The backgrounds were very different and of course there has never been a one size fits all communist regime. In fact there has been no communist regime at all! Marxist Leninism stated that communism was the ideal state for humanity to arrive at and that it was a truly advanced form of social order, where all things were owned by the people and no individual held sway over another. There would be no need for infrastructure and to a great extent the state would wither away. This was the 'destination'. The 'socialist' states were thought of by the theorists and ideologues to be a transition stage - and that capitalism was also a transition stage - one up from feudalism (there may have been another stage in there I have forgotten about!). I lived and breathed this stuff in my 20s, sad to say.Lozzer wrote: So what you're saying is that fascist states depend on the productions and fortunes from war? Much like pirates needing to pirate other ships! Awesome.
To sidetrack slightly, how come communist dictatorships seem to last longer than fascist ones?
Marxist Leninism, which was the basis of both China and Russia's sociality revolutions were based on ideology which was far more rational than fascism. In Russia and the early USSR there was a fantastic blooming of culture and creativity in the 1920s and early thirties as they threw off the old system (forgetting incidentally that they had not gone through the capitalist stage in Russia). What really changed then was Stalin's arrival. He murdered his way to the top. He was such a terrible manager and so totally ruthless that he created the perpetual crisis which Zilla refers to.
The longevity of the regime was to do with the stranglehold the communist party had on the country I think as well as the fact that (surprisingly perhaps) a lot of people liked the system well into the 60s. The ones generally who had not been arrested, banished to Siberia or whatever perhaps. But essentially it was much more deeply embedded ideology than that of the Fascists. It was more - 'serious' too(I think that is the right word) and actually rather more credible. To young idealistic student types like me back then it looked very attractive. It was only when the true nature of what Stalin had been up to came out that people who were naturally attracted to the ideology started to turn away from it, and even then many were apologists for his actions.
Hardly a comprehensive response - loads of books have been written on this.