Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
UnusuallyUsual wrote:I would suspect the general public (of at least the USA) holds to the view that Fascism and Communism are highly similar in comparison with Democracy/Capitalism.
pugsville wrote:Yes. Fascism and the State Communists of the Stalinist style both seek total control of society and adopted to some degree similar methods and organization. Secret Police, Camps, Child indoctrination. Similar goals in total control of society lead to similar methods.
Rei wrote:Sure. They meet each other on the battlefield.
Goldberk wrote:Dag's tankie apologism is a distortion, Stalin was no communist.
Pugsville wrote: Secret Police, Camps, Child indoctrination.
KlassWar wrote:The State can't wither away until the world bourgeoisie are no longer in a position to launch counterrevolutionary wars against the socialist bloc.
Until the class and ideological enemy has been crushed worldwide, the coercive apparatus of the proletarian State must remain and must work ruthlessly to keep foreign-backed right wingers from wrecking and sabotaging socialism.
Trotsky wrote:A moralizing Philistine’s favorite method is the lumping of reaction’s conduct with that of revolution. He achieves success in this device through recourse to formal analogies. To him czarism and Bolshevism are twins. Twins are likewise discovered in fascism and communism. An inventory is compiled of the common features in Catholicism – or more specifically, Jesuitism – and Bolshevism. Hitler and Mussolini, utilizing from their side exactly the same method, disclose that liberalism, democracy, and Bolshevism represent merely different manifestations of one and the same evil. The conception that Stalinism and Trotskyism are “essentially” one and the same now enjoys the joint approval of liberals, democrats, devout Catholics, idealists, pragmatists, and anarchists. If the Stalinists are unable to adhere to this “People’s Front”, then it is only because they are accidentally occupied with the extermination of Trotskyists.
The fundamental feature of these approchements and similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and classify different currents according to some external and secondary manifestation, most often according to their relation to one or another abstract principle which for the given classifier has a special professional value. Thus to the Roman pope Freemasons and Darwinists, Marxists and anarchists are twins because all of them sacrilegiously deny the immaculate conception. To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore “blood and honor”. To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage. And so forth.
Undoubtedly the currents grouped above have certain common features. But the gist of the matter lies in the fact that the evolution of mankind exhausts itself neither by universal suffrage, not by “blood and honor,” nor by the dogma of the immaculate con ception. The historical process signifies primarily the class struggle; moreover, different classes in the name of different aims may in certain instances utilize similar means. Essentially it cannot be otherwise. Armies in combat are always more or less symmetrical; were there nothing in common in their methods of struggle they could not inflict blows upon each other.
I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations.He was of course being coy. What he really meant was that he would hope to become Britain's dictator in such circumstance. The Libertarians all went along with fascism and Nazism in their own countries, unless they were Jews in Nazi Germany. There big regret was not fascism and Nazism but that there leaders led into wars that they lost. There is not the shadow of doubt that British and American libertarians would have backed the fascists and Nazis if their countries had been in similar predicaments. Nazis that did go the United States after the war had no problem fitting into American libertarian circles. Von Mises and Hayek of course were fascists. that didn't stop them turning up in America as Libertarian anti fascist warriors.
In the "Fair And Balanced Department" […]
He only listed instances in which Trump might hav[…]
Damn, there's a lot of off-topic stuff in here. […]
@blackjack21 Fascism is NOT friendly towards l[…]