Why is communism radical? Why are fascism and Nazism ultra-conservative or react

Question: Why is communism radical!? Why are fascism and Nazism ultra-conservative or reactionary!?

Best answer to both answers gets 10 points :)Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

If you look at a political compass the left is communism!. The left is radical!. The right is conservative!. If you look at Hitler on a political compass, he's on the right side!. In the past there has always been inequality, a gap between social classes, and communism is supposed to promoting equality, thus its radical!. Facism is promoting inequality which means its conserving the old ideas!.

To the first guy who answered: Your many words are producing much uneccessary energy!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The technical answer is that early on, in the beginning of both the Soviet and Nazi regimes, historians figured out that the early Soviet Russians were somewhat lefty relative to other Russians, and that the early Nazis were rightward of your average German, politically!.

Problem is, none of this really *matters* as both societies became absolute dictatorships where the individual was nothing, the state was everything, and where people *died*!.!.!.!.lots of them, just for asking "incorrect" questions!.

Which actually, really does get to the point: History is written by those who can afford the printing presses!. The rich, and the victors of war!. Not that I'm saying either Soviet Communism or Nazi Fascism had *any* merits at all, but!.!.!.!.

the one thing they both had in common was that they were *both* reactions to excess concentrations of wealth!. The early Soviet Russians overthrew Tsar Nicholas because he was *filthy rich*, and there were *millions* of people dying in the gutter basically, whose lives hadn't improved since *European feudalism* hit!. It was a reaction to a dictator's imposing extreme poverty on the Russian people!.

And the situation with the Weimar Republic of Germany, before the Nazis, was much the same!. The Armistice (surrender/peace treaty) that ended World War I put *ALL* of the cost of that war upon the Germans, and repayment of that debt was carried out in terms *designed* to bankrupt and impoverish the whole of Germany!. And things *went* according to that plan, in the late Weimar Republic inflation and bad debt had made the money good for only *one thing*!.

Wallpaper!. People were selling homes to *buy* loaves of bread and food on the table that day!. This was one of the core causes of the Great Depression's hitting *worldwide*!. Again, it was also a case of an extreme concentration of wealth--a form of forced capital flight--forcing the ordinary people of a nation into a miserable, blighted state of extreme poverty!.

So!.!.!.!.what happened was, in both situations, the first dictator to *promise* food on the table and to "make the bastards pay" was elected ruler for *life*!. It was an extreme response to an extreme situation, and people went too far the other way in nationalizing and coercing businesses!. Yes, in *BOTH* cases!.

And then, in short order, both the Soviets and the Nazis went about *murdering* their opponents, and whoever *else* the Man of the Hour wanted dead!. So I'm not saying either system was a good response ok!? Dictatorship stinks royally no matter how you slice it!. Dead bodies are dead bodies!.

But the *words* "radical" and "reactionary" seem to be insults as much as anything!. They seem to be about making distinctions politically, about dictatorships where politics had become *absent* in favor of mass butchery and terror tactics instead!. Can you really talk about political distinctions when it's a dictatorship, a statist society where ordinary people have *no real say*!? No!.

So what purpose do the *words* serve!? The regimes no longer exist!. They no longer function in terms of being meat grinders of societies!.

I'd submit that this is so much *trash talk* from those who "own the printing press": the Rich Elites, who feel a need to *unrelentingly punish* people forever in posterity, in history books, long after they're dead for, oh shock horror, *daring to stand up to rich men who are THEMSELVES already DEAD*!. It's about making an example and *showing folks* that standing up to the boss is a Very Bad Thing (tm), so go ahead, *let them* take all the wealth (in terms of jobs and intellectual property) and throw it all in a toilet so money gets concentrated with the One Percenters and everyone else goes *begging*!. Again!.

It's basically hype, hype, a few lies, and *more hype*, taking very real and sad *facts* and weaving a fiction around them that supports the toxic status quo--That the Official Moral (tm) of this Story is that the Rich Men Are ALWAYS RIGHT (tm), Even When Peon Citizens Like You Suffer and Die For US!.

They are the World, They'll SELL Your Children (*Your* Children, Not Theirs)!.

^_^ Hope this helps!.Www@QuestionHome@Com