Articles From Mussolini And Krupskaya example essay topic

The definition of communism is " a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people". The definition of fascism is "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism". Communism and Fascism are both forms of Totalitarianism, which is when the ruler has complete power over everyone. There is a fine line between the differences of Communism and Fascism, however these next three articles prove that there is a line and there is no gray space.

People are either one side or the other, there is no in between, the goals and secular leading may be the same but the inner workings differ by a lot, Krupskaya, Mussolini, and Hitler explain the differences in their following articles. Krupskaya's was a communist and her article What a Communist Ought to be Like describes the standards, mind set, back ground, and just an overall idea of what communists are like. She sum's up her article at the end of the paper which gives the main idea of what the whole article is on " Thus, in order to be a communist: (1) it is necessary to know what is bad about the capitalist system, where social development is heading and how to promote the speediest coming of the communist system; (2) it is necessary to know how to apply one's knowledge to the cause; and (3) it is necessary to be spiritually and physically devoted to interests of the working masses and to communism... ". Krupskaya explains in detail that those are the personal requirements to really and truly consider yourself a communist. She also speaks a lot about how great the workingman's mind is, this is because they can alter and adapt to changes for easily than those of the "capitalistic" class.

She finds that it is almost completely necessary to be from the working class to understand and grasp the concepts of communism and then to focus on what really needs to be focused on which she mentions in (1). Mussolini was the starter of the Italian fascist movement. Mussolini writes a very romanticized version of what fascism really was like in his article The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism. From the definition of fascism I presented in the introduction Mussolini seems much more peaceful, he does mention violence but not to the extent it was used. Mussolini did talk a lot about how men should not indulge themselves "well-being = happiness, which would reduce men to the level of animals, caring for only one thing, to be fat and well-fed, and would thus humanity to purely physical existence".

That is the harshest part of this article I have found. Considering the way Fascism traveled and got twisted into the ruling from men like Stalin and Hitler. Both articles from Mussolini and Krupskaya seemed slightly sugarcoated. I only say this because I look at the world around us and previous history and see how destructive these forms of government can and have been. If I had to choose between supporting Fascism and Communism, I would choose communism. This is because if run properly communism could by successful, Fascism never will be, violence in any situation will not promise a long lasting positive result.

The selection for Hitler's Mein Kampf was about propaganda, what it was and whom it should appeal to. Hitler touches on the characteristics of the Germans and how racial segregation is nearly natural and just needs a push to really keep it true. He also of course touches that Germans are the superior race. But he mostly discusses how powerful propaganda is. It is art that appeals to the masses, lower and upper class.

He clearly says it is the "art of lies", not big untrue lies but little "white lies" scattered throughout the slogans which are so attractive. Also exclusion of negative points, if you include valid points that are positive to the general majority of the masses and they are true you have done nothing wrong nor lied, all that had been done is to include the good. Hitler thought that propaganda could alter everything, and I agree with this point. With enough propaganda appealing to the masses whatever it is advertising could very well happen, not matter what it is.

These three articles are all very different. In Krupskaya's article she talks about the good things of communism and in Mussolini's article he discusses the positive things of fascism. Hitler's article discusses mainly the power of propaganda and how it has the ability to persuade nearly all of the population to do one thing. Krupskaya's article and Mussolini's articles could both be considered propaganda being they basically fit in Hitler's guidelines, white lies here and there and no negative facts.