The usual response to this is:
>fascism explicitly wants people to be enslaved and murdered
But historically speaking, how true is this actually?
Have any fascist movements ever been that upfront about their goals?
Even the Nazis hid their intentions behind vague and bureaucratic language.
Also aren't communists just as guilty of this?
They obviously want to kill the rich, anyone they label as rich, take their stuff and have total power.

>>17835556 (OP)
Communism isn’t as hated as fascism because the Soviet Union was on the winning side in WW2. Also because communism is dishonest in its evil as evidenced by how many people are still fooled into thinking it’s good. Fascism is more honest about it so less people fall for it.

>>17835556 (OP)
Germans forever disgraced all fascist movements

>>17835556 (OP)
I imagine a part of it is because the fascists were so utterly defeated that you could make up whatever you want about them without nuance but with the commies you could theoretically debate them, there are still communist countries to this day
I do find it funny everyone is always on about the Germans, who bore the brunt of propaganda, but no one ever talks about Spain

>>17835556 (OP)
COMMUNISM IS THE WORST

>>17835556 (OP)
see also - fashfront dot org

>>17835556 (OP)
>Even the Nazis hid their intentions behind vague and bureaucratic language.
No, Hitler's book talks quite openly about wanting to enslave the slavic peoples.

>>17835556 (OP)
>Hitler is a criminal lunatic, and Hitler has an army of millions of men, aeroplanes in thousands, tanks in tens of thousands. For his sake a great nation has been willing to overwork itself for six years and then to fight for two years more, whereas for the common-sense, essentially hedonistic world-view which Mr. Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is willing to shed a pint of blood. Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to ‘enlightened’ and hedonistic people. What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the S.S. men patrolling the London streets at this moment. Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the ‘sacred soil of the Fatherland’, etc. etc.), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered from. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions — racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war — which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.

>>17835870
>[...]

>There survives somewhere or other an interesting controversy which took place between Wells and Churchill at the time of the Russian Revolution. Wells accuses Churchill of not really believing his own propaganda about the Bolsheviks being monsters dripping with blood, etc., but of merely fearing that they were going to introduce an era of common sense and scientific control, in which flag-wavers like Churchill himself would have no place. Churchill's estimate of the Bolsheviks, however, was nearer the mark than Wells's. The early Bolsheviks may have been angels or demons, according as one chooses to regard them, but at any rate they were not sensible men. They were not introducing a Wellsian Utopia but a Rule of the Saints, which like the English Rule of the Saints, was a military despotism enlivened by witchcraft trials. The same misconception reappears in an inverted form in Wells's attitude to the Nazis. Hitler is all the war-lords and witch-doctors in history rolled into one. Therefore, argues Wells, he is an absurdity, a ghost from the past, a creature doomed to disappear almost immediately. But unfortunately the equation of science with common sense does not really hold good. The aeroplane, which was looked forward to as a civilising influence but in practice has hardly been used except for dropping bombs, is the symbol of that fact. Modern Germany is far more scientific than England, and far more barbarous. Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany. The order, the planning, the State encouragement of science, the steel, the concrete, the aeroplanes, are all there, but all in the service of ideas appropriate to the Stone Age.

>>17835872
>Science is fighting on the side of superstition. But obviously it is impossible for Wells to accept this. It would contradict the world-view on which his own works are based. The war-lords and the witch-doctors must fail, the common-sense World State, as seen by a nineteenth-century Liberal whose heart does not leap at the sound of bugles, must triumph. Treachery and defeatism apart, Hitler cannot be a danger. That he should finally win would be an impossible reversal of history, like a Jacobite restoration ... But because he belonged to the nineteenth century and to a non-military nation and class, he could not grasp the tremendous strength of the old world which was symbolised in his mind by fox-hunting Tories. He was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity. Creatures out of the Dark Ages have come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to lay them. The people who have shown the best understanding of Fascism are either those who have suffered under it or those who have a Fascist streak in themselves.

>>17835875
>A crude book like The Iron Heel, written nearly thirty years ago, is a truer prophecy of the future than either Brave New World or The Shape of Things to Come. If one had to choose among Wells's own contemporaries a writer who could stand towards him as a corrective, one might choose Kipling, who was not deaf to the evil voices of power and military ‘glory’. Kipling would have understood the appeal of Hitler, or for that matter of Stalin, whatever his attitude towards them might be. Wells is too sane to understand the modern world. The succession of lower-middle-class novels which are his greatest achievement stopped short at the other war and never really began again, and since 1920 he has squandered his talents in slaying paper dragons. But how much it is, after all, to have any talents to squander.
-- Orwell

https://youtu.be/oYZjNdKH6s8

>>17835556 (OP)
>Have any fascist movements ever been that upfront about their goals?
in everything not directed at the people, yes

>>17835556 (OP)
Communism and Fascism are same thing

>>17835556 (OP)
>How true is this actually?
They tried to end all human civilization and killed 80 million people.

>>17835556 (OP)
Unlike communism, there is no clear definition of "fascism" and fascist governments only existed for a brief moment before being destroyed by WW2. As a result, people all across the political spectrum treat fascism as evil

>>17836808
This!
I'm tired of pretending they're not.
Tikhistory on youtube goes into this

>>17835556 (OP)
Because they didn't start the biggest deadliest war in history ever? Obviously.

>>17835556 (OP)
because of the yalta conference

>>17838212
they literally invaded poland too?

>>17838219
Yes and shortly afterwards Hitler attacked Russia as well, which incidentally put them firmly in the good guys camp at least for the remainder of the war

>>17835556 (OP)
>Why isn't communism seen as as evil as fascism
Because you lost the war, nazi.

>>17835556 (OP)
>>fascism explicitly wants people to be enslaved and murdered
So does islam, but they get a free pass.

Communists doen't inherently have any problems with mass imprisonment of murder, they just disagree with who it's being done to.

>>17835848
No one cares about slavs

>>17835556 (OP)
>why isn't expropriating the rich and reconfiguring the economy so everyone can have a decent life considered as evil as basing the government around expansionist war, pillage, and mass slaughter
it's a stupid questionry

A lot of the replies itt don't actually understnad OP's questions.
He's not actually asking:
>Why isn't communism seen as evil as fascism?

>>17839579
>expropriating the rich and reconfiguring the economy so everyone can have a decent life considered
That's not what they actually do though is it.
Even fascists claim to want that, they don't explicitly go around saying they want mass slaughtering, just "law and order"

>>17840089
Historically speaking /his/ is not the modt literate subreddit.

>>17835848
Quote it.

Fsscist say they want a rigididly structured and organized society while on reality they offer rule by gangsters.
Communists say they want want a an equal and classless society.
More people currently want to believe the communists' promises than the fascists'.

>>17840132
>Communists say they want want a an equal and classless society.
while in reality they offer rule by gangsters, of course.

>>17839579
>expropriating the rich
that is just war, pillage and mass slaughter in practice

>>17835556 (OP)
Communism gets a better rap because no one cares how many asians you kill, especially russians.

>>17839579
Did Castro and Stalin really reconfigure the economy so everyone could have a decent life?