I'm a student in search for numeral perspectives on the subject of alternate history concerning the existence of communism. What if communism and fascism were never introduced to the world? My main focus is around the 20th century during the period around the World Wars, but if relevant, I hope to trace it back to Karl Marx and his views, which brings up another question: did his perspective on communism and/or socialism provide a significant foundation to modern communism in the 20th century? Aside from Russia, what about China, Korea, Yugoslavia, and any other country which made attempts or succeeded at communism? Also, would it have affected the outcome of WWII or Adolf Hitler's motives in any way? I'm solely looking for preferably a web or chain of events that would or would not occur if communism did not exist or, if relevant to Marx's views, expand beyond his ideas. Hope someone may generously contribute his/her time into giving me an insight and advice on the issue: What if communism and fascism were never introduced to the world? Thanks.
What if communism and fascism were never introduced to the world?
- Thread starter the4saken328
- Start date
If there had never been some kind of communist/socialist "experiments", some people would still dream of some kind of "utopia" collectivism, until it happens somewhere.
If there had never been some kind of fascist "experiments", some people would still dream of some kind of military collectivism, until it happens somewhere.
An advantage of no Marx or so appearing would be, that followers of similar ideals wouldn't believe their ideology to be natural "progress", and therefore they wouldn't appear as expansionist and militarist to the rest of the world. But then, being considered weak is also no good thing. Maybe there would be some organic progress under "outside pressure" with all kinds of experiments, some failing, some surviving.
But the same could be true for the other side.
If there had never been some kind of fascist "experiments", some people would still dream of some kind of military collectivism, until it happens somewhere.
An advantage of no Marx or so appearing would be, that followers of similar ideals wouldn't believe their ideology to be natural "progress", and therefore they wouldn't appear as expansionist and militarist to the rest of the world. But then, being considered weak is also no good thing. Maybe there would be some organic progress under "outside pressure" with all kinds of experiments, some failing, some surviving.
But the same could be true for the other side.
Is it possible that Fascism could be interpreted as having come about in reaction to Communism? After all, Mussolini started out as a Socialist, and the Nazi party only found it's way into power due to widespread fear of the threat of the 'Reds'.
Justin Pickard said:
That's true. IMO as communists pushed into one extreme faschists pushed into opposite as a reaction.
If there is no communism as we know it I think some sort of social democracy would still come about. But maybe not as a political thing but through unions. People saw that things weren't as they should be. Communism provide done alternative. There would be others.
Two Peas in a Pod
Is it possible that Fascism could be interpreted as having come about in reaction to Communism?
I would carry this argument a step further. Communism and fascism are essentially the same thing. Single party dictatorships. The system virtually insures that only the most ruthless people rise to the top political positions.
The only real difference is that fascism typically allows a bit more economic freedom. You still have some private property ownership.
Many people equate fascism with racism (i.e. Hitler killing Jews) but I believe this was simply a quirk of Hitler's particular government. Other fascist governments are no more racist then their communist cousins.
Is it possible that Fascism could be interpreted as having come about in reaction to Communism?
I would carry this argument a step further. Communism and fascism are essentially the same thing. Single party dictatorships. The system virtually insures that only the most ruthless people rise to the top political positions.
The only real difference is that fascism typically allows a bit more economic freedom. You still have some private property ownership.
Many people equate fascism with racism (i.e. Hitler killing Jews) but I believe this was simply a quirk of Hitler's particular government. Other fascist governments are no more racist then their communist cousins.
The common pattern is a desire to set the group (the nation, the race) over the individual. I personally think Fascism is just one branch of the socialist/ communist family, consisting of incompatible and hostile lines of thoughts from anarchism to marxism-leninism to fascism.
Fascism has no clearly defined economical strategy as communism certainly has, but is also essentially anti-liberal in economic issues. they used wage and price control, direct interference in industries.
Fascism has no clearly defined economical strategy as communism certainly has, but is also essentially anti-liberal in economic issues. they used wage and price control, direct interference in industries.
Fascism and Communism are fundamentally and dramatically different ideological systems. Communism is based on class conflict, with international conflicts being frauds inflicted on the working class by heir overlords, whereas fascism more or less believes the exact opposit. Communism is also a more positive philosophy, working (at least in theory) towards an egalitarian utopia with conflict only as a means to achieve this, whereas in Fascism the conflict itself is the whole point.
OTOH, both are collectivist in thei attitudes towards the rights of the individual and one could argue that they have far more in common with one another than either has with nineteenth century liberalism; they're opposites, but on the same political scale, so to speak. I don't think I'm expressing this very well.
I don't believe that there is much of an ideological link between Fascism and Communism, Fascism is basically an intensified version of nineteenth century nationalism using totalitarian methods, though much of its success is owed to efforts by traditional conservatives to use it as a right-wing version of?antidote to communism.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that Fascism and Communism are fundamentally opposed ideologies, but both employ totalitarian methods when in power. The USSR had far more in common with Nazi Germany than with the Post-war Scandanavian states or the British welfare state.
OTOH, both are collectivist in thei attitudes towards the rights of the individual and one could argue that they have far more in common with one another than either has with nineteenth century liberalism; they're opposites, but on the same political scale, so to speak. I don't think I'm expressing this very well.
I don't believe that there is much of an ideological link between Fascism and Communism, Fascism is basically an intensified version of nineteenth century nationalism using totalitarian methods, though much of its success is owed to efforts by traditional conservatives to use it as a right-wing version of?antidote to communism.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that Fascism and Communism are fundamentally opposed ideologies, but both employ totalitarian methods when in power. The USSR had far more in common with Nazi Germany than with the Post-war Scandanavian states or the British welfare state.
I think the simplest way to describe fascism is a 'fake ideology' that was constructed for psychological rather than ideological reasons. It's existence would be impossible without Communism, because Fascism historically arose as a 'plan B' in capitalist countries where the capitalist system was failing and Communist mass movements looked to be able to take power. The whole point of it structurally (I think consciously on the part of those in charge as well) was to co-opt the middle class and elements of the working class into a mass movement that could sucessfully 'save' capitalism and stave off the threat of a workers' revolution. Nationalism was pushed so much because it was the only thing at that point in Germany and Italy that could sucessfully unite the classes.
Of course, I follow the Trotskyist analysis of the rise of fascism, which I know many of you don't. But I think, given fascist history, without the threat of a left-wing takeover, it's impossible to imagine capital abandoning (classical) liberalism and uniting behind the far-right.
Of course, I follow the Trotskyist analysis of the rise of fascism, which I know many of you don't. But I think, given fascist history, without the threat of a left-wing takeover, it's impossible to imagine capital abandoning (classical) liberalism and uniting behind the far-right.
Could someone list a couple of significant events that would have never occured or be significantly different in any way if communism and fascism had never existed? Not just Russia, but where communism has been attempted and practiced. Thanks.
I would take Fascism to be a "new" extreme Right, that borrowed tactics and techniques of the Left, e.g., mass agitation.
Back to the main point, taking a POD in the 19th century, even without Marx there will surely be some sort of radical Left. After all, peasants were revolting long before Mao, and the conditions of early industrialism produce concentrations of factory workers who are not happy campers.
However, without Marx - or more precisely, Lenin's interpretation of Marx - this may not produce a systematic militant Left ideology. Instead you might get a variety of rival militant movements, competing with each other and also with a social-democratic Left. Possibly the militants jell into one ideology. In that case the result may be broadly like OTL, even if it doesn't produce the intellectual wing of Marxism-Leninism, etc.
But suppose the militants don't jell together, but remain splintered. That strengthens the social-democratic Left, no longer seriously threatened on its left flank. A social-democratic ideology might take stronger roots in the US, when it can no longer be conflated with Bolshevism/Communism.
Probably the butterflies will make a quite unrecognizable 20th century. But supposing things go loosely in OTL, there's still a World War I and Russian Revolution. Perhaps Kerenskyite liberalism survives, or gives way to an authoritarian or semi-authoritarian system, more like Putin than Stalin. In Germany, if the Weimar Republic or its counterpart fails, you get an authoritarian rightist regime, but more like Franco than Hitler or even Mussolini.
Not exactly nice, but perhaps nowhere near as dreadful as in OTL, where both militant extremes were much more systematic and sophisticated.
-- Rick
Back to the main point, taking a POD in the 19th century, even without Marx there will surely be some sort of radical Left. After all, peasants were revolting long before Mao, and the conditions of early industrialism produce concentrations of factory workers who are not happy campers.
However, without Marx - or more precisely, Lenin's interpretation of Marx - this may not produce a systematic militant Left ideology. Instead you might get a variety of rival militant movements, competing with each other and also with a social-democratic Left. Possibly the militants jell into one ideology. In that case the result may be broadly like OTL, even if it doesn't produce the intellectual wing of Marxism-Leninism, etc.
But suppose the militants don't jell together, but remain splintered. That strengthens the social-democratic Left, no longer seriously threatened on its left flank. A social-democratic ideology might take stronger roots in the US, when it can no longer be conflated with Bolshevism/Communism.
Probably the butterflies will make a quite unrecognizable 20th century. But supposing things go loosely in OTL, there's still a World War I and Russian Revolution. Perhaps Kerenskyite liberalism survives, or gives way to an authoritarian or semi-authoritarian system, more like Putin than Stalin. In Germany, if the Weimar Republic or its counterpart fails, you get an authoritarian rightist regime, but more like Franco than Hitler or even Mussolini.
Not exactly nice, but perhaps nowhere near as dreadful as in OTL, where both militant extremes were much more systematic and sophisticated.
-- Rick
the4saken328 said:
Obviously, World War II and the Cold War are fundamentally altered. Without fascism as a point of dogma, it would likely mean that, while militaristic and expansionist governments arise in Germany and the other defeated Central Powers, they lack certain bits of ideology, like Nazism's racial policies. This has a variety of cascading effects: no Holocaust means a much larger Jewish population in Europe, no mass immigration into Palestine, and neither the population or the international support for the state of Israel. That alone changes the Middle East's course unrecognizably.
The lack of Communism as an ideology changes the Cold War. Assuming that, in the absence of Marxism/Leninism, there could still be a Russian Revolution, it will likely end up a nominally democratic, factually oligarchic state. A Cold War of sorts will still arise, but it will have much less ideological fervor, because both sides claim to practice democracy. This may decrease the amount of proxy conflict, as it will be harder to create revolts without the ideological polarization.
China, too, suffers a huge alteration; either Mao lacks a platform, and the Nationalists retain control, or Mao comes up with something non-Communist.
So, overall, what would be a proper introduction in paragraph form to introduce history as without communism or fascism whatsoever? I'm having trouble organizing an intro paragraph for an essay, since most of the speculations are scattered and I have next to no chronological or categorical ordering ability. Help would be appreciated ^^
Support of the peasent revolt is nothing new. I believe a Swiss Chruch reformer by the name of Zwilg (or whatever is name is... something similar) believed in it, Luther did not. The use of the peasents strength to support a rise to power is nothing new, and will not be. In fact you could probably say that fascism isn't even a poltical idealogy. Fascism is based upon ones ablitiy to inspire the people. Both communism and fascism used violent revolts to cease power. They both choose scapegoats, and they tend to reallign wealth to their favor. In that manor you could say that Andrew Jackson was a fascist or a communist in the way he redistrubuted power among his supporters. Hitler, Mussilini and Lenin all did the same things.
Empires are built on split blood and forced labour, as you can see that how most of them happend and will continue to happen. From Revolution to Sucession the victor (and supporters therefore) gain the spoils.
Empires are built on split blood and forced labour, as you can see that how most of them happend and will continue to happen. From Revolution to Sucession the victor (and supporters therefore) gain the spoils.
Please someone kindly offer advice on how to start an introduction paragraph that addresses the consequences of the hypothetical absense of all forms of communism. Urgent aid!!!
I think fascism is a certainty. Given the results of World War I, and the defeats suffered by Germany, and the virtual defeats of Italy and Russia, some kind of strong arm government is destined to take control. I have to say I really liked the idea put forth by some political scientist who's name escapes me at the moment. He posited that the rise of Communist totalitarianism and fascist totalitarianism was a result of economically crushed nation's desire to rebuild their militaries and economies as fast as possible so as to prepare for the next war.
Would it be true that without communism, there would be no fascism, and with no fascism, there would be no racism nor elitism, and without those, would the Jews in WWII have been spared due to the nonexistence of racism and elitism? Were the Nazis mainly motivated by racism and elitism, the idea of 'supermen' wiping out the inferiors? Would WWII ever have occurred at all? Also, without communism nor socialism, would there be no anarchism nor syndicalism?
Last edited:
the4saken328 said:
Stop trying to get people to do your homework for you. Good grief.
the4saken328 said:
Well, I hardly think the non-existance of Communism neccesarily means that fascism will not come into being, certainly the idea of militant nationalism wasn't that unique. If Communism does not exist then militant nationalists will just find some other looming threat to rally people against, so I'd say that fascism or something very much like it is pretty likely regardless of whether or not Communism exists, no Communism will just change the details and perhaps the name.
Racism and elitism were well established in Europe before Hitler and Mussolini were even born, and anti-semitism was hardly an uncommon thing throughout the Western world. Italian Fascism wasn't even particularly rascist for it's time, though Nazi Germany was certainly a different case. If Nazism never comes to be racism and anti-semitism might actually be much more common in modern times, since the linking of racism and anti-semitism to Nazism did a lot to depopularise those beliefs.
As for Anarchism, I don't recall it being particularly linked to Communism in origin, though I'm hardly an expert on the Anarchist movement. From what I recall Anarchists and Communists tended to make alliances of convenience against common enemies, but ultimately the Communist ideal of the state controlling everything was fundamentally opposed to the Anarchist ideal of no state at all. Anarchism might actually end up a lot better off if there is no Communism, since that would presumably make Anarchism the only revolutionary reformist group. Perhaps a fascist-like government system would arrise by working up fears of "Bomb-throwing Anarchists" instead of "Godless Commists" or something like that?
What you all seem to be forgetting who are arguing for 'fascism could still exist' is the economic superstructure. Fascism is a risky venture, and it only suceeded because large portions of the upper class saw it as a better option than the alternative (a socialist revolution). I see no reason they would simply abandon liberalism just for the hell of it. Some movements similar to fascism would exist, but I doubt severely they would be much different than, say, Pinochet's Chile. For the most part, I think they would be totally marginalized however.