@p @judgedread Philosophy eventually translates into reality. It’s just that a lot of it doesn’t have a good foundation and the only reason China avoided it is because they embraced national socialism (they don’t call it that but that’s what it is).

Philosophy tells you that ignoring human nature and the things that aren’t material is a surefire way to fail and to cause much harm to all elements of the body politic. The Church saw early on and condemned it for that reason.

Because they go against nature, totalitarian is the only way for a communist regime to go. In contrast, fascist regimes are immensely popular. One is not the same as the other. To reduce it to a mere changing of shirts because they may both be authoritarian is disingenuous at best.

All fascists had to be forcibly defeated by military force but communism has the distinction of historical, self-caused failure so yes, anybody can make the claim but you can’t just ignore this reality but communists do suck. What was the last commie regime that the UN said “OK, that’s enough buddy, you’re too oppressive so we will have to change your regime”?Yet they did this for South Africa, Rhodesia, Germany, Japan, etc. Spain had a fascist regime and only ended when their cuck king decided to end it. Only people bitching about it were the nun-raping communists but, like in most countries, they usually owned the media and so the idiot Spanish king pulled down his shorts and just let it happen.

Hitler’s policies were successful until he started running out of land. I don’t believe that micromanaging was a thing with that regime, judging by the many innovations that came about when they got ostracized by jeworld. Yes, Germans like order and authority but you can’t have a complete dictatorial regime and have innovations. This is also a bad argument.