protestwarriors and fascism.

[Monty Cantsin]

I was reading in protestwarrior in knowing your enemy, and one topic was about fascism. They had a dictionary quote that stated that fascist were extreme right wing and anti-communist. Then they were going on about how the oxford dictionary was run by leftist. This just shows the kind of people that posts there, so feel they need a re-education not brainwashing but showing them the other side of the coin, so they know what socialist are on about.

Now Mussolini said “fascism is the combination between the state and the corporation” now corporatism is a result in free markets with is the main aim of capitalist. So it is right wing.

What people hate most about fascism is the totalitarianism which as been seen in both right and left governments. Hitler has like that but so was Mao.

This is a good site to find out more on fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism its were I looked it up firstly so have a read.

[hazard]

for a bunch of nazis these clowns have no problem calling everybody else nazis

they're, uh, dumb

NO
they're FUCKING DUMB

[paralox]

I can't speak for Hitler being a leftist, but why do you think we are fascist?
Do you just assume anything right-leaning must be fascist?

Can you provide any examples of protestwarrior being fascist? anything at all?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:04 PM
I can't speak for Hitler being a leftist, but why do you think we are fascist?
Do you just assume anything right-leaning must be fascist?

Can you provide any examples of protestwarrior being fascist? anything at all?
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.

Many members of protestwarrior fill those criteria nicely.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator

I have seen some of them declare that the democratic party should be abolished, most certainly the first step to fascism, the elimination of opposition parties.

stringent socioeconomic controls

Do I even need to make mention on that?

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,

Many support the crushing of organised opposition on marches etc, they also belive that the "liberal press" should be abolished...

and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Talk to a protest warrior about the french or Arabs ands you will see what I mean when I call them racist wankers.




Your a bunch of fascists.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:04 PM
I can't speak for Hitler being a leftist, but why do you think we are fascist?
Do you just assume anything right-leaning must be fascist?

Can you provide any examples of protestwarrior being fascist? anything at all?
I didn’t say Hitler was a leftist I used him us an example of a right wing using totalitarianism and Mao being a lefty using totalitarianism.

now I didn’t say you were fascist it was the other guy but I have to say. Some of you on that site seem like social Darwinist, some one was saying that blacks should be kept in there ghettos and all this racist stuff.

[Blue_Max]

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.

Many members of protestwarrior fill those criteria nicely.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator

I have seen some of them declare that the democratic party should be abolished, most certainly the first step to fascism, the elimination of opposition parties.


False. Most PWers would like to see the Libertarian and Constitutionalist parties become a strong force to break away from the current 2 party system. PW'ers strongly disagree with most of the Democratic extreme left politics, but never said the party should be abolished.


stringent socioeconomic controls

Do I even need to make mention on that?

Please mention and give examples. How are PW'ers socio-economic opinions parallel Fascism? I'm sure the same parallels can be drawn to any Communist government.


suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,

Many support the crushing of organised opposition on marches etc, they also belive that the "liberal press" should be abolished...
False. PW'ers don't ban people on a whim. Despite Hazard's spamming and insults, he has not been banned yet, but PW'ers have been banned from Che-Lives.
No one has suggested that the liberal press should be broken up, unlike Dean and Fox news.


and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Talk to a protest warrior about the french or Arabs ands you will see what I mean when I call them racist wankers.

False. The french are not a race and PWers are opposed to any radical muslims, not Arabs. Besides, we have several Africian-Americans(got to be PC now), Latinos, Jews, and Native-Americans that are great contributors to PW.


Your a bunch of fascists.
Perhaps if you would engage in civil debate instead of conducting forum raids, you'll see we have all kinds of ideologies. Our resident leftists can see we are far from Fascists.....but if tossing silly little labels makes you sleep better at night, well then, cheers!

[Romulus]

Actualy Fascism fits into the definition of a type of Socialism, since requirement of Socialism is central controlof the economy not necessarily ownership which would be Marxism or Communism. See watch...

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator

Stalin or Mao? Would they not fit into this catagory?

stringent socioeconomic controls

Again?

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,

I think the hundreds of millions murdered by Stalin, Mao, papa and baby Kim, Pol Pot fit into this catagory. As well as other brutal Socialist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.

and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

This would be a defining charachteristic if wernt for the well known historical fact that Stalin became very nationalistic during WW2, and his paranoid purge of Jewish doctors would place him the catagory of racist. Castro himself opresses black Cubans, I know this for a fact. Ho Chi Manh and other communists are also well known nationalists.

So ya, the Protest Warriors were right, Fascism, from Mussolini's fascisti party is indeed a form of Socialism. Mussulini himself was a well known Socialist and confidant of Lenin. :D

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 08:13 PM
Actualy Fascism fits into the definition of a type of Socialism, since requirement of Socialism is central controlof the economy not necessarily ownership which would be Marxism or Communism. See watch...

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator

Stalin or Mao? Would they not fit into this catagory?

stringent socioeconomic controls

Again?

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,

I think the hundreds of millions murdered by Stalin, Mao, papa and baby Kim, Pol Pot fit into this catagory. As well as other brutal Socialist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.

and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

This would be a defining charachteristic if wernt for the well known historical fact that Stalin became very nationalistic during WW2, and his paranoid purge of Jewish doctors would place him the catagory of racist. Castro himself opresses black Cubans, I know this for a fact. Ho Chi Manh and other communists are also well known nationalists.

So ya, the Protest Warriors were right, Fascism, from Mussolini's fascisti party is indeed a form of Socialism. Mussulini himself was a well known Socialist and confidant of Lenin. :D
Stalin or Mao? Would they not fit into this catagory?

Little problem... they weren't socialist, try reading about socialist policies, and then look at Mao and Stalin’s.

Again?

In a perfect socialist state, money would be abolished, cant control the prices of goods if there's no such thing as price.

I think the hundreds of millions murdered by Stalin, Mao, papa and baby Kim, Pol Pot fit into this catagory.

Dude, they were capitalist as they come.

As well as other brutal Socialist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.

LOL this guys an idiot, listen son, i'm gonna explain basic politics to you. On the left we have pro worker people and libertarians, on the right we have pro capitalist people and fascists, hitler and Mussolini were fascist.

This would be a defining charachteristic if wernt for the well known historical fact that Stalin became very nationalistic during WW2, and his paranoid purge of Jewish doctors would place him the catagory of racist.

again stalin wasn't a socialist, he, like you, was a capitalist.

So ya, the Protest Warriors were right, Fascism, from Mussolini's fascist party is indeed a form of Socialism. Mussulini himself was a well known Socialist and confidant of Lenin. :D

yeah I suggest you hit the history books, or maybe you should just read postman pat and playdays, because you obviously are very behind in your education.

[paralox]

I am a libertarian, and how dare you lump me in with authoritarians!
Most socialists are more authoritarian then us.

I am opposed to the state being to big, but I am also opposed to monopolies, and un-regulated capitolism, which can be one of the harshed types of tyrinies.

oh, and for the record:

http://bureaucrash.com/images/postcards/che.gif

[Ortega]

Oh, so I see you're the expert on real rebels around here now...

[PolarisUSMC]

Fascism is something that is neither left wing, nor right wing. It's easy to call anything fascist, but you need more bearing before you do. PW allows anyone from any side of the spectrum to come and post their views (So long as you don't just go in there claiming everyone's fascist, you create little credibility for yourself by doing that). Last time I checked, fascism does not allow people to speak their minds.

For those who really kow how fascism works, you probably know it's not that hard to spot. What most people don't know is how easy it is to get caught up in it. I've been studying it for afew years now and from what I've found, most people have no clue where to spot it, or when they're caught up in it themselves. A good short movie on the topic to see is called "The Wave." It shows how easily people can get caught up into it.

Fascism requires a leader, who understands how this system works. Then you need to find a cause that people can agree with, and eventually, people who will agree with blindly. The easiest target for these people are college freshmen and sophomores, along with upper classmen in highschool. Usually because they're experiencing a new found freedom and are more vulnerable to ideas that seem good on the outside, and sometimes they looking for acceptance into a group of people. So long as the cause look ok, people will keep coming. If you look at Charles Manson, he was exceptionally good at this (to the point where people would murder for him). The biggest users of the system though are religious cults. If you've ever studied or know anything about cults, you know how terrible they can really be.

There are fascists on both sides. I has seen it on both the left and the right (Although living in Boston, I've seen it more on the left than the right. Mostly from people who protest what's going on in the war and following it so blindly that any opposition to their opinions is considered ultimately wrong). To label it to one side is purely incorrect. So long as you appear a good leader with a good cause, people will follow. You cannot however, look at every following and claim it to be fascist. NAZI Germany is the ultimate example of how far Fascism can go, and under it, the world saw many awful and some bizzare things. Once you see people acting crazy/bizzare, and odd orginizations that are government supported, consider yourself in a fascist regime. (Please not that if you country hold free elections, you are not under an oppressive regime. Protesting under an actual Fascist ruler usually results in dead. Both to you nd your family. History can back me up on this one.)

[Xvall]

Besides, we have several Africian-Americans(got to be PC now), Latinos, Jews, and Native-Americans that are great contributors to PW.

Likely because they're helping wreak havoc on the site.

..Just a little bit of humor.. I'm sure you don't appreciate it..

[PolarisUSMC]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 11 2003, 10:12 PM

Besides, we have several Africian-Americans(got to be PC now), Latinos, Jews, and Native-Americans that are great contributors to PW.

Likely because they're helping wreak havoc on the site.
Umm....no.

[Romulus]

again stalin wasn't a socialist, he, like you, was a capitalist.


Can you provide me wih a link to a credible historian who claims Stalin was a capitalist and not a Communist?


So ya, the Protest Warriors were right, Fascism, from Mussolini's fascist party is indeed a form of Socialism. Mussulini himself was a well known Socialist and confidant of Lenin.


yeah I suggest you hit the history books, or maybe you should just read postman pat and playdays, because you obviously are very behind in your education.

Actualy, I have very extensive knowledge on this topic. Would you like me to provide you links to my sources.

[Blue_Max]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 11 2003, 10:12 PM

Besides, we have several Africian-Americans(got to be PC now), Latinos, Jews, and Native-Americans that are great contributors to PW.

Likely because they're helping wreak havoc on the site.

..Just a little bit of humor.. I'm sure you don't appreciate it..
Yep, they help send the lefties home with tails between their legs. ;)

[Xvall]

I wasn't referring to people assaulting our board.. I was referring to them assaulting yours.. But whatever.

[Hoppe]

As well as other brutal Socialist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.

LOL this guys an idiot, listen son, i'm gonna explain basic politics to you. On the left we have pro worker people and libertarians, on the right we have pro capitalist people and fascists, hitler and Mussolini were fascist.

You seem to have made a huge error here enigma, libertarians are capitalists and generally not very interested in theories on exploitation of workers.

And the simple fact that Hitler and Mussolini weren't close to your ideal situation is because it is impossible to reach your socialist goals and not end up in a authoritarian state with an oppressive dictator.

[Blue_Max]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 11 2003, 10:25 PM
I wasn't referring to people assaulting our board.. I was referring to them assaulting yours.. But whatever.
lol..I know, just shooting back at ya ;)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 10:16 PM
Actualy, I have very extensive knowledge on this topic. Would you like me to provide you links to my sources.
No you dont, you, your source's and your ideology is shit. Hitler had many pro-capitalists policies, he had very a bitter hatred of socialists and if you bother doing research from any recognised historian they will tell you all of this.

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity." A Hitler

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." A Hitler

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." A Hitler

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." A Hitler

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." A Hitler

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." A Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." A Hitler

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" A Hitler

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." A Hitler





Your an idiot, and so's the auther of any source which states that hitler was a socialist, when he clearly wasn't.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 10:26 PM

As well as other brutal Socialist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini.

LOL this guys an idiot, listen son, i'm gonna explain basic politics to you. On the left we have pro worker people and libertarians, on the right we have pro capitalist people and fascists, hitler and Mussolini were fascist.

You seem to have made a huge error here enigma, libertarians are capitalists and generally not very interested in theories on exploitation of workers.

And the simple fact that Hitler and Mussolini weren't close to your ideal situation is because it is impossible to reach your socialist goals and not end up in a authoritarian state with an oppressive dictator.
libertarians are capitalists and generally not very interested in theories on exploitation of workers.

Actually, no you will find that anarchists are extream libertarians, would you call them capitalists?

[Blue_Max]

Originally posted by Enigma+Dec 11 2003, 10:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Dec 11 2003, 10:41 PM)
[email protected] 11 2003, 10:16 PM
Actualy, I have very extensive knowledge on this topic. Would you like me to provide you links to my sources.
No you dont, you, your source&#39;s and your ideology is shit. Hitler had many pro-capitalists policies, he had very a bitter hatred of socialists and if you bother doing research from any recognised historian they will tell you all of this.

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity." A Hitler

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." A Hitler

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." A Hitler

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." A Hitler

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." A Hitler

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." A Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." A Hitler

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master&#33;" A Hitler

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people&#39;s wills and opinion." A Hitler





Your an idiot, and so&#39;s the auther of any source which states that hitler was a socialist, when he clearly wasn&#39;t.[/b]
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today&#39;s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" - Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927


Blah, blah, blah....we can throw quotes back and forth all day, so what. Its a fact that Hitler appealed to the masses with Socialistic ideals and once he gained power, became extreme authoritarian. He eliminated elections and turned Germany&#39;s economy into a war machine. Both sides wish to push Hitler onto the other.

But back to the topic at hand, since you&#39;ve been to PW so much and seen how Fascist we are, please give some examples...

[Bolshevika]

Hitler believed in extremely regulated capitalism, not really Marxian socialism (this is pretty obvious). He believed in a mixed economy, similar to what the U.S. and China have . Hitler wasn&#39;t really as much of a corporatist as Mussolini, Hitler was more towards the middle economically, but socially he was way out there to the right.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Blue_Max+Dec 11 2003, 11:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Blue_Max @ Dec 11 2003, 11:04 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 10:41 PM

[email protected] 11 2003, 10:16 PM
Actualy, I have very extensive knowledge on this topic. Would you like me to provide you links to my sources.
No you dont, you, your source&#39;s and your ideology is shit. Hitler had many pro-capitalists policies, he had very a bitter hatred of socialists and if you bother doing research from any recognised historian they will tell you all of this.

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity." A Hitler

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." A Hitler

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." A Hitler

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." A Hitler

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." A Hitler

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." A Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." A Hitler

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master&#33;" A Hitler

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people&#39;s wills and opinion." A Hitler





Your an idiot, and so&#39;s the auther of any source which states that hitler was a socialist, when he clearly wasn&#39;t.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today&#39;s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" - Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927


Blah, blah, blah....we can throw quotes back and forth all day, so what. Its a fact that Hitler appealed to the masses with Socialistic ideals and once he gained power, became extreme authoritarian. He eliminated elections and turned Germany&#39;s economy into a war machine. Both sides wish to push Hitler onto the other.

But back to the topic at hand, since you&#39;ve been to PW so much and seen how Fascist we are, please give some examples... [/b]
Ok if you want to play the fool,

Hitler placed: -

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.

Clearly not a socialist.

The end.

PS you also say he "appealed to the masses with Socialistic ideals" perhaps, but what you promise to do and what you actually do are completly different. For example just look at Tony Blair&#39;s government.

[Exploited Class]

For the better part of this reply, I am going to refer to the type of fascism you described as scratching the surface of fascism.

Fascism is something that is neither left wing, nor right wing.
That is true.

Last time I checked, fascism does not allow people to speak their minds.
Sloppy fascism would not allow people to speak their minds in a public type forum. Properly performed fascism or a majority group that is no threat or danger to being ousted however would allow people to speak their minds so as to not get labeled by the scratching the surface definition of fascism.

For those who really know how fascism works, you probably know it&#39;s not that hard to spot.
Well it isn&#39;t really that hard to spot the type you are describing, you for the better part of this post refer to Nazis, who are relatively easy to spot because they enacted a very poor form of fascism.

I&#39;ve been studying it for a few years now and from what I&#39;ve found, most people have no clue where to spot it, or when they&#39;re caught up in it themselves.
Well it is pretty hard to be a fascist unless you actually are enacting it in some ways, like you can post fascist views and such but wouldn&#39;t really be one until you actually have power. Since very few people call themselves fascists or belong to a the people&#39;s republic of fascism. You would have to hold other ideals, then how you actually carry out your views would make you a fascist. It isn&#39;t so much that it is hard to find that you yourself is caught up in them as it is that your country is being lead by those types of policies or structure.

Fascism requires a leader, who understands how this system works.
No, it really doesn&#39;t require a leader, per say, it requires an agreement to a policy by many. That can be conscious or unconscious agreement by a group.

Then you need to find a cause that people can agree with, and eventually, people who will agree with blindly.
That would be more of a patriotism or nationalism as a cause that people can agree with blindly, or racism.

The easiest targets for these people are college freshmen and sophomores, along with upper classmen in high school.
Actually recruitment is much younger than that, like say.. saying the pledge of allegiance or boy scouts. Reading the bible in a public school.

Usually because they&#39;re experiencing a new found freedom and are more vulnerable to ideas that seem good on the outside, and sometimes they looking for acceptance into a group of people.
It isn&#39;t that they are vulnerable to ideas that seem good on the outside, they are vulnerable to outside ideas because they are thinking on their own, that is the freedom that, that age group is experiencing. They are willing to throw away past knowledge and indoctrination, by the parents or society, because they discover flaws that make little if no sense.

So long as the cause look ok, people will keep coming.
That would describe why anybody joins any cause.

If you look at Charles Manson, he was exceptionally good at this (to the point where people would murder for him).
No, he was exceptionally talented at speaking and he wasn&#39;t targeting "freshmen and high schoolers" he was targeting people with low self esteem.

The biggest users of the system though are religious cults. If you&#39;ve ever studied or know anything about cults, you know how terrible they can really be.
You are mixing the two very candidly. Which in fact fascism and cultism is not the same thing. You are not fixing qualities of one to the other because you see similarities in the two. Cults start on memes and die on memes; fascism is through state enforced practices. Although the mindset or goal might be the same on a smaller scale the two are not interchangeable. Cults are very specific on who they target, fascism isn&#39;t. I think you are getting the cult personality mixed in with cult. It is true that when their is a prominent leader of a fascist group they have qualities of a cult personality but the followers are not like cult members at all.

I has seen it on both the left and the right (Although living in Boston, I&#39;ve seen it more on the left than the right. Mostly from people who protest what&#39;s going on in the war and following it so blindly that any opposition to their opinions is considered ultimately wrong).
See you are knocking down or dragging down an ideology you disagree with by use of bashing techniques. They are the most vocal or most seen people publicly for to attack. When in honesty there isn&#39;t more or less left people there, it is that people that agree with the war don&#39;t need to protest for it when it is going to happen. Why go out and protest against the protestors when what you want is going to happen? The majority don&#39;t require parades or a public show of force for something that is going to happen.

You then try to knock your opponent with a stigma that doesn&#39;t matter. who protest what&#39;s going on in the war and following it so blindly that any opposition to their opinions is considered ultimately wrong
If they don&#39;t believe in wars at all, don&#39;t believe in killing at all, or harming another human being even at the expensive of their own health, how can you convince them otherwise? You are trying to make them sound irrational when in fact they are being very rational to their passions.

To label it to one side is purely incorrect.
No, you can easily label one side purely incorrect and not be a fascist. If you strongly believe that killings no matter what the reasons are for is wrong and that the people that do it is wrong, is not at all fascism.

So long as you appear a good leader with a good cause, people will follow.
Those people that were protesting the war, they had no clear leader, in fact it was made up of a lot of different groups. None of which were leading it, there might be coordination between them to all go and protest on the same day, but nobody was leading it.

Again it doesn&#39;t have to be a &#39;good cause&#39;, you are putting quality to something that has no quality. A good cause could be anything, and no there doesn&#39;t have to be a direct leader for fascism, if that was true, every 4 years this country goes through a fascist change, the Catholic Church is fascist because it has a leader and a good cause...

You cannot however, look at every following and claim it to be fascist.
If we were to use your descriptions we could.

NAZI Germany is the ultimate example of how far Fascism can go, and under it, the world saw many awful and some bizarre things.
It is not the ultimate example; it is a good example of sloppy or pushy fascism.

Once you see people acting crazy/bizarre, and odd organizations that are government supported, consider yourself in a fascist regime.
Again you are using really vague terms to describe something that only fit your mindset. Odd can mean anything to anybody. I think it odd to have the CIA or odd to sponsor certain factions in S. America, odd to give tax money to churches, where as many people might not think it odd.

Please not that if you country hold free elections, you are not under an oppressive regime. Protesting under an actual Fascist ruler usually results in dead. Both to you nd your family. History can back me up on this one.)
Well if they only present two ideals to you and that is all you have as a choice and the two ideals are so closely related, why not?

Okay to break this down for you on Fascism. There are many types of fascism, there is arrogant, flashy, pushy and sloppy types and then there are really successful types.

Nazi Germany is a great example of sloppy/arrogant/flashy/sloppy fascism. When you have an ideal that is obviously going to be held and regarded as an abomination by the general populace and going to go so extreme against the grain of current thought, the goal has no other way to survive but through that style of fascism. There is in fact a lot of reasons for that type of fascism but that is very large one.

A good example of successful fascism would be the United States, although it has it times of being sloppy, McCarthy, Creel Creek, breaking of unions with state support, cointelpro...

Those are all methods of removing opposing views or voices. And I will use one of your above examples,
Then you need to find a cause that people can agree with, and eventually, people who will agree with blindly.
They said that the nation was at risk by these groups and people followed that blindly. McCarthy is an example of sloppy fascism.

You might say that the stopping of communism within the United States is a &#39;good&#39; thing, a quality you seem to like to post. Good viewed by you, not good by people who are communists. If you actually lived in a free society, then the state wouldn&#39;t have gotten involved and stopped these people. Freedom is the choice to move in any direction, not if it is viewed as good or bad.

Just because you have free elections doesn&#39;t save you from fascism. If you have no fear of losing a power grip, why do sloppy and arrogant fascism and stop people from voting? If you have only two viable parties and both parties are no threat to your power, why risk your quiet fascism and remove voting and become an obvious fascist? Remember from my point of view, the richest 3 to 5% control production and have the muscle to back political people. They own the media and are the ones that get government contracts..ect..ect so a two party system that still allows them to retain power, is not a threat. When one is a threat they remove them through media means that they control and government force, cointelpro, McCarthy..ect.

Kings and queens would have votes if both parties always ran on keeping them in power. That isn&#39;t historic evidence but look at England.

[peaccenicked]

Fascism has been to its heights. It still lingers and is still dangerous. The core fascist threat is now buried in imperialism, the cleverest fascist will attach themselves to pro-imperialist elements within the labour movement.
Trotsky&#39;s pamphlet represents a very good take for the time he lives in.
http://eserver.org/history/fighting-fascism/

[Exploited Class]

But back to the topic at hand, since you&#39;ve been to PW so much and seen how Fascist we are, please give some examples...

Fascism of course isn&#39;t really an ism, but a practice or method of keeping one&#39;s ism in place.
Capitalism is the ism at hand at the people that want it the most are those that benefit from it. Capitalism is an auto-meme, meaning that it propagates itself through its own actions, and has defenses and offenses to other ideals without even trying. It basically shuts down its competition through its method of operation.

Some of these aren&#39;t so much obvious fascism.
When people advertise their product they are advertising for a consumer capitalism.

Media sales time to small portion of people with an escalating price range for time periods that reach the most audience. The only things that can afford that are in fact other capitalist companies. Closing the media to everyone but the few. In effect silencing the opposition through its own methods.

Also since companies (profit generating corporations) are in control of the 5% it wouldn&#39;t benefit them to put something counter to their idealogical greed, they can refuse competition through practical methods of selection. Capitalism silences opposition counter to itself, a fascist model.

Political parties that want to advertise require money. Only Political parties that are going to protect capitalism are going to recieve the neccessary funds from the 5%. Therefor it silences opposition, fascism. You don&#39;t have to physically stop somebody from speaking just make it impossible for them to find a way to speak.

Libers, even want to silence that voice more. They believe in smaller government, no funding from the government to outside influences. That the free market is the only way, if it is need then the market will dicated it and fill it.
That really silences oppositions because at that point it removed PBS, Public Access Channels, free internet access arenas.

If there is no profit motive in it, then it will not be done, and since capitalism creates poverty and depends on it, doing social services for the poor has no profit unless paid for by the government. If the poor are not allowed a voice they are silenced, creating a fascist state against the poor.

You say that this choice is freedom to do or not do, but really using profit as the reason to carry out fascism.

[paralox]

Individualism over collectivism.

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.


^ Wont disagree about those facts

Merit over equality.
So? People should be rewarded for what they acomplish.

Competition over cooperation.
Competition breeds innovation and efficiency.
Some good examples:
- The space program; if we were not competing with the soviet union, we probably never would have bothered with space.
- Most modern technology was invented in capitalist nations, infact, people would flee unfree nations to come to capitalist to bring their ideas to fruition (Tesla, Eienstien, etc.)

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
Screw pacisfism.
I am no fan of militarism, but pacifism will only get you killed when dealing with Stalinist scum like you :P
Pacifism worked for the Indians against the British because they were compasionate capitalists.
Pacifism failed miserably for the poor students in Tienemen square.
Of course, I know pinkos like you supported what the oppresive chinese government did to the students:
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

Capitalism over Marxism.
well duh&#33;

Realism over idealism.
More leftist buzzwords. How "unprogressive".

Nationalism over internationalism.
Nothing wrong with a little nationalism, but thats just my opinion

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Shut the hell up with your stupid buzzwords&#33;

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
I have nothing agaist vegetarianism, but cmon&#33;
because hitler didn&#39;t outlaw meat, thats one of the top reasons he was evil?

Gun ownership over gun control
Utter poppycock.
Hitler was a very strong advocate of gun control.
Many gun control laws on the books today are modeled after hitler&#39;s gun control laws.
That is such a stupid statement, I challenge you to provide some evidence that hitler wanted his people to be armed&#33;&#33;
Fact is, he made sure to disarm his people as soon as possible.

Common sense over theory or science.
Hitler was decades ahead of the allies, employing jet engines, rockets, and new weapons technology early in the war.
Hitler&#39;s regime was able to make so many advancments because it was science unhindered by ethics.
We liked it so much, that after the war, we pardoned most of the nazi scientists, and used them in our space program and in our weapons programs.

Religion over secularism.
Whilte hitler did support his perverted version of christianity, he was still pretty secular.

[peaccenicked]

Was Hitler a vegetarian? (http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/mayjun96/hitler.html)

A point maybe to clear up

[Blue_Max]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 11:30 PM
Ok if you want to play the fool,

Hitler placed: -

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.

Clearly not a socialist.

The end.

PS you also say he "appealed to the masses with Socialistic ideals" perhaps, but what you promise to do and what you actually do are completly different. For example just look at Tony Blair&#39;s government.
LOL....I&#39;ve read that page too http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
I can find plenty of essays and opinions that argue the opposite, for instance, since you like quotes:

Gun control:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let&#39;s not have any native militia or police." -- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

Couple of sites:
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm
http://www.vikingphoenix.com/politics/nwl_...l_1573_1938.htm (http://www.vikingphoenix.com/politics/nwl_1573_1938.htm)

Yes, he did "appeal to the masses" like any politician. Take Dean(and most Democrats) for instance, he was with Bush for going to war with Iraq and now he&#39;s against.....politicians want votes. Both Clinton and Bush broke promises to appeal to either the left or right.

But, fine, Hitler wasn&#39;t a Socialist. You win, feel better now?

Back to the original topic:

I&#39;m from PW, therefore you say I&#39;m a Fascist :blink: .....prove it.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:13 AM


Back to the original topic:

I&#39;m from PW, therefore you say I&#39;m a Fascist :blink: .....prove it.
That’s not what I was saying I was talking about misconceptions about fascism on pw that I read.

Now people miss the point when it comes to centralization, its not political centralization that make you’re a left winger its economic centralization. So as I said before there is totalitarianism in right wing and left wing. But totalitarianism is not desired in socialism.

And as for fascist being right wing what went on in Italy and Germany, was right wing people still owned there own business it was a free market(capitalist-right wing).

[Blue_Max]

Euripidies, my post was directed towards Enigma
Your a bunch of fascists.

But, I agree with you and there are misconceptions on both sides. When the Left slanders the Right as fiscist, its in the authorian sense, which can be applied to the extreme left also. The fact that European Fascism used capitalism as the incubator further thickens the mud thrown to the Right.

Now Exploited Class brought up Economic Fascism and thats a new debate in itself. Just like there are various incarnations of Marxism, there are also different flavors of Capitalism. The economic fascism that EC is describing is more inline with Corporatism, which I&#39;m am against. Corporatism also opens a new can of worms because one can argue that it is collectivism since a corporation is "Any group of people combined into or acting as one body." Riddle me this, even though a corporation is not government, it is controlled by or has an agreement with the government.....so possibly the government could control the means of production :huh:
This should be a new thread, away from the spamming.....good stuff.

I&#39;m off to the mountains tomorrow, I&#39;ll try to catch up Sunday :(

[praxis1966]

Max: The problem with a lot of what you and Paralox are arguing stems from an ignorance of socialist and syndicalist theory. Maybe you two have spent a whole mess of time studying fascism, but this has only led you to innaccurate conclusions as they pertain to the ideology of the left.

Do me a favor, go and actually read Hegemony and Revolution along with Pedagogy of the Oppressed and get back to us. As soon as you do, you&#39;ll see that what Stalin and Mao did after taking power had little, if anything, to do with actual socialist ideology. True socialism, and more specifically syndicalism, is by its very nature democratic. In fact, they are much more so since they remove "dollar voting" from political campaigns.

By the way, Pol Pot was the Cambodian version of a redneck that happened to be good at using Marxist overtones in his rhetoric to win over converts among the proletariat. This doesn&#39;t necessarily mean he was actually a socialist.

[The Feral Underclass]

you dirty fascists...i spit on you and fart in our general direction &#33;&#33;&#33;

[Hoppe]

Enigma or Paralox,

Can you provide me with a source which proves that Hitler chose individualism over collectivism? I find it extremely hard to believe that you can say without blinking your eyes that an autoritarian leader would do this.

[Monty Cantsin]

Webster&#39;s New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government."

Mussolini said "If classical liberalism spells individualism,Fascism spells government."

mussolini wrote "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production...."

just a few quotes so people dont think facism is a form of socialism.

[Romulus]

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
http://jonjayray.batcave.net/hitler.html

MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM
http://jonjayray.batcave.net/musso.html

lets contrast Hitler&#39;s Programme of the National Socialist German Workers Party Platform(NSDAP), to Marx&#39;s Manifesto of the Communist Party(MCP).

Comparison #1 RIGHT TO WORK(*or slavery to the state)

(NSDAP)10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

(MCP)8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Comparison #2 IMMIGRATION

(NSDAP)7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

(NSDAP)8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

(MCP)4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.


Comparison #3 INHERITANCE TAX(or confiscation of all inheritance)

(NSDAP)11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

(MCP)3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Comparison #4 FREEDOM OF THE PRESS(or lack there of)

(NSDAP)23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:.... (* Then they go on laying out the points of how to Nationalise the press)

(MCP)6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.


Comparison #5 EDUCATION

(NSDAP)20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

(MCP)10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children&#39;s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


Comparison #6 LAND REFORM(*confiscation)

(NSDAP)17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

(MCP)1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Comparison#7 CORPORATE REFORM(destruction)

(NSDAP)13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

(MCP)7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; ...

Comparison #8 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION(forced migration)

(NSDAP)3. We demand land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

(MCP)9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

A copy of Hitler&#39;s NSDAP here...

http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

A copy of Marx&#39;s MCP here...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch02.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

Have a nice day&#33;

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2003, 10:15 AM
you dirty fascists...i spit on you and fart in our general direction &#33;&#33;&#33;
Please&#33; Redirect that spit and fart to the enemies direction&#33;

Thank you.

[PolarisUSMC]

I don&#39;t see how either side can compare the other to Hitler. Last I checked, neither was trying to create a master race or start a genocide. I hope both side can agree that man was a fucktard.

[praxis1966]

Well, not yet. Give Amerikkan "conservatives" their way for a few years and I wouldn&#39;t put it past them.

[Romulus]

"Fascism" was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini&#39;s Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler&#39;s Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism&#39;s standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers&#39; Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of "capitalism." -Tom Wolfe

http://159.191.39.100/curry/wolfrococo.html

You have to spoon feed the brainwashed, if you dont it causes convulsive lip twiddeling and bedwetting.

Have a nice day. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

What Lenin said was that "fascism was the capitalism in decay." I think what he meant was that capitalism reaches a point in its existance where it can not function any properly anymore and begins to die and therefore needs to impose itself in such an authotarian way.

Nazism is fascism, albeit a different form.

[Romulus]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2003, 09:32 AM
What Lenin said was that "fascism was the capitalism in decay." I think what he meant was that capitalism reaches a point in its existance where it can not function any properly anymore and begins to die and therefore needs to impose itself in such an authotarian way.

Nazism is fascism, albeit a different form.
Nazism is similar to fascism because they are both forms of Socialism just lke Communism is a form of Socialism.

Turns out Lenin was wrong didnt it? :D

Communism and most other forms of Socialism have failed and Capitalism keeps rockin on. :P

However I digress.. It is extraneous to the topic which form is superior. It is enough to realize all are forms of Socialism.

Have a nice day. :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Lenin got many things wrong...

Communism is not a form of socialism. Communism is a completely different social philosophy. Communism a society without a state a government or hierarchy. Society would be structured into collectives, with people working according to their ability and recieving what was necessary and doing this co-operativly with each other.

[Romulus]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2003, 10:24 AM
Lenin got many things wrong...

Communism is not a form of socialism. Communism is a completely different social philosophy. Communism a society without a state a government or hierarchy. Society would be structured into collectives, with people working according to their ability and recieving what was necessary and doing this co-operativly with each other.
so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


Just so we are all clear on this issue. Communism is a form of Socialism See watch.

Communism- [N] A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/communism

In the same way that Nazism is a form of socialism. Again watch.

Nazism-[N] a form of socialism featuring racism and expansion.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx...=&define=Nazism (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?Dict=&define=Nazism)

See how that works? They are both collectivist ideologies like socialism. Different, but similar in kind. So by definition Hitler was a Socialist, Socialists are Collectivists and Collectivists are....

Collectivist- [N] A person who belongs to the political left.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/collectivist

So, by the meaning we give our words Nazism and Hitler are by definition, Leftist and Socialist.


Have a realy Greaaaat Day&#33;&#33;&#33; :D

PS. Remember the defining aspect of Socialism is who controls the economy, not who owns it. Communism is a type of Socialism that advocates complete ownership of property in state hands.

[Invader Zim]

Romulus, Dr Jon J Ray is a fool and so are you.

Lets just review fascist policies shall we, but first take a look at what socialism and conservatism actually are.

Socialism is the economic, political and social emancipation of the masses. In general socialists are Pacifists, with the one exception of Global revolution, which rules out the possibility of socialism being expansionist. Society would be then run 100% by the people as a true democracy, not the half-baked lies you believe to be democracy, which therefore completely eradicates the possibility of socialism ever being headed by a dictator, as if it is, then its not socialism. Everyone would get equal wages, which means that with the exception of the rich everyone would prosper, so the idea of oppressing individual groups becomes impossible in a socialist society. Socialists also do not believe that individual countries which they were born in make them some how better than other people&#39;s countries. Therefore making the term "National Socialism" an oxymoron.

Conservatism is the principal of preserving the existing system which protects the exploitation of the working class, in favour of the current rights of the capitalist classes. If conservatives can see an opportunity to make money then they will even if this means invading another nation. An excellent example is of the Invasion of Iraq solely for oil. In the 1800&#39;s the conservatives bitterly defended their position against giving universal suffrage etc, and this fundamental right, which had been floating around sense the early 1800&#39;s did not come into being until 1918. That was all due to conservatives stalling. Conservatism is the enemy of freedom. Economically conservatives obviously want to protect the rich from losing some small advantage to the poor, this has lead in many third world countries to the creation of rightwing dictatorships.

As you can clearly see fascism is far closer to Conservatism than it is socialism. In fact its socialism&#39;s exact ideological opposite.

[Maynard]

I like how those on the right try to "teach" us our beliefs.
Hitler was quite clearly not a leftist, nor a socialist. It was a misnomer quite clearly to get the working class on his side by identifying he was against private ownership of means of production.
Tell me did Nazi Germany ever have complete public ownership of all industries ? No ? Well they are not socialist. It was a mixed economy just like many today, so it was indeed a capitalist country and his social values are generally "more" accepted in the right wing.
Check out the Stormfront forums , accuse them of being "leftist" and see what reaction you get . They are Nazi&#39;s after all, so they are more able to judge there own beliefs than anyone else.

Who controlled the means of production in Germany at the time ? Both the state and private enterprise. Therefore it was not socialism.

[Hoppe]

Enigma, your post is silly. On the one hand you argue that those things are not socialism because in the ideal world socialism would be as you describe it to be (utopian). Yet on the other hand you define conservatism as how it is practised in reality, in stead of for instance referring to Edmund Burke. You&#39;re not objective.

Anyhow, it is a bit to easy to denounce the argument that he was not a socialist because Nazi-Germany was far from the ideal society of socialism. I personally am more interested how you are going to make sure this won&#39;t happen again in a "revolution"? All experiments have ended in authoritarian states how noble the endstage may be.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 12:23 PM
Enigma, your post is silly. On the one hand you argue that those things are not socialism because in the ideal world socialism would be as you describe it to be (utopian). Yet on the other hand you define conservatism as how it is practised in reality, in stead of for instance referring to Edmund Burke. You&#39;re not objective.

Anyhow, it is a bit to easy to denounce the argument that he was not a socialist because Nazi-Germany was far from the ideal society of socialism. I personally am more interested how you are going to make sure this won&#39;t happen again in a "revolution"? All experiments have ended in authoritarian states how noble the endstage may be.
All experiments have ended in authoritarian states how noble the endstage may be.

LOL what a fool, try again, as I can think of several examples of socialist models which are not authoritarian.

On the one hand you argue that those things are not socialism because in the ideal world socialism would be as you describe it to be (utopian).

No I said what socialism is and how it does not remotly relate to Nazism and fascism. I stated what conservatism is and how it relates to authoritarianism. If you can disprove anything I said, go ahead and stop whining.

[Romulus]

Romulus, Dr Jon J Ray is a fool and so are you.

Ummm..No he is not...

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE FOR JOHN RAY
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html

drugs are bad and so are ad hominem insults MmMmmkay. :rolleyes:

Now, on to more substantive matters.

Lets just review fascist policies shall we, but first take a look at what socialism and conservatism actually are.

I have already defined Fascism and Socialism, Conservatism is irrelevent to this argument. Well alright, if you insist...

Socialism is the economic, political and social emancipation of the masses. In general socialists are Pacifists, with the one exception of Global revolution, which rules out the possibility of socialism being expansionist.

Emancipation is an interesting choice of words, who taught you that one...George Orwell? Bada Bing Bada BOOOmm :P Haha.

Sorry, I have to laugh at that, considering the most horrific mega-murderers who ever exsisted were Socialists. If your idea of pacifism, emancipation with the exception of global revolution means the wonton murder of hundreds of millions of people then well...OK I guess your right...but wait a minute, every respected dictionary or encyclopedia in the world disagrees with your definition of Socialism....Not to worry, Im sure its all part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Now lets all put our tin foil hats. :blink:

Society would be then run 100% by the people as a true democracy, not the half-baked lies you believe to be democracy, which therefore completely eradicates the possibility of socialism ever being headed by a dictator, as if it is, then its not socialism.

Funny, it never seems to work out that way. The only thing that every seems to get eradicated are the people with dissenting views, who are either shot, or end up in forced labor Gulags and worked to death. I know I know...those werent "true" Socialists, or so you say. Even though every encyclopedia and dictionary in the world disagrees with you. ;)

Everyone would get equal wages, which means that with the exception of the rich everyone would prosper, so the idea of oppressing individual groups becomes impossible in a socialist society.

Or, everyone is poor and miserably oppressed equaly, which is indeed reality the realistic outcome of Socialism and its variations.

Socialists also do not believe that individual countries which they were born in make them some how better than other people&#39;s countries. Therefore making the term "National Socialism" an oxymoron.

Well, it would be if you said Nationalist Communist, since Marx was the first Socialist to be an internationalist. But, even still, there have been plenty of Nationalist Communists, namely Ho Chi Manh, Pol Pot, Stalin(During the big one), Mao, and Kim Jung Il. There is nothing oxymoronic about the terms Nationalist Socialist since Socialism has various forms that are indeed Nationalist. Anywho.

Conservatism is the principal of preserving the existing system which protects the exploitation of the working class, in favour of the current rights of the capitalist classes.

Hmmm <_< Lets see if the dictionary agrees with you...

CONSERVATISM-[n] a political orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx...ne=Conservatism (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?Dict=&define=Conservatism)

I didnt think it would. I dont think the word conservative completly describes the political right. I beleve the word Libertarian or Objectivist would be more accurate. You may explore what their ideological principles are here...

http://www.libertarian.org/

I can tell you with absolute certainty they have nothing in common with fascism, which requires central CONTROL of the economy. Libertarians and Objectivists are dead set against that.

Since we are focused on the economic aspects of Socialism and its variants I think it would be wise to define Capitalism wouldnt you?

CAPITALISM-[n] an economic system based on private ownership of capital.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/capitalism

And it is the antonym of Socialism. Myself personaly, I am a conservative, but I am also a Libertarian Capitalist. I own property and I make a decent living off that property. I dont want the government to be fascist and control my property, I dont want the government to be Communist and steal my property. I dont think you have the right to violate my Liberty and take what is mine. Just my opinion. :)

As you can clearly see fascism is far closer to Conservatism than it is socialism. In fact its socialism&#39;s exact ideological opposite.

Well no, fascism is far to the left on the political spectrum from Conservatism or Liberal Capitalism. And Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Anarchism,(either CONTROLED or collectivist economies) are all types of Socialism in the same way that Fords, Chevys, and BMWs are all types of cars. So there is no way that Fascism could be the exact opposite of Socialsm. What is the exact opposite of Socialsm is Liberal Capitalism.

You all have a very, very, Merry Xmas...ooops, I forgot you&#39;all a secularists. Oh well...Peace.

[InformationMinister]

So trying to take a music video off the air because you don&#39;t agree with what it is saying isn&#39;t fascist? You&#39;re trying to eliminate opposing view through censorship and that is a characteristic of fascism IMO.

Their video boycott (http://www.protestwarrior.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8477)

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 12:38 PM
LOL what a fool, try again, as I can think of several examples of socialist models which are not authoritarian.

No I said what socialism is and how it does not remotly relate to Nazism and fascism. I stated what conservatism is and how it relates to authoritarianism. If you can disprove anything I said, go ahead and stop whining.
If they are non-authoritarian this is because people chose to live as such. Since there is no place for counterevolutionairy thoughts in your world you will end up in a dictatorship.

As for conservatism, go and read Burke.

[Bianconero]

&#39;Romulus&#39;, I&#39;m definately not going to debate all of your &#39;arguments&#39;, just some I find to be important.


Just so we are all clear on this issue. Communism is a form of Socialism See watch.

Communism- [N] A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/communism

In the same way that Nazism is a form of socialism. Again watch.

Nazism-[N] a form of socialism featuring racism and expansion.

Just so we are all clear on this issue. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you bothered to do some research instead of believing what your conservative teacher told you, then you&#39;d cease spreading useless drivel like this.

Communism, by definition, is the highest stage of socialism and of human progression. After the transitional stage of socialism, where the proletariat controlls every area of life, the state disappears, at it is no longer needed. This will be the case when all countries in the world will have prevailed in their fight for national liberation and socialism. As that was never the case, Communism did never exist, Socialism did.

Don&#39;t make the mistake of believing that countries like Sweden or Austria are &#39;Socialist.&#39; The economical system they put into practice is everything but socialism, it is market socialism. There is still private property, companies have huge influence on politics and on bourgeois democracy and the working class remains oppressed even if they often have access to free health care, free education and the like.

The way you ty to associate communist freedom with national socialism is neat. It shows exactly what kind of person you are and nobody here is suprised by it. National &#39;Socialism&#39; is, as Comrade Lenin pointed out correctly, capitalism in decay. As the proletariat looks to put revolution into practice, the bourgeois, the oppressor, is in danger. His very corrupt existance is in danger, that&#39;s why he uses the petty bourgeois, who is usually angered by the fact that he is getting as despised as the proletarian, to oppress the progressive class, the proletariat.

National &#39;Socialism&#39; is in fact the most cruel mean of the bourgeois to stop revolution and liberation. The term these pretty creatures used for their agenda, &#39;Socialism&#39;, is one of their means to fool the working class over their real intentions. National &#39;Socialism&#39; is capitalist cannibalism and nothing but that.

Your pretty dictionary links are of no help here either. Their content tells us quite a lot about the people who wrote it and about their political agenda. They are everything but credible as they seem to be not only reactionary, but also uneducated. The mistakes they make could be tolerated from an eight year old.

At best.


Well, it would be if you said Nationalist Communist, since Marx was the first Socialist to be an internationalist. But, even still, there have been plenty of Nationalist Communists, namely Ho Chi Manh, Pol Pot, Stalin(During the big one), Mao, and Kim Jung Il. There is nothing oxymoronic about the terms Nationalist Socialist since Socialism has various forms that are indeed Nationalist. Anywho.

As the working class is divided by nations, each working class has it&#39;s own oppressor, their local bourgeois ruling class. The working class, when it seizes power, needs to oppress both political subversion from inside and from outside. Imperialist attacks are what worries any movement that looks to free the people. Therefor, the proletariat needs to fight counter-revolution and it needs to fight it hard. All true Communist revolutions are internationalist, but at the same time they have to fight for national liberation. Only when national liberation can be secured is internationalism respected as any form of foreign &#39;liberation&#39; is imperialism.

History teaches us that.

Your attempt to analyse the regimes you listed is laughable. Have you every done any research? I guess you aven&#39;t. I&#39;m not going to give you a lesson in history now, but I assume you have no idea about Marxism-Leninism and it&#39;s history at all. I recommend you to be carefull now, as most things you said so far are nothing but proof of the reactionary education you probably experienced.

You will not be taken seriously for claiming Nazism is a &#39;form of Socialism.&#39;

[Romulus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 03:16 PM
So trying to take a music video off the air because you don&#39;t agree with what it is saying isn&#39;t fascist? You&#39;re trying to eliminate opposing view through censorship and that is a characteristic of fascism IMO.

Their video boycott (http://www.protestwarrior.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8477)
What does boycotting a video have to do with censorship. Nobody is saying they dont have the right to make the vidoe, the PW&#39;s are just saying they dont want to watch it.

Are you making the claim that leftists never boycott anything? That could easily be proven false.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 02:18 PM
Romulus, Dr Jon J Ray is a fool and so are you.

Ummm..No he is not...

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE FOR JOHN RAY
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html

drugs are bad and so are ad hominem insults MmMmmkay. :rolleyes:

Now, on to more substantive matters.

Lets just review fascist policies shall we, but first take a look at what socialism and conservatism actually are.

I have already defined Fascism and Socialism, Conservatism is irrelevent to this argument. Well alright, if you insist...

Socialism is the economic, political and social emancipation of the masses. In general socialists are Pacifists, with the one exception of Global revolution, which rules out the possibility of socialism being expansionist.

Emancipation is an interesting choice of words, who taught you that one...George Orwell? Bada Bing Bada BOOOmm :P Haha.

Sorry, I have to laugh at that, considering the most horrific mega-murderers who ever exsisted were Socialists. If your idea of pacifism, emancipation with the exception of global revolution means the wonton murder of hundreds of millions of people then well...OK I guess your right...but wait a minute, every respected dictionary or encyclopedia in the world disagrees with your definition of Socialism....Not to worry, Im sure its all part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Now lets all put our tin foil hats. :blink:

Society would be then run 100% by the people as a true democracy, not the half-baked lies you believe to be democracy, which therefore completely eradicates the possibility of socialism ever being headed by a dictator, as if it is, then its not socialism.

Funny, it never seems to work out that way. The only thing that every seems to get eradicated are the people with dissenting views, who are either shot, or end up in forced labor Gulags and worked to death. I know I know...those werent "true" Socialists, or so you say. Even though every encyclopedia and dictionary in the world disagrees with you. ;)

Everyone would get equal wages, which means that with the exception of the rich everyone would prosper, so the idea of oppressing individual groups becomes impossible in a socialist society.

Or, everyone is poor and miserably oppressed equaly, which is indeed reality the realistic outcome of Socialism and its variations.

Socialists also do not believe that individual countries which they were born in make them some how better than other people&#39;s countries. Therefore making the term "National Socialism" an oxymoron.

Well, it would be if you said Nationalist Communist, since Marx was the first Socialist to be an internationalist. But, even still, there have been plenty of Nationalist Communists, namely Ho Chi Manh, Pol Pot, Stalin(During the big one), Mao, and Kim Jung Il. There is nothing oxymoronic about the terms Nationalist Socialist since Socialism has various forms that are indeed Nationalist. Anywho.

Conservatism is the principal of preserving the existing system which protects the exploitation of the working class, in favour of the current rights of the capitalist classes.

Hmmm <_< Lets see if the dictionary agrees with you...

CONSERVATISM-[n] a political orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx...ne=Conservatism (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?Dict=&define=Conservatism)

I didnt think it would. I dont think the word conservative completly describes the political right. I beleve the word Libertarian or Objectivist would be more accurate. You may explore what their ideological principles are here...

http://www.libertarian.org/

I can tell you with absolute certainty they have nothing in common with fascism, which requires central CONTROL of the economy. Libertarians and Objectivists are dead set against that.

Since we are focused on the economic aspects of Socialism and its variants I think it would be wise to define Capitalism wouldnt you?

CAPITALISM-[n] an economic system based on private ownership of capital.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/capitalism

And it is the antonym of Socialism. Myself personaly, I am a conservative, but I am also a Libertarian Capitalist. I own property and I make a decent living off that property. I dont want the government to be fascist and control my property, I dont want the government to be Communist and steal my property. I dont think you have the right to violate my Liberty and take what is mine. Just my opinion. :)

As you can clearly see fascism is far closer to Conservatism than it is socialism. In fact its socialism&#39;s exact ideological opposite.

Well no, fascism is far to the left on the political spectrum from Conservatism or Liberal Capitalism. And Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Anarchism,(either CONTROLED or collectivist economies) are all types of Socialism in the same way that Fords, Chevys, and BMWs are all types of cars. So there is no way that Fascism could be the exact opposite of Socialsm. What is the exact opposite of Socialsm is Liberal Capitalism.

You all have a very, very, Merry Xmas...ooops, I forgot you&#39;all a secularists. Oh well...Peace.
drugs are bad and so are ad hominem insults MmMmmkay.

Ahh so asinine as to take your witticisms from Southpark, :rolleyes: how very juvenile.

I have already defined Fascism and Socialism, Conservatism is irrelevent to this argument. Well alright, if you insist...

Actually you didn&#39;t you defined communism not socialism huge differance. Also you deffined the rest with the most excessivly rightwing dictionaries and sources you could find, lets get some more objective definitions shall we? Lets start with commuism, your definition was very half baked and therefor innacurate, lets try a better one: -

"Com"mu*nism, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all."

Nazism: -

"The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy."

Collectivist: -

T"he principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government."

Sorry, I have to laugh at that, considering the most horrific mega-murderers who ever exsisted were Socialists.

They were state capitalists actually.

your idea of pacifism, emancipation with the exception of global revolution means the wonton murder of hundreds of millions of people then well...

LOL out comes Robert Conquest and the Black Book of Communism, which takes the most excessive and extream sources to sensationalise and demonise.

but wait a minute, every respected dictionary or encyclopedia in the world disagrees with your definition of Socialism..

Well as i&#39;m a socialist and chanses are they aren&#39;t, as I&#39;ve read the works of those who practically invented socialism I recon I have the upper hand on this one. Anyway the dictionaries agree with me to an extent. If you want to see the innacruacy of dictionaries just look at the definition of communism: -

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=communism

Now look at Engels deffinition: -

"Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. "

I trust Engels more than some shitty capitalist American dictionaries, written by people who&#39;s grand parents hadn&#39;t even been born when the term was first used.

The only thing that every seems to get eradicated are the people with dissenting views, who are either shot, or end up in forced labor Gulags and worked to death.

Kind of reminds me of the Patriot Act and good old Sherman.

Even though every encyclopedia and dictionary in the world disagrees with you.

Yeah but the vast number of political scientists and historians dont.

Or, everyone is poor and miserably oppressed equaly, which is indeed reality the realistic outcome of Socialism and its variations.

What you mean like everyone who doesn&#39;t live in an MEDC in the capitalist world? Sorry son do your research before coming here again.

Well, it would be if you said Nationalist Communist, since Marx was the first Socialist to be an internationalist. But, even still, there have been plenty of Nationalist Communists, namely Ho Chi Manh, Pol Pot, Stalin(During the big one), Mao, and Kim Jung Il. There is nothing oxymoronic about the terms Nationalist Socialist since Socialism has various forms that are indeed Nationalist.

You fail to understand the consept of nationalism, a well as socialsim, communism, collectavism, conservatism, etc. I could go on all day.

CONSERVATISM-[n] a political orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx...ne=Conservatism

I didnt think it would. I dont think the word conservative completly describes the political right. I beleve the word Libertarian or Objectivist would be more accurate. You may explore what their ideological principles are here...


Or maybe you should just read up on Sir Robert Peel, practically the inventor of conservatism, and be prepaired to have your conservative dictionary proved wrong.

I dont think you have the right to violate my Liberty and take what is mine.

I dont give a flying fuck what you and your fascist buddies want.

Well no, fascism is far to the left on the political spectrum from Conservatism or Liberal Capitalism. And Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Anarchism,(either CONTROLED or collectivist economies) are all types of Socialism in the same way that Fords, Chevys, and BMWs are all types of cars. So there is no way that Fascism could be the exact opposite of Socialsm. What is the exact opposite of Socialsm is Liberal Capitalism.

LOL if only all conservatives were as ignorant and asinine as you are, we would all live in a socialist paradise by now. Shame really. But now you talk about major car companies, you remind me of the Major link between Ford cars and Nazism, did you know that Ford and GWB&#39;s grand farther actually helped to fund Hitlers Nazi party, and that ford wrote a book called the International Jew. Big Buisness and capitalim is run by nazi&#39;s.

Not to worry, Im sure its all part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

LOL now you mention it: -

[The Feral Underclass]

Romulus

You took some dictionary definitions created by people who have the same understanding of communism as you. Just because it is stated so in a dictionary does not make it proof on an ideology.

If you care to read some literature on the matter you will see quite clearly what communism is. Communism is not a government or an economic system. It is a social order advocating free association, the production of needs and the abolishment of the state, with people working according to their abilities in socially necessary work and in return being provided for by society.

[Hoppe]

LOL if only all conservatives were as ignorant and asinine as you are, we would all live in a socialist paradise by now. Shame really. But now you talk about major car companies, you remind me of the Major link between Ford cars and Nazism, did you know that Ford and GWB&#39;s grand farther actually helped to fund Hitlers Nazi party, and that ford wrote a book called the International Jew. Big Buisness and capitalim is run by nazi&#39;s.


Marx also blamed Jews as capitalist oppressors. but they must have misread him <_<

[InformationMinister]

Originally posted by Romulus+Dec 13 2003, 04:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Romulus @ Dec 13 2003, 04:28 PM)
[email protected] 13 2003, 03:16 PM
So trying to take a music video off the air because you don&#39;t agree with what it is saying isn&#39;t fascist? You&#39;re trying to eliminate opposing view through censorship and that is a characteristic of fascism IMO.

Their video boycott (http://www.protestwarrior.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8477)
What does boycotting a video have to do with censorship. Nobody is saying they dont have the right to make the vidoe, the PW&#39;s are just saying they dont want to watch it.

Are you making the claim that leftists never boycott anything? That could easily be proven false. [/b]
No, you&#39;re trying to have it removed entirely from MTV. That is censorship. If this were a boycott all that thread would say is not to buy their albums. If you hate it so much then just change the channel. The most prominent example of the left you&#39;ll probaby bring up is Howard Dean&#39;s comments on Fox news. Not everyone on the left shares his views. I feel that if the left wants to have a voice on TV and radio they need to go out and get some radio and news stations with people that actually have personality. The left and right should both be able to share their opinions as outrageous as they may be.

[CommieKiller]

How can I be a fascist? I don&#39;t like socialism. :(

[Romulus]

Hey everyone check out the Nazi Green Party.


Libertarian National Socialist
Green Party
http://www.nazi.org/

Socialists indeed.

[@[email protected]@]

onto street&#33; :hammer:

[praxis1966]

The main problem here is that all of you PWers are looking at this from a completely innacurate historical perspective. Instead of actually basing your arguments on the totallity of socialist theory, you simply regurgitate whatever you&#39;ve been spoonfed in your history classes.

That and the lumping in of socialism with Nazism and fascism due to a grossly oversimplified dictionary definition is pure folly. Every time you open your mouths you do nothing but demonstrate your ignorance. Saying Nazism is a form of socialism due to the fact that both involve some form of economic control is like saying a lizard is a form of a horse because both have four legs. That kind of crap just doesn&#39;t fly.

Not to mention, I don&#39;t think anybody here thinks that Marx was the be all and end all of socialist/communist theory. Although, you seem to think so. It&#39;s as if he is the only one you&#39;ve ever heard of to the exclusion of all others.