Communism and Nazism essay

The history of the human kind is replete with the examples when the communist and Nazi leaders ruled the empires. Some of the most illustrative examples are the notorious Soviet Union and the Third Reich, which have both fallen into oblivion.  Both concepts were someday considered as the most predominant political ideologies.  Nowadays, a series of the conducted public quizzes clearly indicate that nowadays some people do not completely comprehend the difference between the two concepts.

Nazism first emerged in the German Empire under the auspices of the most accomplished and internationally renowned ideologist of Nazism, Adolf Hitler. The development of this ideology was highly influenced by the rising popularity and outward economic and social attainments of fascism, the political model which was installed in Italy under the rule of the notorious dictator Benito Mussolini.   Fascism and Nazism were the optimal models to attain quick economic enhancements and to increase the standards of living of the Italian and German citizens.  The ideologists of these political theories were highly favored by the political circles of the targeted countries and they deliberately suppressed any political or other critical opposition.

The backbone of global communism is considered to be the Soviet Union, the impact of which on the development of the international communism institutions was tremendous. The major impact on the development of the communism theory and the adjacent concepts can be attributed to the works of Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin and other outstanding theoreticians and practitioners.

Although the theoretical models of both political concepts integrally contain similar elements, the very nature of them is very different. For a layman, the systems may seem to be completely identical, especially with regard to the fact that communism, fascism and Nazism rely on the powerful law enforcement apparatus to execute their political will and both systems are based on the inhumane ideology and principles.

The main differences of the concepts are in the economic models utilized by the systems, the way the power circles are shaped and the way the material benefits are distributed among the citizens of the society.

The Concept of Communism

The very nature of the communist is the so-called common possession and ownership over the facilities and means utilized to produce goods (Mazower, 1999). The creators of communism believed it was an excellent political system due to the fact that it provides the community members with ample opportunities and give them the possibility to realize their personal and collective rights and freedoms fully and without any restrictions.  In this paper the theory of communism is studied through economic, social, power and racial paradigm. Economically, a communal system completely relies on the collective labor. In other words, the entire population of the territorial boundaries of the Soviet Union works jointly, sharing equally their labor rights and responsibilities.

Ultimately, the benefits of their labor are to be divided equally and justly among those who work, called “the proletariat” in communist parlance. The private ownership over any means of production and production itself was completely eradicated in order to socialize and equalize the community completely.  Customer needs were determined by the authorized government officials. This type of the market is defined as a planned economy.   Having conducted a detailed exploration of the targeted concept, it becomes evident that the aim of the total control over the economy is to annihilate the prospective political activity of those who may accumulate resources using the mechanisms related to the  market economy model.  Provided that the economy is fully subjugated to the state officials, the possibility of the business units and citizens to protest economically or to influence the state through financial mechanisms is completely eliminated. The social paradigm of communism is presented by the trend to equalize everyone and to eradicate the trends that may be somehow linked to the development of individuality and creativity.  However, at the same time the science development was highly favored and cultivated, although the trend was confined to the military needs.

With regard to formation of the state institutions, the model implicates that the state institutions are formulated by means of active participation of the entire population of the country. The people are encouraged to take part in the elections and to nominate themselves as candidates to occupy important political positions. Officially, the formation of the political positions is marked with the idea that only the members of the proletariat are eligible to occupy such positions (Mazower, 1999). The rights of the clergy, nobility and other marginal groups, including those with non-traditional political or social viewpoints were routinely discriminated and limited. In the light of the fact that this model of political evolution intended to build a system in which all citizens were completely equal in their rights and obligations, the nobility, clergy and independent and politically unbiased intellectual elite were subjected to the total eradication by the working class. The racial and national ethnicity-related policies of the Soviet Union were completely consistent with the existing standards of humanity. To be more exact, the rights of the national minorities and marginal ethnic groups are made equal with those granted to the predominant population of the country.

Fascism and Nazism

These political ideologies have been shaped in Germany and Italy at the dawn of the 20th century. At the initial stages of their development, both systems demonstrated relative success in their basic economic accomplishments. Contemporary historical scholars extensively discourse over the fact that if no war had been declared by the common decision of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, the systems promoted by these dictators could have been the most accomplished and successful social systems, fully consistent with the needs of the community. These types of political theories are examined through economic, social, power and racial paradigms thereof.

The economic model of fascism and Nazism are considerably more sophisticated than the one that can be attributed to the development of communism. In particular, it shall be accentuated that the theories do not abrogate from the use of money, as compared to the postulates of the communist theoretical and applicable government model.  Secondly, in contrast to the communist model of social development, the economic systems promoted by the fascism and Nazism leaders are severely subjected to the laws of the market economies (Mazower, 1999). To be more exact, the governments of those countries did not actively intervene in the processes of the development and evolution of the economies. The laws and the principles of the classic market economy are completely consistent with the postulates of the economic formation of Nazism and Fascism respectively.  The only difference with the existing models of market economy is that the activity of the state controlling agencies can be determined as excessive in this paradigm. Another significant distinguishable aspect of this model is the fact that the government economic authorities extensively utilize the available means of influence and pressure to defend the domestic producers.

The social structure of the fascist society is considerably more diversified than the communist one

The common feature of the two ideologies is the fact that the rights and privileges of the national marginal minorities are equally repressed and discriminated.  However, while in the communist model the criteria for classification is the monetary status of the targeted individuals, the Nazi model of, in its turn, purports the racial component as the most determinative one.

We want to make your life easier

Communism and Nazism essay

Related essays

  1. Ideology
  2. John Lock and Liberalism
  3. The Role of Politics in Archeology
  4. State Power