What have you said? Free market do you prefer? You nazist!

[SurlyPIG]

What exactly is wrong with the two-dimensional political scale that I presented (and which was created by experts from The Political Compass, by the way)?

I see four problems:

1. Have you seen the test for that thing? It's ridiculous...

2. They call the far economic right "Neo-liberalism"

3. Fascism is actually not the top, but the top-right.

4. Communism is not the left, but the top-left.

^IMHO, of course...^

[Edric O]

1. Ummm... can you give me any examples? I didn't see anything even remotely "ridiculous"...

2. That's what the economic right is usually called in Europe. Remember, the term "liberal" has different meanings in Europe as opposed to America.

3. Not necessarely. Fascism can be anywhere along the top.

4. Wrong. In reality, stalinism is the top-left. Communism is the middle-left, and anarcho-communism is the bottom-left.

Take me for example: I'm in the libertarian left, with a score of -6.71 on the social scale (and a perfect -10 on the economic one). And I'm a communist, despite not being anywhere near the top-left corner.

[SurlyPIG]

1. I will entirely ignore the many questions that are grossly aimed in one direction and jump right into the swill:

"Some racial groups are inherently superior to others"

"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."

"First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country."

"Significantly physically disabled people should not be allowed to reproduce."

How can one possibly trust the results of the test, given these absurd questions? I also remember one that appeared to have been replaced or removed that was something like "Surely Jews have to take some responsibility for their treatment over the past century." On top of that the left-right scale is extremely biased right. I remember that even emprworm was a -2.00.

2. Fair enough. I had considered that since I know the test is British but since it was a total opposite I didn't see it as very likely.

3. I have always heard Fasciscm defined as the advancement of society at the cost of a growing number of miserable people. The compass defines it as an Authoritarian direction, which, though Fascism is very Authoritarian, is completely unrelated. Fascism is not a concept or direction on the compass, it is a construct; a point on the compass that should be in the top right.

4. Wrong. In reality, stalinism is the top-left. Communism is the middle-left, and anarcho-communism is the bottom-left.

Take me for example: I'm in the libertarian left, with a score of -6.71 on the social scale (and a perfect -10 on the economic one). And I'm a communist, despite not being anywhere near the top-left corner.

Well, you are an anomalous Communist. Your position on the scale is more of a hardcore socialist, to me. There has never been a Communist government that was libertarian, not by a long shot. Just think of them all; USSR, China, N. Korea, (formerly) Cambodia etc. All of them completley controlled the lives of the people and were essentially totalitarian, the very extreme of authoritarianism.

[Edric O]

1. What exactly is the problem with those questions? Some people have absurd views, therefore absurd questions are needed for them. Just go to an ultra-racist/neo-nazi site and you'll find plenty of people who would answer "strongly agree" to such things.

I don't think the scale is biased. It may be that you (or Emprworm) simply did not realize that you're not as right-wing as you think you are. Emprworm may be supporting Bush and all that, but when it came to him describing his idea of a perfect system, it sounded pretty left-wing to me. (there was a topic he made about it, a loooooong time ago)

2. Good, so we've sorted this one out.

3. Well, in that case, you and the compass are simply using two different definitions of "fascism", just like you're using two different definitions of "liberalism". The compass probably defines it as "an extremely authoritarian/totalitarian system, in which the state assumes full control over every aspect of people's lives".

4. Let me ask you something, Ace: How many communists have you actually met? ;)

Most of us - the VAST majority, in fact - are libertarians. Karl Marx himself was technically a libertarian, seeing how he envisioned communism as a system in which the state "withers away" and is replaced by a free association of people in communities (or communes).

As for "communist governments", you must remember that not only has there never been an actual communist government, but there can never be one, because the phrase "communist government" is in itself an oxymoron. Communism is a system in which there is no government in the modern sense of the word.

The extreme authoritarian leftists are usually called "stalinists" (for lack of a better term) and most communists have seen them as traitors for over 60 years.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, the religious statement of Marx is for me very dangerous. In my teaching book of marxism-leninism it has own chapter, wonder why it was so important.

Marx said about religion as "opium", how we opium see. It is a drug, emptying our soul, what distract us from the main cause, the salvation. Marx showed a new system, the communism, which can be hegelianistically defined as a way to reach the salvation on this world. Same thoughts were even before, Platon's state is very close to it. Problem of Marx is same as that one found by Aristoteles: it lacks our own soul. We won't need it, when the system will do everything for us. People won't need to do (creativelly) anything in short time, they will perish like in Capek's RUR, from own pasivity. We can mask ourselves behind technocracy for a short time, but that won't feed us spiritually. Marx thought that religion distracts us from reaching the utopia. Many christian socialists were because of it fighting against fanatical religiosity.

See the way of "freeing" us from capitalism: only way is to restrict use of money, wealth. Capitalism isn't thing, where can be active only small group of people, it's based on work of millions, anyone who want to be active. In his own way. Chaos on the first sign, but in fact fascinating order, when it is in borders of law. As well as communism needs first a chaotic revolutionar stage, capitalism needs an evolutionar stage of creating a sufficient law system. It takes much more time, that's why so many new countries experimented with commie revolutions. Act of impatiency costs much.

Revolution itself isn't as utopical as you think. Most are made by army, about which everybody thinks as an apolitical organisation, so it's for them the best workhorse. However, revolution isn't show of democracy, but anarchy without law. Sooner or later people will need law again, but then they will elect anyone with enough charisma (or dreadfulness) to place it.

1. Ok, let's clear it. Many people were trying to make a map of human mind to predict their acts. However, it isn't so simple. On every aspect of life we put our own view, which can be defined by a simple word like "leftism". Politics are (besides religions) most difficult for such mapping. First there were from today's view same ways in whole world. Bigger difference was between the making of politics itself, not effects. There were followers of Li Sun-C' and Macchiavelli, difference was that one was more imperial and cared more for waiting for the "right battleground", next more opportunistic. Now we've made a new scale of right and left, based on effects. How? As I've said once, communists of the last century were many times taking deeds of others, which they considered as leftist comrades and calling a "fascist" all their enemies, just because they were against their "left" side.

When we look at it second time, we can say one way is more socialistic, other more individualistic. But as you see, it is not sufficient, after we've seen individualistic socialisms: authocracies, where the ruler sits on the throne of social welfare for his people. Even Lenin ruled. Maybe he would perish once as a big brother, but that doesn't change the fact, that 1984, without rulers, was a correct utopic horror. When the Party perishes, people will remain with all her laws: collectivity, but also hostility to kulaks.

2. Don't try to simplify it. Proof is seen in every your post.

[Edric O]

Well, the religious statement of Marx is for me very dangerous. In my teaching book of marxism-leninism it has own chapter, wonder why it was so important.

Karl Marx wasn't just an economist, Caid. He was also a philosopher. And as such, he was naturally interested in the matter of religion. However, this is pure philosophy, and it has nothing to do with the political or economical system of communism.

Marx was very anti-religious, of course, but he always said that religion would "fade away" on its own, and never advocated any action against the freedom of religion. Stalinist dictators only made a big deal about marxist atheism because it was a convenient excuse to remove one of the biggest threats to their power.

Oh, and one more thing: stop calling ideas "dangerous". It makes you sound like a fundamentalist who wants to restrict freedom of speech.

See the way of "freeing" us from capitalism: only way is to restrict use of money, wealth. Capitalism isn't thing, where can be active only small group of people, it's based on work of millions, anyone who want to be active. In his own way. Chaos on the first sign, but in fact fascinating order, when it is in borders of law. As well as communism needs first a chaotic revolutionar stage, capitalism needs an evolutionar stage of creating a sufficient law system. It takes much more time, that's why so many new countries experimented with commie revolutions. Act of impatiency costs much.

"Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations."

- Karl Marx

Capitalism, like any other system, can be adopted through both evolution AND revolution. There have been plenty of capitalist revolutions in history, and some of them happened only 14 years ago. So don't lie to yourself by saying that revolutions are a purely communist matter.

But you're right about one thing: Being impatient can cost you much. For example, the fall of stalinism in 1989. The people could have had a communist revolution to overthrow the dictators and install true socialism. But instead, they chose to allow themselves to be dragged into capitalism, believing this to be their salvation. The result was that they replaced one type of oppression with another.

Revolution itself isn't as utopical as you think. Most are made by army, about which everybody thinks as an apolitical organisation, so it's for them the best workhorse. However, revolution isn't show of democracy, but anarchy without law. Sooner or later people will need law again, but then they will elect anyone with enough charisma (or dreadfulness) to place it.

You're not using the word "revolution" correctly. A revolution is a popular uprising, in which the people overthrow (or attempt to overthrow) the government. If it's done by the army, then it isn't a revolution - it's a coup d'

[Caid Ivik]

This was always a hard point of free speech: does it allow even publications against it? Hitler took the power by democratic elections, process of communisation of Czechoslovakia was started by (legal) commie victory in Czech half too. Fact is, that here Marx defines totality, what makes him a father of 20th century modern tyranies.

Communist revolution against communism? ::) As you could see, capitalism placed by revolution wasn't very succesful. In Slovakia, we've seen benefits a decade later - by (nearly) peaceful social evolution.

How would you describe Franco's or Castro's revolution? Both had armies on their backs (Franco was a general, so here it is usual...), but also a masses of civilians. Military can be a servant for such people interests.

1. I've said that we don't need 2-dimensional scale, because it has no more effects. You can't place nazism (national socialism) there as well as on 1-dimensional scale, so it's instantly obsolete. By the way, do you want to say, that Lenin had no power?

2. As I've defined your style, it seems propagandistic. Taking much place, shortening, underlining the mottos, without writing some deeper explanations (example: "Communism is NOT meant to control all aspects of life").

[Edric O]

If you claim to support "free speech", but you don't allow people to say anything against your system, then you're a hypocrite.

And spreading lies about Marx while at the same time accusing ME of propaganda also makes you a hypocrite. When you claim that someone was the father of something, you should also prove it.

Also, since the pre-1989 regimes in Eastern Europe were stalinist, not communist, what I suggested was that it would have been a good idea to have communist revolutions against stalinism. However, that was made impossible by the stalinist propaganda, which managed to convince people that they were living in communism, when in fact they were obviously not. So there was a popular backlash against communism, instead of against stalinism.

About the rise to power of Franco or Castro, it's really hard to tell whether they had revolutions or coups. I suppose you could say that in both cases it was a combination of the two.

1. Oh yes you can. In fact, if you actually looked at the pictures I've posted, you would have noticed that Hitler's political position can be accurately determined on the two-dimensional scale. On the other hand, placing Hitler on your one-dimensional scale is almost impossible, because you end up with ridiculous results (Hitler in the same place with Tony Blair, or something equally absurd).

As for Lenin, of course he had power, but no more than any modern president would have during wartime (after all, Russia was repeatedly invaded by foreign powers in those years).

By the way, I fixed the link to the 1918 Constitution of Russia in my previous post. Sorry for keeping you waiting.

2. Really? And what kind of "deeper explanation" do you need? Do you have trouble understanding simple sentences? ::)

And before you accuse me of not explaining things enough, notice that my posts are always much longer than yours.

[Caid Ivik]

So, you don't agree with anti-fascistic laws? This is a big dilemma, I would like to hear your reaction to this:

1. Die Fahne hoch

Die Reihen fest geschlossen

S.A. marschiert

Mit ruhig festem Schritt

|: Kam'raden die Rotfront

Und Reaktion erschossen

Marschier'n im Geist

In unsern Reihen mit :|

2. Die Stra

[Edric O]

So, you don't agree with anti-fascistic laws? This is a big dilemma, I would like to hear your reaction to this:

[followed by lyrics of a SA march]

Even though I personally find it to be utterly disgusting, it is their right to express their opinions. As long as they are not violent, it would be a violation of human rights if you took any action against them.

But I'm not surprised that you are so eager to silence the opposition, Caid. After all, the conservative version of "free speech" is "you have the right to say anything you want as long as it doesn't contradict us". ::)

Well, you've said that I lie with Marx' totality thinking. To be sure, I can't lie, when I don't really know what he thought, what I've said was a hypothesis. Talking about religion as an enemy to communism looks for me (and not only me), like he wants his system to take over religion's role. You can be against it, but can hypothesis be a lie?

So, in other words, that's just your opinion. Well, you should have said so from the start!

It's your right to have any opinion you wish. Just don't try to present it as fact when it's obviously not.

But let me ask you something: If communism is against religion, then how do you explain the fact that people like me exist? After all, I'm a Christian Communist.

As well, as I support hypothesis about stalinistical "dictature of (or for?) proletariate", that it is normal derivate of Marx' and Lenin's way. Life is practice, not theory... Even Marx' work was a hypothesis, maybe following his instructions is always doomed to end like this. Stalin came to power by Party, which took power by communist revolution. Link is visible by anyone, and then we have no place to whine like Trockij.

So you're saying that because one system (communism) allowed another system (stalinism) to take power, that means that the two systems are the same, right?

But in the same way, capitalist democracy allowed nazism to take power. Does that mean that democracy and nazism are the same?

If Stalin was a communist, then Hitler was a democratic leader... ::)

1. Same with 2-dimensional scale. Social welfare in Germany was very good and improving (what would put him to left), but also nationalistic and racistic policies were hold (considered as extreme right). Same with i.e. today's belarusian president Lukasenko. Or our former premier Meciar. His HZDS made an oligarchic government style, heavily debting state to make highways and increase social welfare. With actions against foreign investors. Where would you put this one? Right-left scale isn't usable, it is obsolete.

No, the right-left scale is simply not enough. And that is why we need the second scale (authoritarian-libertarian).

Let me explain Hitler's position:

It's true that Hitler took steps to improve social welfare and decrease unemployment. That pushes him to the left. But then again, you must remember that Hitler also banned trade unions and arrested their leaders, not to mention making political alliances with the conservatives and with rich capitalist businessmen. That pushes him to the right. So in the end we have a balance, and Hitler is a centrist with a slight leaning towards the right.

But Hitler's extremism is clearly visible on the second scale. He was a racist, an anti-semite and an ultra-nationalist. That makes him an extreme authoritarian.

2. Maybe because you press enter rather more often ;) But I wouldn't say that it is enough argument when you say just "No, you are lying!". That's a way of Goebbels.

I'm sick of this. You'll never admit to be wrong. Let's just let our arguments speak for themselves, okay?

[Caid Ivik]

You can speak anything (publically) until it doesn't contradict the fact you can speak anything. I think this is a logical, we have antifascist laws. In Hungary, you can be punished for even making a signs of swastika, teutonic cross, arrow cross, hammer with scythe and red star. And they have socialist government now...

Many points I've said are derived from things I read, as I prefer conservative democrats and czech dissenters of the 1948-1989 era. Hypothesis about evolution of socialistic revolutionar process to a totalitarian dictature was predicted even before Lenin, altough I can't remember now by whom. Classical neutral democracy might allow as well nazism as well as any other totality, like communism. That's why full liberty can't be reached and we need antifascist and anticommunist laws, balancing the political scene without extremists.

Fact is that you are an utopian, who has still some believe in higher principes. I have two conclusions: you are a gnostic, who tries to find a way of creating a Holy Kingdom already on Earth, like Calvin. Problem is that makes you a heretic and utopy needs agreement of all, not only majority. Other conclusion is that you aren't as fanatical as you try to seem, and you are a usual social democrat.

Racism isn't authoritarian, it is xenophobic. Hitler, as a demagogue, tried to find a "common enemy", one of the primary targets of totalitarians. Marx found a nice one in "capitalists", Fortuyn, which was much more liberal than our politics, found them in "immigrants". Racism is a show of extremism, and that's a scale, which many people don't WANT to accept.

And better are distracting with repeating one thing, altough it was about thousand times described before, am I true, EdricO?

[Edric O]

LOL, I'm being called a heretic and a threat to national security! Thank you, Caid, I'm flattered! :)

Of course, capitalists give the name "extremist" to anyone who seriously endangers their grip on power, regardless of what ideas the "extremist" actually supports. The truth is that one system's extremist is another system's centrist. Communism is not an "extreme" of capitalism. It is a different system altogether.

By the way, Caid, I was just wondering: If you want to have anti-communist laws in your capitalist country, then don't whine and complain about anti-capitalist laws adopted by communist countries!

You want to play dirty? Fine. But then don't expect us to play clean.

Now, about the other points you made in your post:

How does the fact that an event had been accurately predicted change anything about the event iself? The rise of nazism was predicted too, you know. In fact, with so many people trying to predict things, it's hard for ANY historical event to not be predicted by anyone.

But the fact remains that stalinism was to communism what nazism was to capitalism. Both stalinism and nazism were a sort of "parasites" which took control over communism and capitalism due to a number of coincidences and historical circumstances. But capitalism was lucky, because nazism had only taken control of ONE of the many capitalist countries. Communism had no such luck. In the 1920's, there were no other communist countries besides the one which was taken over by stalinism.

And for the millionth time, Caid, I need to remind you that communism is NOT some sort of "impossible utopia" (as the capitalist apologists try to make you believe). It is a concrete economic system. And if you actually read any Marx or Lenin or Trotsky, you would know what I'm talking about.

I don't think Marx had to make any effort to make the working class realize that the capitalists were oppressing and exploiting them. Seeing how most people were living in dirty, crowded city slums and barely keeping themselves alive with the tiny wages that the capitalists paid them, I think it was all pretty obvious.

As for racism, the fact is that any racist attitude must be authoritarian. Why? Because you need to have the authority to claim that your race/nationality/whatever is better than others. And you need to have the authority to oppress those "others". Racism is one of the things that can make someone an authoritarian.

[Caid Ivik]

Romania was always rather hostile to Hungary ::) Hungary was hardly oppressed by Russian communism, especially in times of Chruscov, so I don't think their fear of totalities is unjust.

So, let's see. You call capitalist anyone who prefers a free market. For communist it may be a disgusting, reactional, primitive form of resource handling. Let's take for example ancient Greece. We have horribly capitalist Athens, naval superpower, which made colonies over whole (known) world and ate all of their resources. Some of their lords were enough daring to call other people to agree them as limited lords of the whole city. Then came a revolution led by hero of people Peisitratos, which freed people in colonies from evil market with Athens. No matter that Peisitratos started exucuting his opponents and today is compared to other tyrans like Napoleon or Stalin.

But what he really made good was that he pushed Athens closer to paradise city of Sparta. In Sparta was everything shared, sometimes they tried to use Platon's radical form, sharing women and children. Weapons were not only in hands of the wealthiest, there were minimal differences between classes. Even women were emancipated. And over them were military lords, caring for their common good. Their mighty champions of equality heroically crushed capitalistic Athens and cut Greece off from their oppressed colonies (no matter they were quickly stormed by barbarians).

What did Marx predicted? Revolutions in industrialized capitalistic countries. Here we can put Germany, Great Britain, France, Austria, Italy Czechoslovakia and USA. Rosa Luxembourg made a small revolt in Germany, but unsuccesfully. Then we have national socialists, but these took power by elections, not a proletar revolution. In Britain we had Labour Party, altough it isn't presenter of hardcore proletarian dictature, as well as it was in times of Marx' life, so it is no prophecy. France, well here I don't see an activity since Paris Commune, revolution started against german occupants. Austria was hit by national socialists of Seyss-Inhart, but these were also elected, as in germany. Italy fell into revolution by Garibaldi, to be sure imperialistic attack of Sardinia against Austria, Papacy and France, then fascistical dictature of Mussolini, which had some social thoughts and really rallied a proletariate, but state has showed no signs of weakening. Czechoslovakia was lost to nationalistic tendencies, after war we've ELECTED communists. And USA? Well, I don't think there are no commies, just it seems there is no need for them...

The practice of racism can be done even without authority. Russia in 19th century was a place of one of the worst antisemitist storms, without command from Kreml. People had lust for their wealth, so they took cudgels and beat them. Racism DOESN'T NEED a support from state, have you ever seen a skinhead?

[Edric O]

Pathetic nationalist strife (as the one between Romania and Hungary in the past - or between Slovakia and Hungary, for that matter) does not concern me. I care about the good of ALL human beings.

Also, Caid, the free market IS capitalism. How on Earth can you have a free market without capitalism??

And I find it really funny that you started talking about ancient Greece, seeing how that was a pre-industrial society with a political climate very different from our own. In human history, there have been HUNDREDS (maybe even thousands) of leaders who fought for the liberation of the people. Some of them were true heroes who brought freedom and justice to their people, while others were obviously not. From what you told me about Peisitratos, it seems that he was part of the second group. (actually, I never heard of him before, but I'll take your word for it)

As for Sparta, are you really that ignorant about it or just pretending? About 90% of Sparta's population was made up of slaves (known as helots). You call THAT "equality" and "minimal differences between classes"??

Now about Marx: He predicted that proletarian revolutions would eventually overthrow capitalism and replace capitalist oppression and exploitation with a free socialist economy. However, this will only happen once capitalism reaches the natural limit of its expansion and begins to fall into decadence. Normally, this should have taken place in the early 20th century. But then the capitalists saved themselves (for a while) through something that Marx could not have predicted: globalisation. The process of globalisation has greatly extended the lifetime of capitalism. But even this extension has its limits. Eventually, globalisation will be complete, and capitalism will have nowhere left to run.

Also, it seems that your knowledge of history has more holes than swiss cheese...

First of all, national "socialists" absolutely HATED marxism, and they

slaughtered millions of communists and socialists. And so did Mussolini and the other fascist murderers.

(by the way, I have already made a topic about the way in which the nazis teamed up with the conservatives to destroy communism)

Second of all, there were many communist uprisings in Europe between the two World Wars, starting even before World War 1 actually ended. WW1 had been started by the imperialist ambitions of various European capitalists, and the communists made immense efforts in the years before the war to stop the rising tide of nationalism accross Europe. But they failed, and the war began. Later, as more and more people finally understood the horrors of war, the international communist movement grew larger than it had ever been. Communists struggled to end the war, and Communist Parties were very strong in all European countries during the whole inter-war period.

Finally, about racism: Yes, of course that you can be a racist without being an authoritarian, but a racist government is also an authoritarian government (or, at least, more authoritarian than it would be if it weren't racist). That is why, in politics, racism and authoritarianism go hand in hand.

Besides, this whole argument about racism started from a discussion about Hitler. And in his case there can be no doubt. He was a racist and an extreme authoritarian.

[Dude_Doc]

First of all, national "socialists" absolutely HATED marxism, and they

slaughtered millions of communists and socialists. And so did Mussolini and the other fascist murderers.

Hmm... what I have heard, fascism didn't kill anyone, nazism did. Do you have any sources?

[nemafakei]

"there were minimal differences between classes"

Ah, yes, and a Spartan General and a helot had almost no difference between them... Hmph!

The analogy is serverely limited by different styles of politics and different issues and divisions within ideas.

[Edric O]

Hmm... what I have heard, fascism didn't kill anyone, nazism did. Do you have any sources?

What you must have heard was that fascism didn't kill anyone for racial reasons. Fascists were usually not racists. But they did kill a whole lot of people for OTHER reasons...

I don't know any websites specifically dedicated to the murders of non-nazi fascism, but you can find informations about them in just about every article on European history between the two World Wars.

[Caid Ivik]

"there were minimal differences between classes"

Ah, yes, and a Spartan General and a helot had almost no difference between them... Hmph!

The analogy is serverely limited by different styles of politics and different issues and divisions within ideas.

My feytone wasn't including the question of slavery. If I would, then whole civilisation of ancient Greece can't give us any example.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I ment there were differences in view over some values, but think as you wish. Question of slavery was hold in my previous post, view on human life of foreign people was rather else than today. This was a magnificient way to get out from the point. Quoting you, Goebbels would be proud of you ;D

In next part we see that Marx was unable to accept the fact world will find the capitalism as a better system. I can't believe he was so blind to not see what was done in colonies. Altough today are colonies independent, they also found out that they aren't able to produce everything, so it is better and more beneficial to trade with more industrialized countries. Better quality of imported products hastes native producers, in eastern Europe we can see it mostly, on Far East it leads their economy. Result? Happy citizens, which can choose from various scale of products for their needs. One commie told me: "Capitalism is a nonsense, you have twenty products for same use." I replied: "What's bad on it? Look, you have Tiberian Sun, Total Annihilation, Red Alert and much more. How many would be in communism?" Maybe the world seems childish with it: but never take favorite toy from a kid, or it will cry.

When I buy Ementaller, imported by roads of globalized economy, I choose the one without holes. Am I greedy? No, just practical.

But now, we reach other generalisation: your popular saying of millions (in italic) of communists slaughtered by nazists. Ha, how pathetic to think that such number of people believes in same nonsense ;D NOT every Russian was a communist, 1941-1945 is called Great Patriotic, not Great Communistic, or better, Great-Antinazist War. Make a thread about Mussolini's socialistic past, alliances with Red Brigades in early 20s and their common partisan war against capitalist intruders in 1943. Now nationalism. First, I don't think anarchists of the serbian Black Hand cared for capitalism, as well as german emperor Wilhelm II. (in fact, most historians underline influence of Ludendorff and other socialists in his reign), but as you wish. Marxists haven't started, so only capitalists remain ::) Now, war spreads and people become more and more poor. Every politological analysis can show, that poorness is a feeding ground for demagogues. They offer peace, justice and wealth, so they rally people for their own plans of seizing the throne. Then we have dreadlords like Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, building their "socialistic paradises" - or better, sophisticated war machines with thousands of slaves supporting the Revolution.

I can call that FIDESZ slovacophob Orban also a racist but his government was so liberal as czech Liberal Erotic Movement (that's not a joke!). Not every racist means Hitler. Hitler was national socialist, as first...

[Edric O]

You cannot simply ignore the subject of slavery in ancient Greece, because their whole economy was based on slave labour. Looking at only a small part of a society (like the free people in Greece) and then commenting on the whole society based on just that small part is really quite ridiculous...

The fact that "Marx was unable to accept the fact world will find the capitalism as a better system" might have something to do with all the deaths, all the suffering and all the pain caused by capitalism. In Marx's time, just like today, tens of millions of people were starving because of capitalism. The only difference between those times and the present day is that the suffering has moved due to globalisation.

Ex-colonies don't trade with rich western countries on equal terms. They are engulfed in massive debts, and they are forced to pay never-ending interest.

And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call the 1 billion people who suffer from hunger "happy citizens"... ::)

Eastern Europe itself has seen a dramatic fall in living standards, life expectancy and buying power since the collapse of stalinism. We might be more free now, but freedom can't make up for all the poverty caused by capitalism.

Of course, the best option is to have a socialist economy AND personal and political freedom. This is what real communism is all about.

And the problem with capitalism is not that it creates lots of different products who are used for the same thing, but that it uses resources in a wasteful and almost totally random manner. In other words, the problem is not that we have lots of high-tech computer games, but the fact that we have them while millions of people are starving.

Who said anything about World War 2 and Russian communists? I was talking about the millions of GERMAN and ITALIAN communists slaughtered by Hitler and Mussolini! The KPD (German Communist Party) alone had over 6 million supporters when Hitler came to power!

As for Mussolini's relationship with communist partisans: Yes, it was a very special one... Communist partisans were the ones who captured and executed Mussolini!

And finally, you mention the fact that extreme poverty often causes revolutionary fervor and feeds the growth of "extremist" political parties and factions. Yes, this is perfectly true. But tell me, WHO caused the extreme poverty that helped Hitler get into power? And who caused the extreme poverty that lead to the rise of Mussolini? The capitalist governments that ruled Germany and Italy before all that happened.

[Caid Ivik]

Slavery can be changed for industrialization, technology in modern world. In those times were slaves humans, today we have machines.

Marx saw capitalism as a system equal to communism. Like its pure negation, black vs.white. But I think he was wrong here. Capitalism isn't so totalistic as communism, that word can define economy, but not all aspects of politics and society. Communism has its straight definition, commandements for leading politics as well as economics, philosophy, dogmatism, in short, coherent form. All these capitalism lacks. Capitalism can be preferred by any government, democratical or authocratical, even in state preferring social welfare. And when we see productivity of capitalism in relatively lawful enviroment, it is much more productive. Those starving millions doesn't live in very lawful countries. Same can we see in many countries of eastern Europe. Not saying that Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Kazachstan and Caucasus countries haven't made all needed reforms, they aren't even freed from their rather oligarchic government. Don't look at failures; let failure looks at succes.

Is word "starving" gramatically correct to be written in italics? I can read even without it. But problem of starving is diagnostized. About "wasteful" using of resources I wouldn't be so sure, you know, population is rising. Also there are things like half of capitalist EU government money is going to support poorer countries. What's many times also wasted; directly to the hands of native military rulers.

Most people joined the NSDAP after Hitler's rise to power. To be sure, with economy he made, well, good work, at least from those day's view. Everyone had work, and still were proud of progress of their nation, so for what we should need commies then? Or do you claim that 6 million hardcore communists fought to death against nazism and then were all murdered? Mussolini even made a coalition with them! You know, very dark red blood, his father was a leader of anarchists in Forli... Mussolini was captured by Americans, to be sure, political views of their soldiers weren't usually publically known. But if you have better sources about US Army, then I have no words.

As you end up as always with happy finding a clue to World Capitalist Conspiracy Network, I end up again with laugh...

[Edric O]

Ancient slavery and modern capitalism are two fundamentally different economic systems. It's not that one uses human slaves and the other uses "machine slaves". You can have capitalism without machines. And slave labour hasn't been replaced by machines. It has been replaced by wage labour. Machines don't reduce the need for human workers. They just shift that need: instead of people who work with their hands, we need people who work with their minds.

Of course, it is theoretically possible to have a system in which machines do all the work and humans just reap the benefits. But that with require the existence of thinking machines who can do all the thinking for us.

And if the machines could think, they might not like being slaves. They could read some Marx or Lenin or Trotsky, and convert to communism. ;D Then you'd have a communist machine revolution. :)

Karl Marx saw communism as the next step in the evolution of human society. It's not an alternative to capitalism, it is the system that comes after capitalism. And the "coherent form" that you're talking about is a strict definition of the way to get to communism, not of communism itself. Communism itself can only be given a very loose definition, just like capitalism. That description is as follows: Communism is the economical system in which all means of production are the public property of all the people, and in which the government either doesn't exist (i.e. people live in small communes) or it is fully controlled by the people.

That's all there is to it. Like I said, it's a very loose definition. There can be many different types of communism.

The reason why most capitalist countries are dirt poor and only a few are rich is the same reason why most people are poor and only a few are rich inside any capitalist country: because capitalism NEEDS a large mass of poor people/countries, who must outnumber the rich.

Rather than giving aid to poor countries, we should stop stealing from them. Of course, if we stop stealing from them AND we give them aid, they will get back on their feet much faster.

And as a side note, I think it would be far more effective if we gave aid in the form of physical goods and sent UN troops to guard it, than if we gave aid in the form of money and it all ended up in various warlords' bank accounts.

As for the communists in Germany, I need to remind you that those 6 million were the people who voted for the Communist Party, not the actual party members. Most of the voters probably "changed their minds" (*cough* *cough*) soon after the nazis took power, but the party members themselves were thrown in jail and/or murdered, along with their supporters who refused to "change their minds".

Mussolini captured by Americans? What are you talking about? He was captured by Italian communist partisans on April 28, 1945, while trying to escape to Switzerland!

And speaking of Mussolini, here's an interesting quote by him:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

- Benito Mussolini

And I won't let you get away with ignoring yet another historical truth: The governments of Italy and Germany were capitalist before the fascists took power. Everyone knows that. Their capitalist systems caused the massive poverty that got the fascists into power.

[Caid Ivik]

You can't have modern industrial capitalism without technology or slavery. See how many things depend on energy, mass resource distribution or other such systems. Still, some work, (you are true that primarily coordinative) is done by humans. But the hardest things are provided by mechanized arms.

That's why every sci-fi writer is against AI development...

Then we have already achieved this great step of the evolution! Privatization of state's property, de facto controlled by dishumanized thing, brought property to PEOPLE! Today's capitalism IS on the economical basis SAME as communism! Just a few political steps are needed. And maybe a nuclear war to disrupt large cities...

People did not change their minds. They had nothing to change, nazists are only rather patriotistic communists.

You don't have to teach me what is fascism. Same system is in today's China, altough it is slightly less oppressive in internal market freedom. Fascism is a national socialism, where biggest importance is based on international trade of the state-firm. In core same communist way as other state forms of socialism. Your claim that Benito fell to commie hands is a nonsense. One american brigade with base in Milan deciphered his moving and attacked. Maybe they had some native volunteers, but kominternist "independent" partisans? That's a joke. But it is usual, we know why they haven't rather rescued our "bourgeois" generals in slovak uprising.

Benito Mussolini, heir of the great anarchocommunist dynasty, took power 4 years after world war. Italians fought the war rather longer, for next two years they were MPs or inteverntors in many other countries. State of economy isn't very good in any country after war, to be sure, USSR had in that time a hard famine...

[Edric O]

Yes, you're right about one thing: you can't have modern industrial capitalism without technology or slavery (or both). But capitalism doesn't necessarely have to be modern and industrial.

Privatization brought property to "the people"? Well, if by "the people" you mean "a handful of very rich and very powerful people", then you're right. Too bad it leaves the majority of the people biting the dust... (after all, that's what capitalism does best)

And was that comment of yours about the economical basis of communism and capitalism being "the same" meant to be sarcastic or not? Normally I'd think that you were smart enough to tell the difference between public property and private property, but now I'm starting to have doubts. Your latest motto seems to be "nazism is communism, communism is capitalism, we're all one big happy family!" ::)

And by the way, how about you go meet a real nazi and tell him your ideas about the nazis being just "patriotistic communists"? Then I can visit you in hospital. :)

Of course, your definition of a "communist" is any person who doesn't agree with you. I provided you with concrete definitions of communism and capitalism. But you just ignored them, even though the definition for capitalism was given by your fellow capitalists, and the definition for communism was given by Karl Marx himself. Instead, you'd rather just give labels of "capitalist" and "communist" to whoever you like, following no logical definition whatsoever.

And for your information, socialism involves complete public ownership over the means of production. Was this the case in Nazi Germany? No way. Private property was thriving, and most of the upper class business owners fully supported Hitler. A few minor left-wing reforms aren't enough to make someone "socialist", Caid. Not to mention the fact that the nazis abolished trade unions and allied themselves with the conservatives...

As for Mussolini: Like I said, Caid, you need to pay a little more attention in history class. There are hundreds of sources on the internet about Mussolini's death, and they all talk about the way he was captured and executed by Italian partisans. However, I had to make sure I found one that you couldn't possibly call a "commie site" (your usual way of denying anything you don't like). So here's an article from the British newspaper "The Guardian".

"Mussolini was captured on April 27 1945 as he tried to escape to Switzerland disguised as a German soldier in a German motorised column. They were stopped by partisans, who insisted on searching all the vehicles before allowing the Germans to proceed."

Is that enough for you, or do you want more?

And finally, I've got to thank you for making the joke of the century: You really believe that Benito Mussolini, the world's second most famous authoritarian right-winger, was in fact a libertarian left-winger (i.e. anarchocommunist)! Hahahahahaha!!! I'm waiting for the day when you'll say that George Bush is a communist and that Hitler was a Jewish anarchist... ::)

Here, let me give you another quote from Mussolini:

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."

- Benito Mussolini

Wow, I can see how much he "loved" socialism... ::)

[Caid Ivik]

OK, if you want so. But Marx (as well as me) is talking about "modern industrial" capitalism, am I true?

No! First wave of privatization was done by dividing firm's actions to minimal parts, so anyone with average income could afford some! Meciar's goverment here tried the oligarchic way with many darker sides, but you know why I didn't vote for him...

Having one common point doesn't mean we are a "family". But from this basis, Marx does not create nothing new. To make you clear what I am talking about, I've made a thread to open my soul, so search for answers of this problem there, I await your constructive comments:

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=34;action=display;threadid=11235

"Mussolini was captured on April 27 1945 as he tried to escape to Switzerland disguised as a German soldier in a German motorised column. They were stopped by partisans, who insisted on searching all the vehicles before allowing the Germans to proceed."

Partisans of the 101st Airborne... Why do you think that every irregular was a communist? Such things were washing our brains for fourty years, no matter that they were bourgeois generals Golian and Viest, who started actions here, for example.

Well, with Mussolini you can see that thinking does not end with reaching socialism. Fascism isn't nothing else than improvements of marxism, a system, which found out, that state is needed to ensure some things like security. Problem is that there are no limits for state, leading society to utopy. To be sure, Italy wasn't very hardly hit by terror like in Germany or Russia, were socialism spawned very likely systems.