[ArthurTandy1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_kill ... st_regimes

[Deutschmania]

These quotes should explain somewhat .

[AFAIK]

Blood alone moves the wheels of history

-Mussolini

[Godstud]

USA would be comparable if we included the last 50 years of American Imperialism. Capitalism has a bloody history, as well.

[ckaihatsu]

Blood alone moves the wheels of history

-Mussolini

The bitter price: the first fascism

At the time of the occupation of the factories in 1920 Mussolini was a nationally known figure in Italy—famous as the rabble-rousing Socialist editor who had broken with his party to support the war. But his personal political following was small, confined to a group of other ex-revolutionaries turned national chauvinists, and a scattering of former frontline combatants who believed Italy had been denied its right to territory in Austria and along the Yugoslav coast. A few dozen of them had formed the first fascio de combattimento (fascist fighting unit) in March 1919, but they had done very poorly in the elections of that year and were stuck, impotent, on the sidelines as Italy’s workers confronted the employers and the government.

The failure of the occupation of the factories to turn into a revolutionary struggle for power transformed Mussolini’s fortunes. Workers became demoralised as rising unemployment quickly took away the material gains of ‘the two red years’. The employers remained desperate to teach the workers’ movement a lesson it would not forget, and the ‘liberal’ prime minister Giolitti wanted a counterweight against the left. Mussolini offered his services. Sections of big business and, secretly, the Giolitti government provided him with funds—the minister of war issued a circular advising 60,000 demobilised officers that they would be paid 80 percent of their army wages if they joined the fasci.111 Giolitti formed a ‘centre-right’ electoral pact which gave Mussolini 35 parliamentary seats in March 1921. In return, Mussolini’s armed groups began to systematically attack local centres of left wing and union strength, beginning in the Po Valley, where labourers and sharecroppers had been involved in bitter strikes against the landowners.

Groups of 50 or 60 fascists would arrive in villages and small towns in lorries, burn down the Socialist ‘people’s house’ halls, break up picket lines, punish militants by beating them and forcing castor oil down their throats, and then roar off, knowing the police would give them plenty of time to get away. The members of Socialist and trade union organisations, by and large people tied to jobs and scattered in widely separate villages, could rarely respond quickly enough to such attacks. The fascists could feel absolutely safe, knowing the police would always arrange to turn up after they were gone and were willing ‘to look on murder as a sport’.112

Success bred success for the fascists. They were able to mobilise ‘landowners, garrison officers, university students, officials, rentiers, professional men and tradespeople’113 from the towns for their expeditions into the countryside. The number of fascist squads grew from 190 in October 1920 to 1,000 in February 1921 and 2,300 in November of that year.114

Yet they were still not all-powerful. Giolitti’s government wanted to use the fascists, not be used by them—and it still had the power to stop the fascists in their tracks. When 11 soldiers opened fire on a group of 500 fascists in Sarzana in July of 1921, the fascists ran away.115 At this time workers began to throw up their own paramilitary groups, the arditi del popolo, prepared to take on the fascists. One fascist leader, Banchelli, admitted the squads did not know ‘how to defend themselves’ when people fought back.116 There was a brief crisis within the fascist movement, with Mussolini resigning from the fascist executive because he was ‘depressed’.117

He was rescued by the attitude of the leaders of the workers’ movement. Turati’s reformist socialists and the main CGL trade union federation signed a peace treaty with the fascists. The allegedly more left wing leaders of the main Socialist Party (which had finally broken with Turati) simply remained passive and denounced the arditi del popolo. The Communist leader of the time, Amadeo Bordiga, refused to see any difference between the fascists and other bourgeois parties, abstained from the struggle and denounced the arditi del popolo.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 443-444

[JoeBruno]

USA would be comparable if we included the last 50 years of American Imperialism. Capitalism has a bloody history, as well.

Really? What mass killings has the United States committed? This category only includes unarmed civilians in a non battle situation.

[JoeBruno]

Blood alone moves the wheels of history

-Mussolini

Benito Mussolini was a showman who said things to sound good and impress people. He fancied himself to be Julius Caesar

[Godstud]

@JoeBruno USA's wars and such count as genocides as well. Nice try moving the goalposts, though, and changing the meaning of something to suit your own narrative.

Are you going to ignore US A's previous history with its native peoples, because it's inconvenient?


US history riddled with massacres, genocide
History records US genocide against Native Americans, Africans, massacres in Southeast Asia, Middle East
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-hi ... de/2261696

[Pants-of-dog]

Really? What mass killings has the United States committed? This category only includes unarmed civilians in a non battle situation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

This was on my mind because the anniversary was yesterday.

But they are still happening:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre

[JoeBruno]

@JoeBruno USA's wars and such count as genocides as well. Nice try moving the goalposts, though, and changing the meaning of something to suit your own narrative.

Are you going to ignore US A's previous history with its native peoples, because it's inconvenient?


US history riddled with massacres, genocide
History records US genocide against Native Americans, Africans, massacres in Southeast Asia, Middle East
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-hi ... de/2261696

(1)Your massacre figures are claimed but not documented with proof
(2)Your article included battle casualties in wars, which are irrelevant. It is not massacre to kill an enemy who is trying to kill you. Bombing Japan with the A bomb was done to decimate Japan's military capabilities to get them to surrender and stop WWII.
(3)The Indian tribes of the 19th century were attacking white settlements. Killing them was a defensive move and part of the Indian Wars. War against an armed enemy is not a massacre.
(4)The USA occupied the Phillipines after we drove the Spanish out. Filipino natives attacked our troops. That's war, not massacre.
(5)The Korean War began when N Korea attacked our ally South Korea. We went to help them. China and the USSR were helping the N Koreans. That is war, not massacre.

I notice you are a big fan of socialism. It is noteworthy that USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communist was the name of a political party. The system was socialism.

American indian tribes were small. I doubt there were 100,000 of them in the entire USA.

[Patrickov]

(1)Your massacre figures are claimed but not documented with proof
(2)Your article included battle casualties in wars, which are irrelevant. It is not massacre to kill an enemy who is trying to kill you. Bombing Japan with the A bomb was done to decimate Japan's military capabilities to get them to surrender and stop WWII.
(3)The Indian tribes of the 19th century were attacking white settlements. Killing them was a defensive move and part of the Indian Wars. War against an armed enemy is not a massacre.
(4)The USA occupied the Phillipines after we drove the Spanish out. Filipino natives attacked our troops. That's war, not massacre.
(5)The Korean War began when N Korea attacked our ally South Korea. We went to help them. China and the USSR were helping the N Koreans. That is war, not massacre.

3 and 4 were still massacres for two reasons.

a. The Whites abused their technological advantage on whim and aimed to exterminate theie enemies unjustly. In contrast, 2 and 5 were not of that purpose.

b. The Whites were unjust invaders for both cases 3 and 4. Yes, the Americans chased away the Spaniards in the Philipines, but they still oppressed the locals no less.

In fact, I can never accept cases 3 and 4 as you do, otherwise the current Chinese oppression against Uighurs and, more importantly, Hongkongers, will be justified with this logic.

I notice you are a big fan of socialism. It is noteworthy that USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communist was the name of a political party. The system was socialism.

While I cannot say Member Godstud is a socialist sympathizer (and, from my knowledge of him, he will be immensely hostile to you after this comment), I do agree that a lot of members on PoFo are.

[Godstud]

@Patrickov I do support Socialism. I support it in moderation, combined with Democracy and Capitalism. Many people mistake this for a support of extreme form of Socialism. Such is obviously not the case, as I support the more Scandinavian models of Socialism.

I am just as opposed to predatory Capitalism, without regulation. Your misunderstanding of this does not upset me in any way, but I do dislike willful ignorance.


Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. There is an important difference, and something that most people simply don't understand. Countries used as examples of failed Socialism are not Socialist, but Communist.

The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-be ... government.

People often think that countries with dictators are Socialist. They are not. They might have some Socialist policies, but that's where it ends.


As for your mistaken claim that there was 100,000 natives, @JoeBruno ...

European colonizers killed so many indigenous Americans that the planet cooled down, a group of researchers concluded
Following Christopher Columbus' arrival in North America in 1492, violence and disease killed 90% of the indigenous population — nearly 55 million people — according to a study published this year.
https://www.businessinsider.com/climate ... his%20year.

100,000? You simply made up a number.

Also, genocides often happen during wars, as history has demonstrated time and time again. Genocides during a war are still genocides.


Just because someone includes the word "Socialist" in their name, does not mean that they are.

Note: See Democratic People's Republic of Korea(North Korea), as an example of using a word without actually being that.

Nazis were NOT Socialist, either despite originally starting as a National Socialist party.

[Patrickov]

@Godstud

I admit that I don't know you are actually a socialism sympathiser. However, my problem with that person's statement was that he named you as a Socialist as a point to attack. While I do that to other members, it's mainly because they weaponize their ideology to justify their support of socialist regimes' oppression. You at least didn't do it in this discussion.

As for Communism vs Socialism, all Communist regimes see Communism as their goal that they have not reached yet or they are unable to reach at this moment. Most of them merely regard their current state as Socialism. As I understand, in Communist ideals there should be no states.

[ckaihatsu]

@Godstud

I admit that I don't know you are actually a socialism sympathiser. However, my problem with that person's statement was that he named you as a Socialist as a point to attack. While I do that to other members, it's mainly because they weaponize their ideology to justify their support of socialist regimes' oppression. You at least didn't do it in this discussion.

As for Communism vs Socialism, all Communist regimes see Communism as their goal that they have not reached yet or they are unable to reach at this moment. Most of them merely regard their current state as Socialism. As I understand, in Communist ideals there should be no states.

It's worth underlining that transcending capitalist commodity relations is the task of the world's *proletariat*.

Workers have *no interest* in bourgeois nation-states -- that's a construction that's specific to the political economy of *commodity production*, so that rival bourgeois powers can keep-track, one versus another.

Workers, on the other hand, have no such social 'divisions' among themselves, internally, collectively. No social divisions based on geography / national boundaries, or on gender, or race, or any other demographic.

So any 'socialist regime' or 'Communist regime' is actually *not* in the interests of workers because the workers themselves are *not in control*, in such countries. Sure, some countries are relatively more *humane* in their policies, than others, but they're still determined -- domestic and foreign policies -- by those *in control*, meaning a particular kind of government, or a legacy of administration, or nation-state character / history, etc. Again, not the actual working class, though.