[Zyx]

I am impressed that never since France has it been a question.

I'll be interested in seeing reading that says contrary.

I read this phrase a response to a similar criticism as your own. I did not bother to verify it. What do you make of this:

Marx said that revolution would never be achieved in England until England had got rid of Ireland and that the revolutionary “lever” must be applied in Ireland. In short, even 150 years ago Marx considered that the most proletarian nation on earth had to wait until its colonized subjects overthrew imperialism before socialism could be established there. No First World nation today is remotely as proletarian as England was in the mid-nineteenth century, and yet even there socialist revolution was impossible without the prior destruction of imperialism by its (Irish) victims.

True or not, it makes sense.

[Kasu]

That's the first time I heard anything of the sort. I don't see how it makes sense in the least. Marx said that the revolution would start in the most advanced countries. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution said that you don't need to overthrow feudalism in order to bring socialism, the revolution would not be limited to democratic tasks, but would inherently take a socialist character. No where did he say you would have to overthrow the imperialists first, there is nothing marxist about encouraging war that would surely result in the deaths of millions of workers.

[Kapanda]

Sure, the more appropriate word ought to be imperialism, but there is hardly a difference, especially not in the context of this thread.

Well then, some congruous grounds. Now, we could discuss the differences between imperialism and fascism, but that would be long, cumbersome, and probably not suitable for this thread.

And I would like evidence of the West arming oppressors in order to build cheap mobile phones.

This is nonsense. Moreover, Socialism =/= Communism. Socialism, in its truth, is merely liberalism. I wouldn't deny that Democrats were liberals.

A fallacious argument. You simply concluded that this is nonsense, then just claimed that socialism is liberalism and went on your way. Empty dialogue.

I am not too familiar with the economies of these Tigers. I can guess that they are largely cash crop societies--that is, they have a limited amount of functionality and these functionality are mostly suited for providing for the West. That is, the West is still their leader and they still depend on it. Is this so?

Trade is a two-way street, and not only that, as you may have also guessed by the current world economy, all countries depend on the West, because the West (especially the US) is in the position of power. Though you may be somewhat accurate in that they depend on the West, I argue against the relevance of that comment.

Look at the Independence movements of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bassau. All of these were late colonies to be independent, helped by the Soviet Union and their original colonizers were Portugal. All of their leaders were assassinated by Western interests. These leaders were able men, no less.

Not true

Agostinho Neto, Angola's first president
"Neto died in a hospital in Moscow, in the Soviet Union, while undergoing surgery for cancer, and while the Angolan Civil War continued."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agostinho_Neto

The overly popular, ruling party in Angola is a Socialist party, and it has been in control ever since Angola became independent.

The death of the leader of Mozambique was dubious (I'll admit I did not know that), so if it was a Western conspiracy, then please provide evidence. And your claims about Guinea Bissau are false as well. Those were internal affairs through and through. PAIGC was not a Western puppet.

When colonizers left, they imposed a debt and retreated what materials they had in Africa. Westerners then installed oppressive, puppet leadership and that's that.

And that's that? No, you ought to show some evidence.

Certainly not true for Ghana, Angola, Mozambique, Sao Tome & Principe and Guinea Bissau. Of the others I don't speak because I don't hold enough knowledge.

How dare you blame the Africans?

Please, spare us the act. Does nothing but make you sound self-righteous.

[Kasu]

Who said that socialism was liberalism??

[Zyx]

Well then, some congruous grounds.

I used my language to reflect this thread.

The OP said "fascism" compared with "communism" but meant "Right" versus the "Left" (those two groups are too extreme and marginal.) So, I replaced the words to show that the Right was in fact more represented than the Left. It was an exaggeration for the purpose of communication. Whether "Fascism" or "Communism" are mentioned are not as relevant as whether "Right" language or "Left" language have more currency.

And I would like evidence of the West arming oppressors in order to build cheap mobile phones.

Then what the video that I linked you.

A fallacious argument. You simply concluded that this is nonsense, then just claimed that socialism is liberalism and went on your way. Empty dialogue.

Liberalism is the softening of the illnesses of capitalism. That's all socialism strives for. In the domestic setting, socialism nationalizes certain industries, but in the international setting, these are superficial changes in the global economy. If we look at the World economy, socialism is no different than liberalism.

Though you may be somewhat accurate in that they depend on the West, I argue against the relevance of that comment.

Independence is what brings wealth to a nation. Dependence perpetuates poverty.

Not true

Hmm. I guess that my memory is not perfect.

As to Mozambique, the two leaders were Eduardo Mondlane and Samora Machel. Mondlane was assassinated in 1969 and Machel died in an airplane above South Africa in a mysterious malfunctioning. South Africa is the Western state which fought the "Communists" in Southern Africa.

In Guinea-Bissau, Cabral, the leader, was most assuredly assassinated in 1974.

I mistook Angola, but it has been the case that African leaders have been assassinated for Western causes. See Lumumba of the Congo.

And that's that? No, you ought to show some evidence.

This is history mate. Just pick up an African history textbook.

Really, it was the White settlers of Portuguese colonies who retreated their materials, but it's the same. This is just history, it's something that you just learn from reviewing the time period. I have a history textbook that I just don't feel like transcribing.

[QatzelOk]

Communism, or the attempt to make communism work, has killed more than any form of fascism.

While it's true that - under communism - everyone dies, I've always thought that this was because of mortality, rather than some strange side-effect of applied Marxism.

[Donna]

The manifestation of Marxism has been horrific by a standard that places immense value on human life, whether morally or economically. If socialism and indeed communism are the future of mankind, these beasts of the 20th century will be looked upon as premature reactionaries.

[Il Duce]

To suggest your current pathetic American system is a Fascist system makes me laugh. The reason why Fascists say nothing against Communism is primarily because Communism is good as dead. You had your chance, but now your revolutionaries embrace state capitalism.

FASCISM SUPPORTS
Dictatorship (Hmmm i wonder why the west has those parliaments and judiciaries)
State Worship (I don't see this in western Liberal Democracies)
Chauvinist Nationalism (Awfully small amount in the west compared to Fascist societies)
Voluntarism
National Greatness (Which country doesn't have that?)
Organic Unity (As if there's much organic unity in the west)
Futurism (Seems to be more of a universal factor for the left and right these days)
Corporatism (Different to liberal economics of the west)
Militarism (The west does to an extent embrace this)

To link the US and the west to Fascism would be stupidity!

[Igor Antunov]

FASCISM SUPPORTS
Dictatorship (Hmmm i wonder why the west has those parliaments and judiciaries)
State Worship (I don't see this in western Liberal Democracies)
Chauvinist Nationalism (Awfully small amount in the west compared to Fascist societies)
Voluntarism
National Greatness (Which country doesn't have that?)
Organic Unity (As if there's much organic unity in the west)
Futurism (Seems to be more of a universal factor for the left and right these days)
Corporatism (Different to liberal economics of the west)
Militarism (The west does to an extent embrace this)

To link the US and the west to Fascism would be stupidity!

Replace Dictatorship with two party system and you have just described the US. 99% there.

[Zyx]

Replace Dictatorship with two party system and you have just described the US. 99% there.

QFT.

Was that sarcasm, Kilgore?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

When there is a Communist state that actually fulfills the marxist ideal the argument will be valid. Until then it is state owned fascism vs free market fascism.

[QatzelOk]

The manifestation of Marxism has been horrific by a standard that places immense value on human life

It wasn't the "manifestation" of communism/socialism that killed so many people. It was the reaction to it by the rich people whose parasitic existence was threatened by popular democracy and social programs aimed at equalizing opportunity.

And the "mortality" of communism that I alluded to in my previous post was important. Virtually all competing ideological stances to socialism - capitalism, judaism, libertarianism - are based on the idea that you can somehow "buy" immortality with money or with extreme gestures or sacrifices of some kind. Communism is a recognition that humans cannot live eternally as pharoahs or saints, and that they have to get along and learn to share resources for the sake of the common good.

[Il Duce]

Don't you get it? Fascism takes it to the next level. There are aspects that Liberal-democracies of the west don't use. Corporatism in the Fascist sense or (Syndicalism) is different from western economics. Organic unity is something that barely exists for there is a lot of division among the western peoples in values and beliefs. If you think they also implemented state worship, you're totally wrong.

[Kasu]

I don't agree that the United States is Fascist, but it's very possible that it could become a fascist state soon.

[Zyx]

The US is pretty uniform. We only have two political parties and one religion [roughly speaking.]

And we worship the state. The state can do no wrong.

[Kasu]

The state gets criticized all the time, by the left and the right.

[Zyx]

About what are you talking?

You mean freedom of an ineffective press?

A third party has no chance in the United States. Every government has criticism, some have political prisoners; the idea that the US gets criticism and therefore we don't state worship is nonsense.

Look at the last election, our most critical aspect of government was the Iraq War. We had two choices, however, to continue the war or to continue the war. We literally voted for that.

[Igor Antunov]

The state gets criticized all the time, by the left and the right.

No it doesn't. The party overseeing the state at any one time will be criticised, but the country, the USA, was put here by god to grace us with goodness and righteous justice. American nationalism and flag worship is extreme.

[Kasu]

You're right. I can't disagree with Lenin.

[Fasces]

The United States could very well become a nation reminiscent of Pinochet's Chile, but national syndicalism is not going to be adopted by the Americans any time soon, and thus it can never be called fascism. To call it fascism devalues the term and the ideology it represents. It will be simply a capitalist dictatorship, which fascism most certainly opposes.

I do not feel even that will happen, however. The American system is very stable and very structured to be against radical change. This has its drawbacks, but also its benefits. The United States will likely continue the way it has for the last two-hundred years with no real modification to the structure of government. There are certainly cycles in national attitudes, but even after the relatively unfree and arguably despotic presidency of Wilson or Lincoln, the USA returned to a state of relative liberty soon thereafter.

Arguments that the USA is becoming a police state are ignorant of the nation's own history. To call it fascism is fallacious, and wrong. Leftists, if they ever want to be taken seriously, need to realize this.

To the original topic at hand, the revolutionary right is growing in influence in Europe, as are the communist parties. The radical right is growing more quickly today, but the radical left is already larger, and still growing at a moderate pace. The two parties represent fringe opinions, but it seems that politically, Europe is moving towards the fringes.

It is probable that the revolutionary right, with its opposition to the EU and immigration, will continue to grow, and perhaps outpace the far left, which takes the opposing, and often unpopular, view. Hitler helped spawn an age of liberalism and "progressivism" in Europe, as they turned away from Nazism and the Holocaust, but I feel as if this era is finally coming to an end.

That is say, not that widespread racism will return, but that ethnic priorities will be realized, and this ridiculous notion of "political-correctness" and "multi-culturalism" and "diversity" abandoned.