All Hail the Glorious People's Revolution in Vietnam!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Accepting this principle, then, most, if not all, prior communist regimes are fascist because they all have been nationalist to one extent or another. Think of Ho Chi Minh, for example. He was a nationalist. Everyone says so.

You could say that. The state is suppose to wither away as it is not needed, but leaders of such nations like to hold on to their power. They use nationalism and militarism to hold that power. Democracy is really needed for communism to work.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Odin


And which is why Libertarians are morons.

[Ned]

Mr. Fun, they are excessively idealistic, almost like commies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. Fun, they are excessively idealistic, almost like commies.

There's a difference between idealistic and delusional.

[Sandman]

We are reduced then to what Imran said: fascism is about nationalism and is not about specifics of economic or social structures.

Accepting this principle, then, most, if not all, prior communist regimes are fascist because they all have been nationalist to one extent or another. Think of Ho Chi Minh, for example. He was a nationalist. Everyone says so.

Surely Stalin was a nationalist. He transformed WWII into the great patriotic war.

Again, you're acting as if economic structures are important. To a fascist, they're not. You are acting as if nationalism is some trifling detail, mere icing on the cake, over the real, economically-driven 'similarities'.

Your comment about social structures reveals ignorance about both fascism and communism.

Fascists are fanatically pro-family, and support exceptionally strong gender roles. For them, women exist almost purely to give birth and raise children. Communists tend to dislike the family, and are far more likely to have women working in traditionally male roles.

Fascists have a pragmatic approach to religion, much like their relationship with the economy. They may embrace it (especially if it's a national religion), tolerate it, subvert it or destroy it. Communists dislike religion and will always try to limit its influence as much as possible.

As for nationalism, for fascists it's the foundation for one's humanity, whilst for communists it's a useful political tool. Most, if not all, communist regimes have been internationalist to some extent or other. Doesn't that counter-balance their nationalism?

I think Kid and I are both more right in that when you begin restraining capitilism for the benefit of the common man, you are moving LEFT. The fascist states we knew did almost the same thing as the modern European socialist states in terms of their control of the economy for the common good -- I say almost, because fascism eliminated union power just as do communist states, by directly controling wages.

Now Spiffor wants to focus on individual liberty and ignore economic liberty. These are somewhat independent, in my view. One can have very conservative social values, for example, in communist states. Look at China, for example.

Mr. Fun wants to focus on the relationship of the common man to business. I do too. As one regulates business, and provides a safety net, one moves to the left because he is enhancing the economic liberty of the common man. But Nazi Germany certainly did this and thus was a leftist goverment, not a rightist government.

Your definition of left and right is an absurd rhetorical device designed to discredit European countries. It has nothing to do with the conventional meaning of left and right. Such word games might work on bottom-rung American conservatives, but they won't work on Europeans, since we actually live here, and the 'similarities' you have identified count for nothing.

It's rather like insisting that a serial killer and a philanthropist with a heart of gold are the 'same' since they both happen to wear practical, sensible clothes.

A couple of final points, which, like the rest of this reply, are unlikely to penetrate the thick murk that shrouds the Nedaverse. Firstly, fascists are quite willing to form cosy relationships with big business. You haven't addressed this at all, and will probably continue to harp on exclusively about their use of socialist policies.

Secondly, all EU members have capitalist economies. A few slivers of socialism don't alter that fact.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: All Hail the Glorious People's Revolution in Vietnam!

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, it was thirty years ago that the people of Vietnam finally prevailed in their thirty year war against the imperialist running dogs and finally overthrew the last remnents of colonialism, i.e., theSaigon regime.

The communist party elite in Hanoi prevailed, but most of "the people," including their VC allies in the south, got squarely fooked.

[MrFun]

geez . . . . . .


I am agreeing with MTG. Of course, had United States won, then the common people would have been screwed over as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The common people always get fooked. The only difference is which set of pigs get to feed at the trough.

[Agathon]

The common people always get fooked. The only difference is which set of pigs get to feed at the trough.

And you say you aren't a Marxist....

[Lancer]

The capitalist trough is much bigger and has more slop in it.

The 'peoples' trough is pretty much empty and has a line a mile long of pigs who don't know what's in the trough but knew they better get in line.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon

The common people always get fooked. The only difference is which set of pigs get to feed at the trough.

And you say you aren't a Marxist....

Hasta la victoria siempre.

[Ned]

The only people who do well under communism are the communists themselves. When they convert to capitalism, as they have in China, they are no longer communist, are they?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The common people always get fooked. The only difference is which set of pigs get to feed at the trough.

Amen.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon

The common people always get fooked. The only difference is which set of pigs get to feed at the trough.

And you say you aren't a Marxist....

To acknowledge that both economic systems (communism and capitalism) are both potentially equally corrupt and bad does not make one a Marxist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
To acknowledge that both economic systems (communism and capitalism) are both potentially equally corrupt and bad does not make one a Marxist.

That's not it.

It means the realistion of the state apparatus is for upholding the interests and previleges of the elite.