If someone had read Chomsky, they would begun to understand his stance.

So whats Chomsky books have you read Six ? Or havent you actually read any of his works yet - but still manage to disagree with him. Im quite happy to argue his writings if you like,.. as he's one of my faqvourite authors.

Outside of this Chomsky DID NOT support Pol Pot... he just never supported the US action of the Vietnam War.
Understand the difference here.

The entire propblem here is that YOUR LITTLE MIND, cant get past Dubya's ideal... "You either With us, or against us".
And this leads on to your "political problem" as such...
Anyone who dosent agree with you, must be communist - cause you know your certainly not, so they must be...
And apparently this is your defentiion of "communism" as well; everything everyone says, as they dont agree with you.

If six, begun to even understand Socialism - and was adament that we were a bunch of Socialists; He'd be calling this person a Marxist, another person a Maoist, and then even possibly a Stalinist.
But the problem here,.. he lacks an understanding of the different forms of Socialism: one of which is communism.

You should go read Noam Chomsky in volume two of "The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism," and "Manufacturing Consent" (the book, not the movie). Thats where they were denying the holocaust in Cambodia. What Chomsky has done since then is to blame it all on the USA. I blame it on him and the peaceniks because the communists would not have come to power in southeast Asia had we invaded North Vietnam.

BTW, Fascism is a form of socialism too. Its National SOCIALISM.

Stalanism and Maoism are the inevitable results of communism. If you read Mikhail Bakunin, then you would be aware that he predicted Marxism would lead to oppression.

Sixgun, your simple-mindedness is overwhelming. I think you should go sit in the corner for time-out.

By the way, Six, its all discrimination...and all of your hate has been geared towards the Arab Muslims...so I knew exactly what I was saying, thank you.

So how about that Patriot Act?

Gees you have a strange interpretation of the world...
"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"... I would more take to be Chomsky's & Herman's analysis of how the Corporate Mass Media, failed to deliver a BALANCED & free journalistic reporting, in your reference to Cambodia.

Wow... the back cover of the book even says the following:
Yep... Ive got my copy handy at the moment actually.

So do you have any page number or chapters you want to particularly draw attention too ?
Cmon six... I want to see you agrue Chomsky.

DO YOU HAVE A PAGE REFERENCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT ?
I highly doubt it.

Out of interest,.. did you seriously expect me to believe you actually read this book, if your not even going to quote it - to try and further your argument.

What about 'Deterring Democracy' ? Did you manage to read this book of his as well ?

Mmmm... Vietnam, what an "interesting" war, considering US involvement.
Yes six... America invaded to try and stop the Communists coming to power - ignoring the rights of people to choose the own form of governance,.. as per usual, given Iraq at the moment.
But they failed.
Vietnam became communist, and several million Vietnamese HAD TO DIE, because America didnt want Vietnam as a communist nation - as it didnt serve "American Interests".
So... did anyone stop to ask the Vietnamese wanted ?
Oh... thats right, they dont matter when considering "American Interests".
And of course we cannot forget the WAR CRIMES of My Lai, which went along with another example of US Imperialism.



So is this all you actually know about Fascism seriously ?

Fascism: -a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

Communism(1): -a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
(2): -A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.
Refer: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Communism

Hence, the term 'National Socialism' was used by SIMILAR
(Not the SAME) NATIONALISTIC MOVEMENTS (which 'socialism' and 'comunism' are by nature).

Fascism and Socialism are both Nationalistic based movements.
Fascism, is not 'National Socialism'. Infact, 'Idealisitic Fascism', is almost the complete opposite of Idealistic Socialism', given Fascism is based around a 'Heirarchial' social class system, where Socialism tries to abolish the class system all together.

So Where's this Marxist state, that you say exists Sixgun ?
And.. how can Stalinism AND Maoism (both) be the inevitable results of communism;
given the fact that they are 2 branches of extension upon Communism.
That just dosent make any sense.

Good post all around, Pig.

Oh, you realize he'll avoid all of that completely. He seems to be immune to logic. Fascinating, really.

I am on it. Just got to get to the library on monday for those chapters and page numbers that he asked for. It's been awhile since I read Chomsky and unlike CP, I don't keep any copies on hand.

Anyway, this guy is way off base here. Socialism can be nationalist or internationalist. Then to say that the National Socialists were not Fascists? What is he thinking? Hitler was certainly a fascist.
Heirarchial social class system? . All socialist states have a ruling class. It might be mob rule for awhile, but sooner or later a Comittee or demagogue will start giving orders.


On the Vietnam war, this guy is implying that the Vietnamese wanted a communist government. Some did, some did not. We supported the anti-communist side and the USSR, Red China, and other communist countries supported the communist side.
BTW, we got alot of Vietnamese refugees here on the West Coast and they really don't like the communists.

Thank you for saying that Stalinism and Maoism are two forms of communism. I can't remember if it was him or Billy that kept saying that these guys were "right wingers" and not real communists.
Anyway, Communism promises a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which is mob rule. But a period of mob rule and anarchy has always lead to demagogues like Stalin and Mao.

Whoa! I was searching for some online information about Chomsky's support of Pol Pot and found this...

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html

Chomsky denies the existance of the nazi gas chambers?

Say it ain't so!

Bwahahaha!!!

No, wisdom is the ability to learn from your experiences. Sixgun is wise when it comes to being narrow minded and fascist.

Junk DNA.

Firstly sixgun, your the one off track here.
Socialism can be nationalistic or Imperalistic (not "internationalistic").
And, a form of Imperalistic Communism is Stalism: which also advocated expansionism.
Maoism is generally considered to be Imperialistic aswell.

Just so you know,.. yes Hitler was a Fascist, but he wasnt a socialist, far from it. Actually, he was a Capitalist in this nature of economics. (And as discussed in previous threads the Bush family had "economic interests" tied up with Hitler)

What do you not understand about the basic defenition of Socialism:- A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor
Refer: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

Or, as is stipulated in a Marxism defenition; which is a form of Socialism: - ultimately classless society.

Even further, Encylopedia Britanica states:-
[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy

And even further,.. 'Anarchism' is usually recognised as an 'advanced form of democracy'.
This explains why during the Antiwar protests, Socialist based groups started springing up under the banner of: 'Anarchism'.

...and I'm still waiting for you to list this mysterious Marxist State !

seems like you guys might be bored without him

I`d look forward to that boredom, if I bothered with this board anymore that is.

You are the simpleminded one that thinks the Islamic faith is a racial category.

Hate? You are the one with the hate for the United States and Israel.

I am an American and believe in free enterprise, thus not a fascist or any other kind of socialist for that matter.

The narrow minded ones are the commies on this board who still believe in marxism even though it has brought ruin to every country that has tried it.

Corporate Pig,

Now you are switching the term "imperialism" for "internationalism".

Certainly the communist spies/traitors like Alger Hiss who brought us the United Nations were internationalists. You ever hear of the term "socialist international"?

Anyway, Fascism is a form of socialism as the capitalists are regulated by the state. As an economic system, its very much like the modern "democratic socialist" countries that exist in Europe today. FDR's New Deal (socialism) comes to mind as well.

Anway, you are describing marxism. Enforced equality? That means a state is necessary to enforce it. Anarchy is mob rule. It does not last long because things get so bad that people will support a dictatorship to bring some law and order.

You should know something about lassaie-faire capitalism. How about meritocracy?