What made communism such a motivating and compelling ideology VS something like fascism or Islam?Fascism died in a couple years and no one missed it or defended it, Islamic ideologists number in the 10s of thousands despite being a religion of a billion + and Islamic armies break after losing a few thousand troops Why did communism spread so far and wide? Why were millions willing to defend it with their lives?
communism hasn't been implemented anywhere.
>>18176161It appeals to our innate yearning for equality aka human nature instead of islam and fascism which are about worshipping a pedo warlord and adhering to debunked theories of racial superiority
>>18176161>What made communism such a motivating and compelling ideologynothing. communism is neither compelling nor motivating. there wasn't a mass movement behind it, ever. communists could ever mobilize masses either by force or by lying by omission about their goals.
>>18176161Real Fascism is a dead ideology with its only cultural footprint in the Post-WW2 world being conventional Right-wingers who larp their aesthetic for one reason or another, however the same applies to Communism. The Soviet Union already refused to folloe multiple Marxist aspects and especially since Stalin the Doctrine differed to much to be called Marxist. However we can differentiate how Fascism and Communism get wrongly interpreted by their followers. For the former it is essentially the Ship of Theseus Principle, most Fascists died and the remaining camps either submerged into other right-wing groups or died out without leaving much of a legacy to pick up. Basically, they were slowly hollowed out until their entire framework was replaced by the very right-wingers who the Fascists originally tried to succeed themselves. For the modern Communists it is a Cargo cult. Failures of individuals looking up to an a worldview which despite them viewing it as simple and especially black and white on the surface, which they treat as a higher abstract Concept, a God if you will, in hopes that the mere worship of it would bring prosperity. That's why Communism has a bigger appeal. It became a Stand-in for the wishes of the downtrodden and outcasts, to project their own desires onto a seemingly rational worldview. The Fascists died out naturally because they relied too much on their old tactics rather than adapt to the change in culture.
>>18176161Proletarian revolution appeals to really abused populations that don't have any recourse to better their material conditionsMarx believed that proletarian revolutions would begin in industrialized countries because at the time of his writing working people there were living in terrible conditions. But he didn't expect that the Western European governments would reform capitalism with welfare programs. So, most communist revolutions and insurgencies happened in countries like Russia, China, Peru, Guatemala, India, where there was great popular discontent and strict class structureSo, socialist parties in Europe abandoned violent class struggle and switched to reformism.The biggest enemy of communism is a social democracy, not capitalism, because unreformed capitalism creates the conditions for revolution. Lasalle's path won
>>18176853But Real Fascism has never been tried.
>>18176161Islamism seems fairly robust in indoctrinating people and getting them sacrifice themselves, but I'll agree it's a relatively small minority of Muslims. Actually an interesting thing to me now is how Al Qaeda guys and radical Islamic revolutionary types have transitioned a bit into winning and taking power and governing which will cause the ideology to change or adapt to new circumstances in some kind of way:https://youtu.be/3BC6MXBz-RYAlso the number of communists in the 20th century is probably way overstated if you're just looking at a map of communist countries, when actual committed Marxist-Leninists were a small minority, a few percent of the population. But most people were not much different from people in any other society.>>18176853Look at violence in Colombia in the latter 20th century, early 21st century. There was a Marxist group called the FARC who were mean motherfuckers but they also did heavy indoctrination of young people who'd go out and join them. The ideology of justice and equality is attractive and the yearning for that still continues, but the reality is that those young people were just exploited and used up as cannon fodder. But you had large land owners and the idea was that the revolution would break up the land, so if you have one guy who owns 100 acres, then you split that up so each person gets an acre. Of course it's not that simple and in reality you collectivize the farms but it had some appeal.The AUC guys (right-wing death squads) by contrast didn't really have a program to take over the government. It was more like "hey, you served in the military? Cool, okay here's a gun, we're going to go kill those guys."
>>18176918Real Fascism has been tried. And it was glorious
Communism is ultimately anarchism to cause a civil war while fascism sought to prevent civil war. All the communists became social Democrats once they realized their "revolutions" just killed the people they were supposedly trying to help.
>>18176975>Communism is ultimately anarchism to cause a civil war while fascism sought to prevent civil war.I think the main problem Lenin was trying to solve was how to get a voluntary association to act like an army. It's like in the army, you have the reserves with people in their houses living normally, but when they get the mobilization order, they go. It's like that but for politics so you can coup the government. "Marxism-Leninism" became a dogma later on, but the more I've read about it, the more it (early on) read as an organizational methodology rather than an ideology. Like you could call it "militarized social democracy" or something like that. Or "organizational technology" in conditions of repression.So out of that you get what they called "democratic centralism" and also the cadre system. Communist membership is screened, hardened, and trained. Part of that hardening process is through leadership in what they call "mass organizations," which are not explicitly communist in character, and which their enemies among anti-communist forces called "communist front groups." They also practiced a lot of secrecy and compartmentalization in the structure. Then another thing was political indoctrination. The term agitprop (agitation and propaganda) actually refers to two related but distinct concepts. Propaganda is essentially internal while agitation is aimed at the masses. Now, indoctrination (propaganda) is something most armies do to some degree or another, like they want to get you to think a certain way. The whole idea is to create something more like a paramilitary political party / clandestine intelligence service / commando unit all sort of bound up together. In theory.>All the communists became social Democrats once they realized their "revolutions" just killed the people they were supposedly trying to help.Well you just end up exploiting the shit out of people because they're cannon fodder.
>>18176161Fascism>Hey, you, yeah you, wanna fight for solidarity with that nigga that’s making your life misery everyday (btw this also applies for communism several decades after the revolution)Islam>Hey you, yeah you, wanna fight for imaginary Bronze Age zutt slutCommunism>Hey you, yeah you, wanna fight for control of society and your own dignity as the foundational pillar of society for yourself, your friends and your progeny
>>18176161It's radical, it's iconoclastic, it actually talks about issues and actually proposes solutions (as to whether or not those solutions work is up for fierce debate). It always takes off during the most desperate situations, and it attracts the bleeding hearts and the cynical Machiavellian types as well. It's very water-like among the ideologies: Leninism, Maoism, Ho Chi Minh thought, Hoxaism, Titoism - so many variants. I would say its sheer versatility and dynamism are why it's so successful in the battle for ideas. Doesn't mean it's any more or less successful than other political ideologies but that's outside the scope of your question, and I'm just answering your question for now lol
>>18176893Communism can still winSocial democracy in the 21st century is basically the party of the turbo bourgeoisie. Populism is basically the workers party + their middle class allies. In this way, in Europe, populism is dialectically fated to win and the establishment to lose. Then the workers will be a few shades closer to victory while the browns get deported and their aristocratic massas cry and LARP moral superiority as they did in the 1790s.
>>18176161Fascism is about national brotherhood, appreciation for beauty, art and humanity's highest ideals.Communism is just an excuse to kill people and take their belongings.It is why communism has always led to either a total collapse in peace time like in USSR or a quiet switch into Fascism like in China while keeping the communist window dressings.It's also why our economically collapsing, degenerate current liberal capitalist government is destined to become Fascist to, as an inevitable revitalization of the nation.
>>18176893It's telling that communism only works on illiterate backwards peasants but every educated, industrial nation turned Fascist.
>>18177046I don’t necessarily agree.Some western countries, like France, I think are destined to see left-populism (e.g melenchon AKA nu -communism) win
>>18177054France is destined to adopt Islamic theocracy
>>18176161>>18176220>and Islamic armies breakThose are pan arabist armies lead by imcompetent dictators. On the other hand (the real islamic armies) are Ji6adi grps that fight even if you bomb them with tons or airstrikes. For ex . Gaza or Chechnya
>>18176161Because it appeals to jealous poorfags which outnumber the bourgeois. It's not rocket science
