers would be astronomical.

But he didn't, and they weren't. What if Ghengis Khan had conquered a billion people, aliens invaded, they were conquered by the Mongol hordes, and the world imploded? Doesn't matter, because it didn't happen.


The figures still need to be adjusted though based on populations, if we want to figure out simply who killed more it was obviously stalin but we have to take into consideration the available population to kill.

Hitler controlled France, Norway, Denmark, Slovakia, Germany, Austria, and Poland, and indirectly controlled Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Greece - indeed, almost all of continental Europe.

Anyhow, averages don't really matter, and neither do adjustments or proportions - indeed, that seems to me like the talk of an apologist. What matters is what did happen - nothing else.

[LittleGrizzly]

But he didn't, and they weren't. What if Ghengis Khan had conquered a billion people, aliens invaded, they were conquered by the Mongol hordes, and the world imploded? Doesn't matter, because it didn't happen.


I have not said what if, my point all along has been deadlier, go back and look, that is what i was saying

Hitler controlled France, Norway, Denmark, Slovakia, Germany, Austria, and Poland, and indirectly controlled Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Greece - indeed, almost all of continental Europe.


yes but that was for a very short space of time, Stalin had 9 years after world war 2 in control of the whole population of eastern europe and 23 years before world war 2 in control of the whole russian population, hitlers chance to kill was a very short space of time in some countries, even france were only under his control for 6 years.

Anyhow, averages don't really matter, and neither do adjustments or proportions - indeed, that seems to me like the talk of an apologist.


if you look at my first point on which you disagreed with me
im willing to argue pure numbers would show facism to be a far deadlier ideaology

that is all i have been arguing all along, indeed if i am an apologist would that not infact make you an apologist also ?

What matters is what did happen - nothing else.

Exactly and what did happen was Hitler was a far more effecient killing machine than Stalin but had his time and empire cut short.

Also incase there is any confusion i do think Stalin was a crazy killing machine and have not been trying to make him out to be anything else, i am simply comparing crazy killing machines to some people this may some cold or apologist but i feel its essential to answering the question

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have not said what if, my point all along has been deadlier, go back and look, that is what i was saying

Stalin killed more people, and had a larger section of people killed per year. Hitler could have killed an equal amount that Stalin did every year, no problem, considering Germany alone had a population of eighty million. He didn't.


if you look at my first point on which you disagreed with me
im willing to argue pure numbers would show facism to be a far deadlier ideaology

Pure numbers are totals. Communism under Stalin alone killed more than Hitler - once we add in all the other regimes, communism has killed many, many more people.


Exactly and what did happen was Hitler was a far more effecient killing machine than Stalin but had his time and empire cut short.

Hitler's efficiency was mostly directed at two or three ethnic groups, and once these were gone, Hitler would not have had more people to kill on a large scale.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hitler could have killed an equal amount that Stalin did every year, no problem, considering Germany alone had a population of eighty million. He didn't.

Yes Germany had a sizeable population but russia's is alot bigger, and then if we take into account the whole soviet union which he had control of for a while the population is huge



i said pure numbers show it to be deadlier

so A kills 5 out of 20
the B kills 10 out of 50
A is deadlier, B has killed more, its pretty simple really, i have even shown this example already.

once we add in all the other regimes, communism has killed many, many more people.

Well like i said at the start i don't think stalinism is communism, so i was taking communism to mean stalinism.

If you basically want to add up all stalinism type dictators then add up all facist dictatorships and compare numbers i can't be too sure who would come out on top, for one i couldn't be too sure about what goverments through history have counted as facist.

Hitler's efficiency was mostly directed at two or three ethnic groups, and once these were gone, Hitler would not have had more people to kill on a large scale.

Well your assuming Hitlers rate of killing would have gone down but what of the various resistance movements, there was an assanation attempt on him would he have needed to purge the german population of disloyalty, he started going crazy towards the end whose to say his crazyness would have led to even more mass murder. I can't see any valid reason to assume Hitler would have mellowed in his old age...

[Northnovas]

In theory:
Communism has the edge because it loses all of its nobility in trying to gain effectiveness, but it can never gain any effectiveness since it's a flawed concept, resulting in a totally repressive, worthless system.

I would have to agree Communism and the flawed concept by the states that created it's birth. They were not designed to be created in places like Russia and China.
The over wroked capitalist states were to give Communism it's start. Though noble of an idea it just goes against human nature.

[Strike For The South]

People who dont understand basic economic princples.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

OK, attention fellow backroomers, under-informed and fairly naive amateur wading into the fray. Feel free to rip me into little pieces...

As I've said before I believe Fascism, out of the above choices is definitely the worst. This is probably due to the fact that I didn't include other Fascist regimes such as Franco's in Spain and Mussolini, alongside the obvious one of Hitler. However, I still contend that Communism itself isn't as bad. Its motive is for a utopian society, which anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows is impossible. The problem is fanatics.

Unvote: Fascism, Vote:Other (Fanatics)

I don't think I need to go into this. Examples include: Hitler and the Holocaust; Stalin and the Gulag; 9/11; the 2nd Gulf war, and the current Iraqi occupation; London bombings; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the Crusades, the French revolution; just about every religiously based war in history; and just about every civil war in history.

I rest my case on this.

However I'd still like to answer some of the following posts.


Other-Organised Religion

Not sure exactly what you mean, seen as it is a pretty much essential part of human society. I'm an atheist myself, but thats my choice, anyone who wants to believe in a god, or gods, is perfectly within their rights to do so. What is it about organised religion in particular that you object to? Religious fanatics? In which case see above, its not the fault of the religion thats its followers are nuts. The doctrine itself? That can't have influenced history in a bad way without fanaticism.


Too much time and effort was spent on attacking religion in those countries to see this as something of no consequence.
Atheism was essential to the existence of communism - a total controll through getting rid off any competition, independent thought or opposing guidiance.

I'd suggest in the nicest possible way that you are highlighting the flaws in authoritarianism, not the communist ideals themselves, again the work of fanatics who have hijacked what could otherwise be the ideal system (if not for human nature).


There might be no atheist god, but it is as with all real fanatics - give one the ability to lead a country and they will do anything for thought control.

This has nothing to do with atheism, give anyone control of a country and they will attempt to control the population somewhat... lack of this is anarchy! And on a wider note, what is government, other than control of a country. Even in a democracy, a political party will attempt to control the voting public, in order to get elected, and then in order to stay elected. You object to strigent governmental control, not atheism.


Of course in communism it was all 'for the good of the subjects' - after all religion is such a terrible evil it cannot be tolerated.

Utilitarianism, rather than communism. Although I grant your point, in the USSR, and also China. I'd ask, because I honestly don't know, whether it is the same in Cuba, though. As for myself, as already noted, I (and I would suggest at least some other atheists), do not consider religion evil, merely a life choice that people have made.


It always ends like that - every active movement needs to do something and organised atheism certainly doesn't mean apathy.
Because its purpose is spreading its word it eventually ends in organized violence the final tool of all extremists.

Agreed, which is why I'm not an 'organised' atheist. I'd argue that its existence doesn't cause organised violence, however. For you to state that, is to admit that any religion, ultimately, will lead to organised violence, and I don't think you believe that.


'Organized atheism' - or rather militant atheism which takes over a country is nothing better than a reign of fanatical believers, it has only been implemented for much shorter periods of time and killed less people.
Hardly a difference to the people who die if it is because they don't believe, believe in something else or just believe in a god/-s.

Again, only holds true if the people in question are fanatical atheists, similarly if there was a government made up of Islamic fanatics, or Catholic fanatics, it would be the same.


Any fanaticism is dangerous - every movement has its extremists

Exactly my point, so lets stay away from political ideologies and agree that fanaticism is the true 'worst influence' in history.


Heh, lets keep Hitlerism out of this too.

I just did. :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

Your making good points but i think there is one main mistake you have made, but it is only semantics...

Can you really consider fanaticism (in the way your describing it) as an influence in itself ? i don't think you can...

EDIT let me explain my reasoning, i see the topic as title as basically meaning worst ideaology in history, whereas your voting the people who take the ideaology to its worst place as the worst ideaology.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I accept what you're trying to say LG, but at the same time, I'm fairly sure the question didn't say, what was the worst ideology in history? As such I feel my statements are justified, and even if its off the point, its still something for everyone who's shouting about 'I didn't mean hitlerism, or stalinism, or maoism' to consider.

If you don't mean communism in general, state that you mean Stalinism, or if you don't mean fascism, state that you mean hitlerism. Just because the choices aren't on the poll, doesn't mean you can't explain in detail what you mean...

...rant over... (ahem... sorry)

Oh and I stand by my vote for fanaticism, I believe it is valid.

Edit: I was wrong, but I still stand by my point. and if not then Hitlerism.

[Shaka_Khan]

Communism has killed more people than fascism, and was part of the problem that almost destroyed the world.

Actually, come to think of it, I'd say Eurovision.
:laugh4: I agree.

[drone]

Not sure exactly what you mean, seen as it is a pretty much essential part of human society. I'm an atheist myself, but thats my choice, anyone who wants to believe in a god, or gods, is perfectly within their rights to do so. What is it about organised religion in particular that you object to? Religious fanatics? In which case see above, its not the fault of the religion thats its followers are nuts. The doctrine itself? That can't have influenced history in a bad way without fanaticism.
I'm not against people having spiritual beliefs. But organized religion is all about money and power. Religious leaders can be benevolent, but the power that comes from a multitude of believers will eventually corrupt. We have reached the peak of this problem with monotheism, since a society's beliefs are concentrated into one power structure, easily controlled by either the religious leaders and/or the state.

The elimination of the church by communist states was done to remove the competition. Replace the church with the state, opiate of the masses, that kind of thing. Hitler avoided this, but he did co-opt the church, if I remember correctly.

Religious wars, inquisitions/purges/pogroms, and religious edicts that harm the society in general have probably killed more than Hitler or Stalin could have ever imagined.

[Meneldil]

Ethnic and Cultural Cleansing - Officially, no. Practically, yes.
Government Control of Free Speech - Very much so.
Religious Intolerance - Intolerant of all religions. Another point.
Rampant Injustice - Communism, check.

Communism matches all of the points you made.

Thanks for making clear that you're one of the fascim apologists that plague Germany and Europe nowadays. I thought you were only a nationalistic right-winger, but I guess I was wrong.

Quite frankly, the whole "fascism wasn't that bad ! look : commies killed more people" crap we've being told over and over by the right lately is pathetic.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Thanks for making clear that you're one of the fascim apologists that plague Germany and Europe nowadays.

I didn't say that Hitler's brand of fascism wasn't responsible for terrible atrocities, just that communism has killed more people, which is factually correct. That doesn't make me a fascist, just accurate. :book:

You cannot deny that communism does match all of these points.


I thought you were only a nationalistic right-winger, but I guess I was wrong.

You were wrong - I'm not that far right, and I'm also a monarchist. ~;)


Quite frankly, the whole "fascism wasn't that bad ! look : commies killed more people" crap we've being told over and over by the right lately is pathetic.

Fascism killed less people than communism, simple fact, full stop. No opinions on which is the better idealogy, no saying that fascism was good, and no apologies for anything fascists did. You're reacting to something that doesn't exist here.

Your argument is like saying LittleGrizzly is a Stalinist. :no:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I'm not against people having spiritual beliefs. But organized religion is all about money and power. Religious leaders can be benevolent, but the power that comes from a multitude of believers will eventually corrupt. We have reached the peak of this problem with monotheism, since a society's beliefs are concentrated into one power structure, easily controlled by either the religious leaders and/or the state.

I can see where you are coming from here. Taking the Catholic Church as an example (no offence intended to any catholics out there, I simply know more about it as I am originally from a catholic background), it is run as a business. The Vatican Bank is hugely wealthy. However, in the interests of fairness, if the Church didn't run itself as a business, how would it survive in todays' frenetic, ultra-competive, consumerist world? Where would the money to fund good works, and to maintain churchs and other religious buildings come from. Luckily, we have (or from a religious viewpoint, were given) free choice, we don't want to be controlled by the government? Limit their power via elections. We don't want a religion to hold sway over what we can say or do? Don't go to church, or find another religion with better ideals. As to the idea that power can corrupt, I'm in full agreement (I think I actually said it myself somewhere in this thread... or did I?).


The elimination of the church by communist states was done to remove the competition. Replace the church with the state, opiate of the masses, that kind of thing. Hitler avoided this, but he did co-opt the church, if I remember correctly.

From year 12 history, I remember that Hitler tried to keep the church onside, at least until he had cemented his power. I vaguely remember from an essay I wrote arguing Hitler was good for Germany. Proof that writing an essay thats completely out there and has a premise that you don't necessarily agree with can get you better marks than arguing the same as everyone else.


Religious wars, inquisitions/purges/pogroms, and religious edicts that harm the society in general have probably killed more than Hitler or Stalin could have ever imagined.

You're probably right, but see my above post. Religious fanatics in charge of religions cause the major problems, its very rare for a major religion itself to be fundamently flawed.

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for making clear that you're one of the fascim apologists that plague Germany and Europe nowadays. I thought you were only a nationalistic right-winger, but I guess I was wrong.


Hah, what a pathetic attempt to suppress discussion. Labels and personal attacks are fun aren't they? Please explain how stating facts makes someone an apologist?

The left has been hanging Hitler around the collective neck of the right for decades, but the reality is that they have their own skeletons in the closet - with far greater body counts.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hah, what a pathetic attempt to suppress discussion. Labels and personal attacks are fun aren't they? Please explain how stating facts makes someone an apologist?

The left has been hanging Hitler around the collective neck of the right for decades, but the reality is that they have their own skeletons in the closet - with far greater body counts.

:bow:

[LittleGrizzly]

Hah, what a pathetic attempt to suppress discussion. Labels and personal attacks are fun aren't they? Please explain how stating facts makes someone an apologist?

The left has been hanging Hitler around the collective neck of the right for decades, but the reality is that they have their own skeletons in the closet - with far greater body counts.

Of course anyone on the 'right' would be above such low handed tactics... well he didn't go all out and call me an apologist EMFM basically accussed me of the same thing, you didn't seem to jump on that post... maybe you missed it...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Of course anyone on the 'right' would be above such low handed tactics... well he didn't go all out and call me an apologist EMFM basically accussed me of the same thing, you didn't seem to jump on that post... maybe you missed it...

I didn't accuse you of being an apologist, per se. I simply stated that trying to skew numbers to try to make Stalin somehow seem to be the better of the two is somewhat worrying.

[seireikhaan]

Hah, what a pathetic attempt to suppress discussion. Labels and personal attacks are fun aren't they? Please explain how stating facts makes someone an apologist?

The left has been hanging Hitler around the collective neck of the right for decades, but the reality is that they have their own skeletons in the closet - with far greater body counts.
:laugh4: I love it when folks complain about labels and then promptly turn around and label in the next paragraph.

Okay, guys, can we agree that Stalin and Hitler both pretty much just sucked for humanity all around? Its like comparing American idol to Eurovision.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Its like comparing American idol to Eurovision.

You know not the evil of which you speak.

[LittleGrizzly]

didn't accuse you of being an apologist, per se.

No you stopped one step short and said that seems to me like the talk of an apologist. which when you logically think about isn't far removed from Thanks for making clear that you're one of the fascim apologists that plague Germany and Europe nowadays. you basically said the same thing as Meneldil just in a far politer manner

I simply stated that trying to skew numbers

Getting averages and the like from a range of figures is not trying to skew the numbers, infact its a common tool of statistical anylisis used widely by mathmaticians.

Amount of people killed seems too much of an emotional argument to understand so imagine two football (soccer) players if you will

Player A plays 30 games and scores 15 goals
Player B plays 20 games and scores 13 goals

Player A has clearly scored more goals, only an idiot would disagree, but thinking into it Player B is clearly a bigger goal scoring threat, by looking into the averages we can see Player A scored 0.5 goals a game, whereas Player B scored 0.65 goals a game.

By stating that Player B is a bigger goal threat and by assuming he could have overtaken Player A am i trying to skew the numbers or am i using statistical anylisis to show that B is actually a better goal getter ?

Its like comparing American idol to Eurovision.

That seems grossly unfair to american idol, at least the show is somewhat based on talent...

[seireikhaan]

Its like comparing American idol to Eurovision.

That seems grossly unfair to american idol, at least the show is somewhat based on talent...
As far as I'm concerned, its a scourge upon humanity...

[PanzerJaeger]

Of course anyone on the 'right' would be above such low handed tactics.

Definately not! I've surely used the same tactic in the heat of battle.:beam:

Its pathetic no matter who is doing it.

[LittleGrizzly]

Ignore my post anyway, i saw your post and went into a 'right vs left' mindset, i try to avoid it but alas Grizzly is not above such pettyness.

[Abokasee]

Voted Gah!

They all blow to be honest, a world where money is at the centre is not good for those who are poor, and a world where everyone has the same amount of wealth can only begin on a new planet where the words "Captilism" dosnt exsist, and facistism, well what can I say, its only killed less people that Communism because very few countries where facists after 1945.

[Ironside]

Tricky one, of those three, capitalism probably got most killed (but the longest time and the trickiest judgements), but on the other hand it seems to be needed for economic growth and general wealth, atleast during a certain period. Needs to be regulated though, as it's pure form is far from plesant.
As noted by Tribesman, the flaws gave the development of the other two.

Communism is the most idealistic with the idea of economic equality, a maybe too idealistic move from the human equality. Has a particular problem with revolutions though.

Revolutions often ends up in the hands of those with the most determined core (while the great mass start it), in this case they're often an powerhungry, idealistic, fanatical movement that has lost the connection with reality. They will then make whacky reforms, that after thier failure will be blamed on "traitors in our midst", turning the punishments invards. That Stalinism seems to been popular to adopt (due to giving power and being the first "successful" revolution) doesn't exactly help the matter.

Needless to say, it has given rise to among the most brutal regimes the world have seen.

The original Facism is a counter movement to all forms of Socialism and is already from the birth intended on viping that "threat" and other "threats" in general out of existance. That by eliminating the people supporting it and the ideas that gave birth to these "threats" in the first place. That means bye, bye liberalism, democracy, equality of humanity and some other ideas we're fond of today.

[Scurvy]

Capitalism --> it caused communism and fascism and is responsible for more war's and deaths than anything else...

however between communism and fascism, fascism is the "less bad" --> at least fascism makes practical sense and is good for at least a small ethnic/whatever minority

:2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

Collectivism.

EDIT: to clarify, I think that both marxist and fascist ideologies (and outside the scope of this discussion, social conservatism) are blight because they opress the individual.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Wow...I started a good debate! :laugh4: :book: :yes: :beam: