What seperates a communist and a fascist?

[Gaius]

What seperates you guys from facists? You want to kill people solely on what they own and how they spend what they own. The only difference between a communist and a facist is the people they kill. A fascist kills someone based on skin colour, religion etc., a communist kills someone as a result of the wealth they own.

And don’t try and deny you wouldn’t. I’ve read a lot of the bloodthirsty posts some of you animals make on this site.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Posts some of us make? It wouldn't make any difference, as it will never be fully representative. Yes there are some aggressive posts made here, but look at the demographic of the board, and the amount of violent sentiments are not really much above average.

Killing someone based on their wealth? Nope. Killing them when they try and kill us in our move for a revolution? Sure.

Calm down and check what you are talking about, and why aren't you restricted?

Oh in short: communism is stateless and classless, facism has a large state.

[Lord Testicles]

Hegemonicretribution sums it up.

Why are you back Gaius i thought you didnt like us swearing? :rolleyes:

[greymatter]

You know, I think using the label 'communists' (even though that's what we are) just throws people off. I don't think it's worth it to try to hang on to a term that was appropriated by lenin and his ilk one hundred years ago. Maybe, If we referred to the communist movement by a different name (invent your own!) we might actually throw goofnuts like Gaius off for a little while.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:14 PM
You know, I think using the label 'communists' (even though that's what we are) just throws people off. I don't think it's worth it to try to hang on to a term that was appropriated by lenin and his ilk one hundred years ago. Maybe, If we referred to the communist movement by a different name (invent your own!) we might actually throw goofnuts like Gaius off for a little while.
In real life this is very important! I never refer to my self as a communist or anarchist, but only in terms of the ideas I support.

However this is a specialised website, so using "technical" terms is to be expected.

[Gaius]

Goofnut?

I'm sure not everyone is the same, but the violent nature of communism, and socialism in general is quite frightening. I have no problem with your beliefs... Indeed, I am somewhat attracted to them. But there are some bad eggs that give you guys a bad name.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:24 PM
But there are some bad eggs that give you guys a bad name.
You're telling me :o!! This is a problem, and often opponents hide behind this rather than even attempting a real discussion.

Why then the nature of your rant? It was totally uncalled for when you knew what you were suggesting wasn't really the case.

[greymatter]

The thing you have to understand about "communism" is that when we here at RevLeft (most of us anyway) talk about it, we're talking about a hypothetical, stateless, classless society. While some people here advocate a kind of "transitional state", virtually nobody here wants to build the kind of choked soviet-style bureaucracy with a cult of personality and military parades that you might envision when you think of communism.

PS: I'll refrain from calling you a goofnut in the future, and it's good to see that you have an open mind.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gaius
I’ve read a lot of the bloodthirsty posts some of you animals make on this site.

Ding!

You are now restricted to this forum. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:24 PM
I'm sure not everyone is the same, but the violent nature of communism, and socialism in general is quite frightening. I have no problem with your beliefs... Indeed, I am somewhat attracted to them. But there are some bad eggs that give you guys a bad name.
Yes you're quite right, killing people merely for the amount of wealth they have is wrong. Sure of course during violent revolution some people may be killed but actually rounding people up and executing them would put us on the level of Hitler - something I am certainly against.

As to the "bad eggs" - we generally refer to them as "Stalinists". :rolleyes:

[Gaius]

It was a reaction I had to some idiots I've encountered before on this forum.

I'd like to officially request that my membership be un-restricted, as it appears I spoke in haste. I formally apologise and you can edit my post if you want.

Again, my sincere apologies.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Well I can't unrestrict you, but I can go and ask...

Also, the apology is appreciated. Unfortunately that actually passes for debate amongst many of the rightwingers we have had.

[bcbm]

Bloodthirsty? 10,000 years of being shit on will do that to you.

[Tungsten]

black banner black gun

Bloodthirsty? 10,000 years of being shit on will do that to you.
I'm not surprised. How old are you, again?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:17 PM
black banner black gun

Bloodthirsty? 10,000 years of being shit on will do that to you.
I'm not surprised. How old are you, again?
I am assuming old enough to have studied some history. Really a few extra years here or there are nothing compared to existence prior to any living person's birth.

Of course mocking somebody based on their age is so much easier than doing it about something they are personally responsible for. :rolleyes:

[Publius]

I'm not surprised. How old are you, again?

Can't you read?

He's at least 10,000 years old.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You want to kill people solely on what they own and how they spend what they own.

The secon part is irrelevant. In periods of revolution the ruling class is usually executed, although most of them flee. This is not a "communist" trait, it happens in all revolutions. I don't think anyone here suggests killing the bourgeoisie for "fun" but rather out of necessity because they will repress the revolution at any chance they get.


The only difference between a communist and a facist is the people they kill.

Do you know what fascism is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I don't remember any members here calling for corpratism, nationalism, and a dictator.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:17 PM

I'm not surprised. How old are you, again?
Ad hominem. Do you have a real concern about what I said, or are you just going to judge me for how old I am?



Can't you read?

He's at least 10,000 years old.

I wasn't referring to myself as an individual. I think it is fairly obvious what I was implying. Please try again.

[overlord]

Fascists, kill through war.
Communists, kill through peace because they're permanently at war with themselves.

[Gaius]

Are you blaming capitalism for 10,000 years of being shit on?

Capitalism allows and actively encourages a meritocracy, something previous economic structures do not.

[RedAnarchist]

Fascism fights for a nation going backwards.
Communism fights for a world going forwards. :)

[encephalon]

I think I'm going to put up a CC vote on creating a "dumbass thread of the month" award for you restricted folks.

[apathy maybe]

Not all of us are communists! But we all want to get rid of capitalism (and most of us the state).

I see no problem with scum being shot if they persist in acting like scum.

Shooting someone based on some aspect of themselves that they cannot change (sexuality, skin colour etc.) is different to shooting someone based on their actions.

Communism is vastly different to fascism, even Stalinism/Leninism is quite different to fascism. Capitalism is closer to fascism is a number of ways then Stalinism is.

If you stick around (and I recommend that you do), read the posts in learning and theory. Post questions in OI, you will learn more about how people around here think. There are even some pacifists around I think.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:33 AM
Capitalism allows and actively encourages a meritocracy, something previous economic structures do not.
<_< It does?

As I have said in another thread, although I would still not agree with capitalism if this were the case, it woudl certainly bolster your arguments somewhat.

Meritocratic implies that the best people will fall into the roles they are best suited for, but this simply isnt the case because wealth detremines this more so than ability.

There could well be the best potential future CEO of Nike working in a sweatshop right now, and we will never no. There are probably several rich kids without too much between the ears that will automatically fall into a high-powered job when they come of age...this isn&#39;t meritocracy.

As for schooling, if the most "able" kids (desptite all the problems with this) were the ones that went to the best schools then that would be fair enough, but it tends to be those whose parents that can afford it that are given these oppurtunities.

Your life is not decided definitely, but it is massively shaped by where you are born, your skin colour, gender and sexual preference, and the wealth of your folks as to how it will go. I wouldn&#39;t matter if my IQ is 100 points higher than a rich kid making their way in the world, it is likely they will be afforded far more oppurtunities because off their position.

[Sabocat]

"Fascism is Capitalism in decay"

[Iroquois Xavier]

What&#39;s the difference? just an entire philosophy, nothing big really... :rolleyes:

[Gaius]

I was actually getting at the fact that violence is an instrument of both philosophys, and violence, regardless of the victim, is ultimately the same.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 02:15 PM
I was actually getting at the fact that violence is an instrument of both philosophys, and violence, regardless of the victim, is ultimately the same.
So a communist beating up a fascist who is beating up someone simply for the colour of their skin is the same as a wife beater or a warlike capitalist nation?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:15 PM
I was actually getting at the fact that violence is an instrument of both philosophys, and violence, regardless of the victim, is ultimately the same.
Many people may disagree iwth me on this, but I think there is a misconception of the nature of revolutionary violence.

When there is desire from the majority of people to change a system then it should happen. As Rousseau said, "democracy" assumes first that a state is actually desired, and there are no real channels existing to abolish it "democratically." When the worker&#39;s take control, there may well be some opposition...now this opposition will be a minority standing in the way off change that is wanted by the vast majority. If the minority try to resist the change violently, then the revolutionaries would be justified in defending themselves. In fact they would have a far higher mandate than police officers, or armies do.

Of course if when the time comes to take over the ruling class say "fair cop, we give in, take it all" then doubt that blood needs to be spilled.

Revolution is in self defence&#33;

[Tungsten]

Publius

Can&#39;t you read?

He&#39;s at least 10,000 years old.
:lol: I&#39;ll read more carefully next time.
black banner black gun

I wasn&#39;t referring to myself as an individual. I think it is fairly obvious what I was implying. Please try again.
You were implying that being wronged in some way is something you pass on to others or inherit from your ancestors, and that you have 10000 years (how do you know this?) worth of "reparations" owed to you by someone or other which justifies revolution against a group of people who are percieved to be responsible. That&#39;s got to be the lousiest justification for violence yet.

apathy maybe

Capitalism is closer to fascism is a number of ways then Stalinism is.
Would you care to explain?

Hegemonicretribution

When the worker&#39;s take control, there may well be some opposition...now this opposition will be a minority standing in the way off change that is wanted by the vast majority.
What if the goal of the majority is slavery of the minority, or imperialism? That&#39;s happened plenty of times in the past.

If the minority try to resist the change violently, then the revolutionaries would be justified in defending themselves.
What about in the case of the above? Don&#39;t say it doesn&#39;t happen.

In fact they would have a far higher mandate than police officers, or armies do.
They would arguably be far more dangerous, but being dangerous doesn&#39;t make you right or justify any particular action. Let&#39;s take todays society, for instance. Communists are a minority. Would the majoirity therefore be justified in using violence to rid themselves of this minority who want something that conflicts with what they, the majority, want? Or are you calling for special pleading?

Of course if when the time comes to take over the ruling class say "fair cop, we give in, take it all" then doubt that blood needs to be spilled.

Revolution is in self defence&#33;
I still haven&#39;t established what you&#39;d be defending yourselves against.

[Gaius]

"Revolution is in self defence&#33;"

What about when Che Guevera claimed you don&#39;t need the right conditions for revolution. Or where the people of Colombia have spoken quite clearly and don&#39;t want communism. I share your sentiment friend, I believe can reach a stateless communist society, but only through consensus and not through bloodshed...

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:37 PM
I believe can reach a stateless communist society, but only through consensus and not through bloodshed...
The thought of the ruling class giving up their power freely is a ludicrous idea and nothing more than a fantasy, I don’t blame you I used to think we could reach a classless, stateless society through their current "democratic" system but that faded away very quickly, if you pursue the path of socialism you will come to the conclusion that the revolution is the only way to a classless, stateless society unless of course the ruling class have a change of heart. (Which I don’t see happening)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:50 PM

What if the goal of the majority is slavery of the minority, or imperialism? That&#39;s happened plenty of times in the past.

What about in the case of the above? Don&#39;t say it doesn&#39;t happen.

Or are you calling for special pleading?


Yes it happens, and I suppose all I can say is that I would oppose those examples. Represntative democracy has justified some fairly attrocious thngs also. That is why the primary goal of a revolutionary is class consciousness.


They would arguably be far more dangerous, but being dangerous doesn&#39;t make you right or justify any particular action. Let&#39;s take todays society, for instance. Communists are a minority. Would the majoirity therefore be justified in using violence to rid themselves of this minority who want something that conflicts with what they, the majority, want?
Fair point, but again this is why class consciousness is a primary goal. No the majority would not be justified, because they are not unified by any particular belief other than what they do not have a preference for, and according to this argument all groups could be eliminated depending on how you seperated them. The majority don&#39;t share their favourite colour as blue...or red... you can see the point I am trying to make?

Also the communists (as is intended by us, not capitalists) do not have control over average people&#39;s lives in the way capitalists do, so overthrowing them (which is all we are proposing for capitalism) would be a little daft.


I still haven&#39;t established what you&#39;d be defending yourselves against.
Those that would likely try and stop us in our attempt for progress. If they weren&#39;t aggressive, then why would we need to use force ourselves?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:37 PM
What about when Che Guevera claimed you don&#39;t need the right conditions for revolution. Or where the people of Colombia have spoken quite clearly and don&#39;t want communism. I share your sentiment friend, I believe can reach a stateless communist society, but only through consensus and not through bloodshed...
I may not buy the right-wing propoganda regading Cuba, or the Cuban revolution, but it does not mean I reguarly masturbate over che T-shirts or anything. Che certainly had qualities, but I disagree with quite a bit of his politics. In Columbia I think they are referring to communism in the dirty sense of the word...

As for the bloodless revolution, well see above I suppose. If there is to be any violence it will be after consensus has been achieved, and it is a minority that violently refuse to allow it to have its way, it is then that revolution is not only justified but needed.

[Gotro]

Apparently it&#39;s the idea of mass murdering mentally handicapped people :P

[claro de luna]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:43 AM
I think I&#39;m going to put up a CC vote on creating a "dumbass thread of the month" award for you restricted folks.
Wow, finally some good idea in this thread. Those guys were pissing me off&#33; I think they should be banned entirely&#33; HA&#33; Calling us same as fascist&#33; I have never seen a worse insult&#33; Count me on voting&#33;

[Global_Justice]

i think it is wrong to kill someone for the amount of money they have. i think alot of people on here post things they wouldn&#39;t actually do. however, sometimes i do get very angry when i see things and read things that makes me want to kill people. although i&#39;d probable never go through with it when i consider the fact they have a family etc. but people like the owners of oil companies, shell particularly, and obviously bush. plus weapons traders, pharmecutical companies and the BNP :angry: we did about shell in business studies and for about 2 days afterwards all i wanted to do was get armed and go to shell headquarters. but then i came to my senses :o :unsure:

[Gaius]

Wow, finally some good idea in this thread. Those guys were pissing me off&#33; I think they should be banned entirely&#33; HA&#33; Calling us same as fascist&#33; I have never seen a worse insult&#33; Count me on voting&#33;


So instead of trying to deconstruct my argument, you&#39;ve decided to silence me instead? Thanks, I think you may very well have proven my original point.

This is the kind of people I was talking about at the beginning folks...

[ZeroPain]

So instead of trying to deconstruct my argument, you&#39;ve decided to silence me instead? Thanks, I think you may very well have proven my original point.

This is the kind of people I was talking about at the beginning folks...

(Im not sure if he was jokeing or was serious)


Honestly all groups have some crazy people who advocate things that are no less then insane. However it is the people who make up the vast majority of the group that best represent the views of the group as a whole.


Also we need to make clear that money has no effect on what class you are a member of. The money a person has is a result of their class not the other way around.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:50 AM
You were implying that being wronged in some way is something you pass on to others or inherit from your ancestors, and that you have 10000 years (how do you know this?) worth of "reparations" owed to you by someone or other which justifies revolution against a group of people who are percieved to be responsible. That&#39;s got to be the lousiest justification for violence yet.
Nope. I was suggesting that those on the top have been shitting on those on the bottom for the last 10,000 years or so (ie, the dawn of agriculture/civilization) and that some resentment from those getting shit on is more than understandable. Nothing about reparations or past crimes carrying over, merely that there is a long history of these sort of things and, indeed, when one looks back at history one finds many instances of those on the bottom getting fed up and enacting a great deal of violence against those on the top.

[England Expects]

Commies seem to have a more effective PR machine.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What seperates a communist and a fascist? Usually a Police barricade.


Originally posted by Gaius+--> (Gaius)....a communist kills someone as a result of the wealth they own.[/b]

Commandeering the "wealth" would be fine from my perspective....though, if someone proposed that X number of the most infamous capitalists (you know, the War Criminals and so on) should be tried for crimes against humanity and receive the death sentence if found guilty, then I certainly wouldn&#39;t stand in their way.


Originally posted by [email protected]
"Fascism is Capitalism in decay"

Indeed; but unfortunately Vlad, our friend here has decided that investigating what exactly constitutes either communism or fascism is too much like hard work.

His loss.


Gaius
I was actually getting at the fact that violence is an instrument of both philosophys, and violence, regardless of the victim, is ultimately the same.

Your member title says you&#39;re a "Curious Liberal"....you know how liberalism became a dominant political philosophy right? I&#39;ll give you a hint, it had something to do with piking the Catholic Clergy and chopping the head off the King. :o

The rights of man, as they used to say, need to be fought for&#33;

[red team]

What if the goal of the majority is slavery of the minority, or imperialism? That&#39;s happened plenty of times in the past.

Wow you&#39;re even stupider than I thought. Besides being uneconomical, its physically impossible to have a "slavery of the minority".

Any system of production in order to survive needs to be sustainable no matter how brutal the methods used in enforcing it and slavery is no different.

If I captured you somehow and starting severely beating you until you work the most you (and most anybody else) can hope to accomplish throught their forced labour is to provide sustenance for 1.5 to 2 persons, the slave himself and 1/2 to 1 whole other person (oh, the riches :lol: ). And by this I means sustenance not luxury. The reason why the slave population is much bigger than the free citizens in institutionalized slavery is that it becomes economical when a large enough surplus can be generated through forced labour that a small free layer can live in luxury as well as trade that surplus through barter for commodities they couldn&#39;t produce themselves.

Better go back and read you history books some more.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Gaius, would you please respond to my post on the previous page?

[Gaius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 12:12 AM

You want to kill people solely on what they own and how they spend what they own.

The secon part is irrelevant. In periods of revolution the ruling class is usually executed, although most of them flee. This is not a "communist" trait, it happens in all revolutions. I don&#39;t think anyone here suggests killing the bourgeoisie for "fun" but rather out of necessity because they will repress the revolution at any chance they get.


The only difference between a communist and a facist is the people they kill.

Do you know what fascism is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I don&#39;t remember any members here calling for corpratism, nationalism, and a dictator.
What precisely do you want me to reply to? I realise the differences between Fascism and communism, but my point deals with violence, not the intrinsic differences between the two.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Then why did you call the thread "what seperates a communist and a fascist?" you clearly dont know the difference between the two.

[ZeroPain]

What precisely do you want me to reply to? I realise the differences between Fascism and communism, but my point deals with violence, not the intrinsic differences between the two.

Well generally violence on the fascist side is because of illogical hate.
On the "communist" side it is mostly casualties of war but is not directed at any single group. (Not including the violence of self defense)

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2006, 01:40 AM
What seperates a communist and a fascist? Usually a Police barricade.
Excellent, I&#39;m noting that one down.

[Gaius]

You obviously don&#39;t understand. I was relating to violence, not inherent ideological issues. I&#39;ve already made this point anyway.

[Zingu]

Don&#39;t you understand that the very rights and freedoms you enjoy in the burgeois republic were achieved through violent and bloody revolution?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:26 PM
You obviously don&#39;t understand. I was relating to violence, not inherent ideological issues. I&#39;ve already made this point anyway.
Your first post pretty much exposes you. Communists and fascists are exactly the same, apart from who they kill? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Brilliant conclusion. Oh, and of course, the dumb worker obviously doesn&#39;t understand.

[Gaius]

"the dumb worker obviously doesn&#39;t understand."

That would apply to me if I were not a member of the working classes.

[violencia.Proletariat]

What precisely do you want me to reply to? I realise the differences between Fascism and communism, but my point deals with violence, not the intrinsic differences between the two.

Should I say communists and fascists are the same because they both breath air too? Your statement is just completely daft.

You can&#39;t use violence to compare the two idealogies. Besides, there is no such thing as "communist violence" as communism doesnt exist. Are you speaking about revolutions? Well yes but revolutionary periods in industrialized nations (where communism is actually possible) has had small ammounts of violenced compared to capitalism, fascism, fuedalism, etc...

[Tungsten]

Hegemonicretribution

That is why the primary goal of a revolutionary is class consciousness.
What difference is that going to make?

Those that would likely try and stop us in our attempt for progress.
An attempt?

If they weren&#39;t aggressive, then why would we need to use force ourselves?
You are joking, I hope.
black banner black gun

Nope. I was suggesting that those on the top have been shitting on those on the bottom for the last 10,000 years or so (ie, the dawn of agriculture/civilization)
What, they&#39;re 10,000 years old too?

and that some resentment from those getting shit on is more than understandable.
Why is it understandable? What if I found out that somewhere along the line your ancestors enslaved mine? Would I give a damn? No, because I wasn&#39;t the one wronged.

red team

Wow you&#39;re even stupider than I thought.
The intellectial pigmy returns.
Besides being uneconomical, its physically impossible to have a "slavery of the minority".

:lol:

red team: Hey, the holocaust is bunk&#33; Jewish slave labour in Nazi Germany couldn&#39;t have happened because Jews were a minority and it&#39;s impossible to enslave a minority&#33;

Sorry to burst you bubble, genius, but it&#39;s possible to have the slavery of anyone and in any quanitity. It&#39;s possible to have slaves working alongside non-slaves without having to risk losses. What does "economic viability" have to do with democracy anyway? Since when does a democratic decision presuppose practicality, viability or fairness?

Please think before posting any more knee-jerk bullshit.


(oh, the riches ).
Having a slave working for you could mean you never having to work again. That&#39;s "riches" enough for most.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:15 PM
What difference is that going to make?


Well the majority of the workforce and population being aware in the a revolutionary sense of what is required to improve lives and increase equality does make a potential revolution more effective. I am not suggesting that there will be a quota and then *ding* revolution...rather that through associating with working class issues and actually making a material change as well as educating, and gathering support that there could arise the preconditions for a trul successful revolution.


An attempt?
Perhaps the word sounds a little weak, but yes an attempt. If it wasn&#39;t an attempt it wasn&#39;t anything, the point is to make it successful.


You are joking, I hope.
Not even remotely.

[Tungsten]

Hegemonicretribution

Well the majority of the workforce and population being aware in the a revolutionary sense of what is required to improve lives and increase equality does make a potential revolution more effective. I am not suggesting that there will be a quota and then *ding* revolution...rather that through associating with working class issues and actually making a material change as well as educating, and gathering support that there could arise the preconditions for a trul successful revolution.
You think that this is going to prevent all the problems I mentioned? Fat chance.

Not even remotely.
"If they weren&#39;t aggressive, then why would we need to use force ourselves?"

So you&#39;ve come to the conclusion that someone is aggressive if force is needed to subdue them? Can you see the obvious flaw(s) in this argument?

[saint max]

gauis,
Your point about violence, is an astute observation. However there are as many implications as there are perspectives on violence. Perhaps violence has a negative connotation, but to juxtapose communist pro-revolutionaries and there coharts with fascists as a basis, you will conclude nothing, beside your own issues and feelings about violence.

I am personally interested only in violent revolt. That is to say "if i can&#39;t dance [and violently confront my oppressors,] then it&#39;s not my revolution." Of course there is the rational, mechanized violence of all modern ideologies. To paraphrase, even the &#39;good&#39; state is in it&#39;s dreams, criminal. Certainly Nazi germany was not so far away from Lenin or Stalin&#39;s USSR, or Mao&#39;s China or Kihmler Rouge (sp?) but are they located anywhere near Chiapas Mexico, West Papa, or Spain in 36? Not that these are th best examples, merely the common ones. The answer is obvious, so where does that leave the Liberal utopias of post-idustrial Late Capital? Probably close to the latter, considering even the most recent death toll from Iraq, or a navigation of the Prison Industrial Complex--our own little camps for concentration.

My point is what violence has meaning, and who get&#39;s to locate and define it? And why are you so terrified of violence? Why is violence your point of contention?

kisses,
Liam Sionnach

[Gaius]

Saint Max,

I believe violence can be justifed only in the just war theory. Anyway, some people have opened my mind slightly. I still wouldn&#39;t support any revolution, as its always destined to be highjacked by the stalinists.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:54 PM
What, they&#39;re 10,000 years old too?
Good lord you&#39;re dense.


Why is it understandable? What if I found out that somewhere along the line your ancestors enslaved mine? Would I give a damn? No, because I wasn&#39;t the one wronged.

It has nothing to do with ancestors or "reparations," something I made clear in my last post:

"Nothing about reparations or past crimes carrying over, merely that there is a long history of these sort of things and, indeed, when one looks back at history one finds many instances of those on the bottom getting fed up and enacting a great deal of violence against those on the top."

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:53 PM
You think that this is going to prevent all the problems I mentioned? Fat chance.

So you&#39;ve come to the conclusion that someone is aggressive if force is needed to subdue them? Can you see the obvious flaw(s) in this argument?
Your problem was that this wouldn&#39;t do anything was it not? That paragraph was in response to your "What will that do?" comment.

No someone is agressive if they are aggressive. If the ruling class is willing to hand everything over then there would be no need for conflict. It is only when they violently oppose the vast majority that the favour would have to be returned. If they wanted to stage a sit in then that would be nice, but the 90-95% of the population may quietly, but humanely move them along. You should know the score, it would be like the handling of protesters if the police were not such aggressive and nasty people :P

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:54 PM
I believe violence can be justifed only in the just war theory. Anyway, some people have opened my mind slightly.


Well you are definitely coming around...


I still wouldn&#39;t support any revolution, as its always destined to be highjacked by the stalinists.
Why? Class consciousness isn&#39;t achieved in my oppinion if there is still a reliance on very dubious leadership structures.

[JudeObscure84]

I support some of the smaller politically established Communist groups that help out local communities. I think Communist and far left socialist groups are helpful within thier communities establishing good relations with the labour unions. The Iraqi Communist Party is among one of the many groups I support in the fight for a federal Iraq. Thier Democratic Youth Brigade is extraordinary&#33;

On the other hand I totally oppose utopian Communist brigades bent on revolutionary struggle, to me they are no different than the Fascist hordes that tried to conqueor Europe or the Islamist theologies currently gripping the Middle East.

From a Liberal perspective: Both the Communist and the Fascist seek to eliminate class struggle through parrallel means. The Fascist seeks to compromise class struggle through a corporatist syndicalist system in which all the means of production would be divided into corporations, syndicates or guilds. These guilds would eliminate the top and bottom structure of the workforce and give equal representation to all in the particular guild. So the railroad would go to the railroad workers, the mines to the mineworkers; the boss would still be boss, but subject to the demands of the Fascist party which represents the national unity. Get it? Basically, Fascism follows the syndicalist philosophy of Georges Sorell. (this is just the blueprint of their ideology, I know it didnt go as planned)

The fascist party unites all workers under a single union to push the state away from Liberalism or Communism, and into a pre-enlightment communal guild structured society.

Communism is the enlightment cousin to Liberalism. It pretty much gave utopian socialism a scientific dialect so that Marxists could challange Liberal ideals. The Communist Manifesto states that Capitalism much reach a certain peak in order for thier to be a true revolutionary upheavel but that has yet to pass. Marx was nearsighted and didnt see the changing face of Capitalism. That is why we have so many Marxist heresies that have turned ugly; Stalinism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Yet, during the end of the 19th century, Marxists were starting to feel the nearsightedness of Marx and established other means of bringing about social change. Democratic Socialists were born and so were Syndicalists. From the Syndicalists (another Marxist heresy) the Fascists were born because of their disdain to the anarcho-syndicalists and in favor of nationalism to win the proletariat.

So Communists and Fascists are more competitors than outright polar enemies.

[Tungsten]

black banner black gun

Good lord you&#39;re dense.
I was taking the piss out of you. The sarcasm seems to have gone straight over your head.

"Nothing about reparations or past crimes carrying over, merely that there is a long history of these sort of things and, indeed, when one looks back at history one finds many instances of those on the bottom getting fed up and enacting a great deal of violence against those on the top."
I get you now. It&#39;s not about past crimes being carried over, it&#39;s just about crimes that happened in the past being looked back on and enacting violence against the percieved perpetrators. :rolleyes:
Hegemonicretribution

Your problem was that this wouldn&#39;t do anything was it not? That paragraph was in response to your "What will that do?" comment.
The problem was that I don&#39;t see how it would do anything to prevent any of the problems I mentioned. If you think otherwise, be specific.

No someone is agressive if they are aggressive. If the ruling class is willing to hand everything over then there would be no need for conflict.
It&#39;s debatable about whether the ruling class or any other target of communist hate is being aggressive in the first place. Don&#39;t forget that an aggressor is someone who initiates the use of force against another person (by our definition). Where are the grounds for your accusations of aggressiveness?

It is only when they violently oppose the vast majority that the favour would have to be returned.
Aggressiveness doesn&#39;t really have anything to do with the number of people doing a particular thing, does it? Aggressiveness is still aggressiveness, whether one person is doing it or a million. You&#39;re calling for special pleading in the case of a majority.

[bcbm]

I was taking the piss out of you. The sarcasm seems to have gone straight over your head.

Yes, I really thought you were serious about the "10,000 year old" part. :rolleyes:



I get you now. It&#39;s not about past crimes being carried over, it&#39;s just about crimes that happened in the past being looked back on and enacting violence against the percieved perpetrators.

Mmm nope. Let me make it simple: people getting oppressed violently respond in kind. Get it?

[Tungsten]

black banner black gun

Mmm nope. Let me make it simple: people getting oppressed violently respond in kind. Get it?
If that&#39;s right then your revolution is going to be in trouble. Who can you honestly say is being violently oppressed in today&#39;s western society in order to justify retalliating with similar violence?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:44 AM
Who can you honestly say is being violently oppressed in today&#39;s western society in order to justify retalliating with similar violence?
me.

[CCCPneubauten]

Gaius, you do know that Hitler was democraticly elected...right?

And so was....Benito Mussolini....

Democracy, in the world now, isn&#39;t always a good thing. It seems like communists actually have to fight for their power, Fascists just distort the current DoB and for the most part &#39;follow the rules&#39;

Mussolini&#39;s granddaughter Alessandra Mussolini, daughter of Romano Mussolini, is currently a member of the European Parliament for the neo-fascist alliance Alternativa Sociale

Anyways....

Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes (and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict), replacing it instead with two more nebulous struggles: conflict between races and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end in itself and determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideas reason or rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics:

1. A very high degree of nationalism, (We are all against this)
2. Economic corporatism, (We are all against this)
3. A powerful, dictatorial leader or ruling cadre who portrays the nation, state, or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it. (We are all against this)

So aside from being a total flip in ideology, what else did you want to ask us?

Fascism doesn&#39;t use violence to gain power...unles you are talking about Franco...in which the communists (Republicans) rose up to take the fight against him.

[bcbm]

If that&#39;s right then your revolution is going to be in trouble. Who can you honestly say is being violently oppressed in today&#39;s western society in order to justify retalliating with similar violence?

Quite a lot of people, actually. The institution of the state is founded on violence. And if we want to get out of simplicity, we can right back to where we started: people who are continually wronged by those who have power over there are bound to respond, and violence is usually the method of choice.

------------


Gaius, you do know that Hitler was democraticly elected...right?

No he wasn&#39;t. He was appointed.


And so was....Benito Mussolini....

No he wasn&#39;t. Remember the March on Rome?


Fascism doesn&#39;t use violence to gain power.

What the fuck are you talking about? The Blackshirts, the Brownshirts/SA, the SS, Beer Hall Putsch, March on Rome and so on?

[JudeObscure84]

Fascism doesn&#39;t use violence to gain power.

Fascism, Nazism and National Syndicalists(Spanish Flange) all used violence as a means to push the state into submission to thier ideals. Violence was in essense thier basic tenet. A fascist&#39;s hero is George Sorell, the revolutionary syndicalist that opted for a final push to eliminate the current society.

The Fascists were the rivals of the Communists for the heart of the proletariat after Liberalism was discredited in the eyes of many during the great depression.

The Fascists were very, very similar to the Anarchists, in their radical push for social change. Considering they both came from syndicalist backgrounds, consoldated power by using the labour unions and used the phrase Direct Action&#33;
Fascism is openly hostile to reasoning, rationality and exhaults the pre-enlightment era which it believes was truly socialistic, communal and full of life.
That is why Neo-Nazis, Neo-Fascists are so violent, extreme and irrational. They live for violence&#33; They hark back to the days of vikings, empires and plunder.

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.pzg.biz/cd39_spanish_falange.jpg

http://www.pzg.biz/cd37_italian_fascist_marche.jpg

Looks more like V for Vendetta to me.

[JudeObscure84]

OLD FASCISM:

http://www.ilduce.net/foto/galleria%20squadristi/squad1.JPG

http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/italy/preavieri/images/rudyfascistyouthphotosm.jpg


NEW FASCISM:


http://www.malas-noticias.com.ar/Ninios-musulmanes-del-Jizbo.jpg

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1843988.jpg

Saddam&#39;s Fedayeen ^

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38192000/jpg/_38192784_soldiers300.jpg

Saddam&#39;s Cubs

[Tungsten]

Additives Free

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:44 AM
Who can you honestly say is being violently oppressed in today&#39;s western society in order to justify retalliating with similar violence?
me.
Care to expand a little on that?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:06 PM
The problem was that I don&#39;t see how it would do anything to prevent any of the problems I mentioned. If you think otherwise, be specific.


Well the act of having direct involvement of the many, and having them opposed to the ideas that you suggested as problems goes someway to removing the problem does it not?


It&#39;s debatable about whether the ruling class or any other target of communist hate is being aggressive in the first place. Don&#39;t forget that an aggressor is someone who initiates the use of force against another person (by our definition). Where are the grounds for your accusations of aggressiveness?
Well I suppose that the police would try and uphold bourgeois law, and the bourgeois and their cronies would likely also opose the act of removing their "property." This need not be violent, but if actually attacked (and I assume this would be the case for the suggestions I just made) then the workers would likely defend themselves.


Aggressiveness doesn&#39;t really have anything to do with the number of people doing a particular thing, does it? Aggressiveness is still aggressiveness, whether one person is doing it or a million. You&#39;re calling for special pleading in the case of a majority.
No, but the army or police are often vaguely seen as having a "mandate" due to some conception of democracy existing, and them existing as enforcers of law. My argument here was that a revolutionary struggle (in the sense I highlighted) would have a higher mandate than either the police or army to use violence if needed.

Again, just as the police don&#39;t necessarily arrest someone for assault until they perform assault, a revolutionary need not react violently towards the bourgeois unless they oppose the proletariat movement. I know you will claim this is very subjective, but put it like this, merely existing does not mean that one would be sent to the gulags. Trying to hold onto "property," especially factories and the likes would result in the use of force. Attacking revolutionaries by using the armed forces, or pricate security would also result in counter-violence. Go along with everything quietly and there need not be a problem.

[Tungsten]

Hegemonicretribution

Well I suppose that the police would try and uphold bourgeois law, and the bourgeois and their cronies would likely also opose the act of removing their "property."
But where&#39;s the evidence that this law is one of aggression in the first place (that warrants an overthrow)?

This need not be violent, but if actually attacked (and I assume this would be the case for the suggestions I just made) then the workers would likely defend themselves.
But if the workers aren&#39;t being attacked, then why is there a need for an overthrow? If you&#39;re trying to take property from someone else, then assuming it hadn&#39;t been taken from you previously, then aren&#39;t you the one being aggressive?

I know you will claim this is very subjective, but put it like this, merely existing does not mean that one would be sent to the gulags. Trying to hold onto "property," especially factories and the likes would result in the use of force.
But that assumes, as a primary, that your claim to the property is legitimate. I&#39;m not convinced.

[CCCPneubauten]

Back to violence...

Contrary to a common misconception, Mussolini did not become prime minister because of the March on Rome. King, Victor Emmanuel III, knew that if he did not choose a government under either the Fascist or Socialist party, Italy would soon be involved in a civil war. Accordingly, he asked Mussolini to become Prime Minister, obviating the need for the March on Rome. However, because fascists were already arriving from all around Italy, he decided to continue. In effect, the threatened seizure of power became nothing more than a victory parade.

Mussolini&#39;s Fascist state, established nearly a decade before Adolf Hitler&#39;s rise to power, would provide a model for Hitler&#39;s later economic and political policies. Both a movement and a historical phenomenon, Italian Fascism was, in many respects, an adverse reaction to both the perceived failure of laissez-faire economics and fear of international Bolshevism (a short-lived Soviet influence was established in Bavaria just about this time), although trends in intellectual history, such as the breakdown of positivism and the general fatalism of postwar Europe were also factors. Fascism was a product of a general feeling of anxiety and fear among the middle-class of postwar Italy, arising out of a convergence of interrelated economic, political, and cultural pressures. Italy had no long-term tradition of parliamentary compromise, and public discourse took on an inflammatory tone on all sides.

Under the banner of this authoritarian and nationalist ideology, Mussolini was able to exploit fears in an era in which postwar depression, the rise of a more militant left, and a feeling of national shame and humiliation stemming from its &#39;mutilated victory&#39; at the hands of the World War I peace treaties seemed to converge. Italian influence in the Aegean and abroad seemed impotent and disregarded by the greater powers, and Italy lacked colonies. Such unfulfilled nationalistic aspirations tainted the reputation of liberalism and constitutionalism among many sectors of the Italian population. In addition, such democratic institutions had never grown to become firmly rooted in the young nation-state. And as the same postwar depression heightened the allure of Marxism among an urban proletariat even more disenfranchised than their continental counterparts, fear regarding the growing strength of trade unionism, communism, and socialism proliferated among the elite and the middle class.

In this fluid situation, Mussolini took advantage of the opportunity and, rapidly abandoning the early socialist and republican program, put himself at the service of the antisocialist cause. The fascist militias, supported by the wealthy classes and by a large part of the state apparatus which saw in him the restorer of order, launched a violent offensive against the syndicalists and all political parties of a socialist or Catholic inspiration, particularly in the north of Italy (Emilia Romagna, Toscana, etc.), causing numerous victims though the substantial indifference of the forces of order. These acts of violence were, in large part, provoked by fascist squadristi who were increasingly and openly supported by Dino Grandi, the only real competitor to Mussolini for the leadership of the fascist party until the Congress of Rome in 1921. [1]

The violence increased considerably during the period from 1920-1922 until the March on Rome. Confronted by these badly armed and badly organized fascist militias attacking the Capital, King Victor Emmanuel III, preferring to avoid any spilling of blood, decided to appoint Mussolini, who at that moment had the support of about 22 deputies in Parliament, President of the Council. Victor Emmanuel continued to maintain control of the armed forces: if he had wanted to, he would have had no difficulties in booting Mussolini and the completely inferior fascist forces out of Rome. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to Mussolini&#39;s rise as a "coup d&#39;etat" since he obtained his post legally with the blessing of the sovereign of the nation.

As Prime Minister, the first years of Mussolini&#39;s reign were characterized by a coalition government composed of nationalists, liberals and populists and did not assume dictatorial connotations until the assassination of Matteotti. In domestic politics, Mussolini favoured the complete restoration of State authority, with the integration of the Fasci di Combattimento into the armed forces (the foundation in January 1923 of the Milizia Voluntaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) and the progressive identification of the Party with the State. In political and social economy, he emanated legislation that favoured the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes (privatizations, liberalizations of rent laws and dismantlement of the unions).

In June of 1923, a new majoritarian electoral law was approved which assigned two thirds of the seats in Parliament to the coalition which had obtained at least 25% of the votes. This law was punctually applied in the elections of April 6, 1924, in which the fascist "listone" obtained an extraordinary success, aided by the use of shenanigans, violence and intimidatory tactics against opponents.

The assassination of the socialist deputy Giacomo Matteotti, who had requested the annulment of the elections because of the irregularities committed, provoked a momentary crisis of the Mussolini government. The weak response of the opposition (the secession of the Aventine), incapable of transforming their posturing into a mass antifascist action, was not sufficient to distance the ruling classes and the Monarchy from Mussolini who, on 3 January 1925, broke open the floodgates and, in a famous discourse in which he took upon himself all of the responsibility for the assassination of Matteoti and the other squadrist violence, proclaimed a de facto dictatorship, suppressing every residual liberty and completing the identification of the Fascist Party with the State.

From 1925 until the middle of the 1930&#39;s, fascism experienced little and isolated opposition, although that which it experienced was memorable, consisting in large part of communists such as Antonio Gramsci, socialists such as Pietro Nenni and liberals such as Piero Gobetti and Giovanni Amendola.

I figured the Wiki&#39;d have a nice article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini)

The March of Rome didn&#39;t get ol&#39; Benny jack squat. Nor did the Beer Hall get Hitler anything. MAybe some jail time and time to write his crap.

Back to Hitler...ummm...yeahhh...his party kinda had to at first work with other parties to even get stuff DONE....

On election day, 6 March, the NSDAP increased its result to 43.9% of the vote, remaining the largest party, but this success was marred by its failure to secure an absolute majority. Hence, Hitler had to maintain his coalition with the DNVP, which jointly had gained a slim majority.

Electoral politics were used in fascist movements. To say only violence was used is silly and ignoring history.

-_-

Using violence for political gain is nothing new, and it happens with quite a bit of political parties it seems.