Why isn't Socialism/Communism as frowned upon as Fascism?

[Catalonya]

Not to mention most of the crusaders were there under the belief that it was a retaliatory action (it was) against centuries of violent Muslim conquests, and that it also was standard for attackers to slaughter and massacre cities that refused to discuss terms at the beginning of a siege, as urban combat was dangerous, bloody, and brought hardship on everyone.

All fair points, to which i wholeheartedly agree
My ancestors were crusaders who fought the muslims, and received generous lands in Europe for victories against the scourge

However as nobles, we fought strictly for secular defensive purposes, and never for religious conviction.
Defense against Ottomans and Islam was a matter of survival not a question of faith for europeans.
Allah wants slavery and death? Fight Ibrahim and Mohamed to death. Simple. Secular. Sexy.

If anything it was the religious who sought appeasement and reconciliation with Islam. Instead of funding the Crusades, the Church begged for money from nobles, weakening our defense effectiveness over time.

I don't hate the crusades. Only the religious mentality that took advantage of and credit for them

Byzantine Orthodox Church deserved the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople for their Inquisition against the Cathar-Bogomil "heresy"

[The Persian Socialist Federation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVes44hcJg

I'm just gonna leave some Michael Parenti here

[Novowarsawianka]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVes44hcJg

I'm just gonna leave some Michael Parenti here

"..in Romania, where there were some killings."
Since when is it okay to label a 1000 dead people as "some"?

"Why didn't the ruthless reds act more ruthlessly?"
Can't act ruthless for several decades in a row.
Where was the lack of ruthlessness during the Hungarian Revolution, which lead to the death of several thousand people? Where was the lack of ruthlessness when Czechoslovakia "moved away" into a more democratic world, which the Warsaw Pact answered with an invasion?

In fact, the biggest proof of Soviet tyranny and hatered for freedom was the Bratislava Declaration itself, which layed bare the intent of the Soviets to invade any Warsaw Pact country which dared to adapt democratic reforms.


On a side note, had to dig into the guy, and, as if being an apologist for Soviet hegemony ain't bad enough, he also seems to be an apologist for the "Belgrade" side of things in the 1990s Yugoslav conflict, since he wrote a whole book about it.

[Wallenburg]

You're kidding, right?

[Novowarsawianka]

You're kidding, right?

Who and regarding what?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Please don't post low-quality replies without any citations or explanation.

Alright, I'll provide some explanation: fascism is bad because it killed more (or about the same) amount of people in much less time than socialism
also
>defending fascism

Don't be dishonest. Saying Socialism is worse than Fascism is not defending Fascism, and you know it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Fascism: "Destroy all untermensch! Eternal war! Raise an empire! Crush democracy!"
Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Democracy without nepotism and oligarchs. Peace and brotherhood of man."

Gee, I wonder why Socialism and Communism are not frowned upon as Fascism? They are literally the same, after all! \obvious sarcasm

"From each according to his ability to each according to his needs," is almost as bad as "destroy all untermench" and worse than "Eternal war," "raise an empire" and "crush democracy."

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Mostly because millennials are edgy and Western history books are empty of the crimes and faults of communism, not to mention a large part of western academia and school teachers subscribe to these ideologies

Also because countries which have never been affected by communism, either through rule or war, don't know anything about it.

Countries which have been communist in the past (with the notable exception of Russia and Moldova) are completely devoid of any party in parliament that is further to the left than centre, and the youth tends to be more right wing than the mainstream. That's the effect of communism. Take a trip to Slovakia and the furthest left party (socially) is something equivalent to the GOP. Then there's 6 others that are more right-wing.

Don't want to be cliche but history is written by the winners. Education in matters of politics only serves a role of indoctrination. Tell people from a young age that fascism is bad, they'll think fascism is bad. Tell people both the extreme left and the extreme right are bad, that's what they'll believe. In the far West (that being 'Anglo-Saxon Capitalism' as per Chirac), youth are given a pat on the back for being idealistic utopians by believing in communism.

I have lived in the South-Eastern USA my entire life, and was clearly taught in the private Christian school (started by a far right church) that communism was wrong, and that the democratic party was evil. I was taught to be xenophobic. Eventually I decided to actually search the definitions of everything they hated, and now I believe most of what they hate, and am hated by them. What you said on the West encouraging left-wing politics definitely does not apply near me, and much less so at that school. I was taught that Canada and the US postal service were communist. This area does not promote leftist ideals economically, and few socially.

That's a private school in the south, that's different.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I'd rather live in most ex-Socialist/USSR states during their "reigns of terror" than most modern Capitalist states. Many of you are posting from the perspectives of the wealthiest Western Capitalist states, usually Anglophone/Western Europe. Most modern Capitalist countries are shit and have terrible living standards which is something conveniently forgotten. Your "freedom" only extends to you, and not the third world exploited your home nation is consequently fucking up the ass. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats

Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day

But na compare your ex-colonial superpower that was always richer than the barely post-feudal ex-USSR states and always was going to be richer and just ignore 80% of the world in poverty.

When pro-Capitalists talk about Capitalism, they're talking about liberal capitalism, not African despots. Dictatorships in Africa and the middle east and latn america and what have you aren't good examples of Capitalism, not because they have bad economies, but because they have hardly any economic freedom. Make the market more free in those countries, and they would probably improve.

[Oil exporting People]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it was a bad political move, from the capitalist point of view, to ally with fascism against communism. Obviously it was a good move and a good strategy, which had massive benefits for their side, both expected and unexpected (the Great Depression might have never ended without WW2, or ended much later, and in such a scenario it would have been plausible that a wave of communist revolutions may have swept across the industrialized world - so fascism, by starting WW2, may have provided a great unexpected benefit to capitalism).

WWII didn't end the Great Depression; otherwise we would've seen a massive economic collapse in 1946. In truth, the Great Depression was set to end by 1938 in the United States but terrible policy planning delayed this until about 1942, so that the recovery occurred just as the WWII mobilization was beginning, which is why this claim of yours gets made. Even ignoring that, no Communist Revolutions would've occur, as more nations turned right than left during that period, and into the Far Right in particular.

Furthermore, don't pretend Communism didn't serve the interests of Capitalism in some form either.

I pointed out that the capitalists sided with fascism in the 20s and 30s in response to Oil exporting People's claim that "Fascism doesn't serve the interests of the elites." The point is that fascism does serve the interests of the elites, and in fact it was precisely because fascism served the interests of the elites that it managed to come to power in most of the places where it did.

That it was preferred by them doesn't mean it was beholden to them, as evidenced by the names of those removed in 1934 or 1944 show. This is all pedantic, however, to the point I was making to OP; Fascism doesn't serve the modern interests of the Elites at all. While in the 1930s most capitalists still retained a healthy sense of Nationalism, those of today live in a globalized system and their interests are fundamentally tied to it; off-shoring to Third World nations, mass immigration for cheap labor, the breaking down of traditional structures order to increase consumerism, etc. This all stands in marked contrast to what Fascism entails.

It makes sense for them to use fascism to crush us. It also makes sense for us to use revolution to overthrow them. They offer no quarter, and we should offer them none. Class war is war.

And hence why you always lose.

[Wallenburg]

You're kidding, right?

Who and regarding what?

You, regarding the question in the title. In a country where our government won't even condemn violence committed by neo-Nazis, fascism is not receiving nearly as much opposition as communism.

[Novowarsawianka]

Who and regarding what?

You, regarding the question in the title. In a country where our government won't even condemn violence committed by neo-Nazis, fascism is not receiving nearly as much opposition as communism.

Are you speaking by any chance of the USA?

[Claorica]

Who and regarding what?

You, regarding the question in the title. In a country where our government won't even condemn violence committed by neo-Nazis, fascism is not receiving nearly as much opposition as communism.

You know those neonazis were attacked by leftists, right? No one's supported the car guy, but the violence at the rally wouldn't have happened if the antifa fascists hadn't been there.

[Hurdergaryp]

You, regarding the question in the title. In a country where our government won't even condemn violence committed by neo-Nazis, fascism is not receiving nearly as much opposition as communism.

You know those neonazis were attacked by leftists, right? No one's supported the car guy, but the violence at the rally wouldn't have happened if the antifa fascists hadn't been there.

So none should stand in the way of nazis, you say? And also you do not support the murderer, but you do more or less sympathize with him in a lowkey way?

[Oil exporting People]

So none should stand in the way of nazis, you say?

Then don't complain when things happen.

[War Gears]

You know those neonazis were attacked by leftists, right?

Good. Genocidal maniacs need to be attacked.

but the violence at the rally wouldn't have happened if the antifa fascists hadn't been there.

The right to protest doesn't only extend to Nazis.

[Central Asian Republics]

The right to protest doesn't only extend to Nazis.

The right to protest ends where violence begins.

[Oil exporting People]

Good. Genocidal maniacs need to be attacked.

How's that working out for yah so far?

The right to protest doesn't only extend to Nazis.

Then don't complain, because you know the score.

[Sufokia]

It's all relative what's as frowned upon as another ideological depending on your location in the world. I think it would surprise many Westerners how few people outside their lands care about the deeds of individuals like Adolf Hitler, for example.

[War Gears]

Good. Genocidal maniacs need to be attacked.

How's that working out for yah so far?

Given that there was overwhelmingly negative reception of the Nazis, pretty good.

Then don't complain, because you know the score.

That doesn't make sense, and you sound like you live in a video game.

[Oil exporting People]

Given that there was overwhelmingly negative reception of the Nazis, pretty good.

Which is irrelevant to the question I asked, in that how is that strategy of attacking Nazis working out for you? So far, it's only your side that's had bodies put six feet under.

That doesn't make sense, and you sound like you live in a video game.

It makes perfect sense. It's patently hypocritical to talk about denying others the ability protest via use of force while claiming you yourself should have that same ability.

[Claorica]

You know those neonazis were attacked by leftists, right? No one's supported the car guy, but the violence at the rally wouldn't have happened if the antifa fascists hadn't been there.

So none should stand in the way of nazis, you say? And also you do not support the murderer, but you do more or less sympathize with him in a lowkey way?

I'm simply saying I sympathize with the alt right just as much as I sympathize with the fascistic self-identified ancoms that are part of Antifa.

They have the right to protest, and just because some of them are Nazis doesn't mean that antifa has the right to start being violent. Nor does it mean that anything violent is somehow acceptable against them.

[Hurdergaryp]

So none should stand in the way of nazis, you say? And also you do not support the murderer, but you do more or less sympathize with him in a lowkey way?

I'm simply saying I sympathize with the alt right just as much as I sympathize with the fascistic self-identified ancoms that are part of Antifa.

They have the right to protest, and just because some of them are Nazis doesn't mean that antifa has the right to start being violent. Nor does it mean that anything violent is somehow acceptable against them.

Last summer I went on holiday to Normandy. Quite a few Americans were violent against nazis there, and that was an extremely good thing.

[Claorica]

I'm simply saying I sympathize with the alt right just as much as I sympathize with the fascistic self-identified ancoms that are part of Antifa.

They have the right to protest, and just because some of them are Nazis doesn't mean that antifa has the right to start being violent. Nor does it mean that anything violent is somehow acceptable against them.

Last summer I went on holiday to Normandy. Quite a few Americans were violent against nazis there, and that was an extremely good thing.

Hmmm... Two countries at war (and I wouldn't bless those deaths because most of those people weren't nazis. In fact, most of the ones in Normandy were part of the SS Divisions, which by 1944 had deteriorated from the elite fighting force of the Nazi Party to being mostly young boys and elderly men.)

But back to the point.

There's a huge difference between two countries being at war (which we should've followed up by liberating the oppressed eastern countries as well, while we still had a massive arms advantage) a bunch of urbanite cowards throwing bricks through windows and hitting people with bats, hyped up about some rebellion that's never going to happen.

[Telconi]

I'm simply saying I sympathize with the alt right just as much as I sympathize with the fascistic self-identified ancoms that are part of Antifa.

They have the right to protest, and just because some of them are Nazis doesn't mean that antifa has the right to start being violent. Nor does it mean that anything violent is somehow acceptable against them.

Last summer I went on holiday to Normandy. Quite a few Americans were violent against nazis there, and that was an extremely good thing.

Those Nazis weren't Americans...