Worst influence in History

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegorach

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

'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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Heh, lets keep Hitlerism out of this too.

---

I just did. :laugh4:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

:laugh4: I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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?).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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:

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

Its like comparing American idol to Eurovision.

---

You know not the evil of which you speak.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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