I am referring to the Baath-Socialist party when I say "Islamo-Fascist".

The Baathists have an ideology of pan-Arab nationalism and state socialism. Though secularist at its core, its not above using Islamic religous ferver to whip up the mobs on the Arab street for its own ulterior motives.

Interesting. So they're fascist, but you complain that the extreme left is supporting them? Very interesting. Nevermind that Communists and Fascists are direct enemies...note the way that Hitler purged the Communists in Germany (they were the first in the concentration camps, after all) and the purges of communists in other countries that turned fascist. You're arguements don't agree, either ideologically or historically.

I guess we just don't understand huh?

The US has an idealogy of Global "US style" democracy and capatilisim. Though secularist at its core (favouring US buisnesses over those in other countries), it is not above using bribes of aid and threats of whitholding funds to whip smaller countries for its own ulterior motives.

Time for Sixgun to abandon this thread now that he has definatly been proven wrong!

No, you know he won't...one of the key things I've noticed about him is his total immunity to logic...and the fact that he can't accept the fact that he's wrong.

I swear that I have noticed him leave threads once the logic gets to thick.
He seems to have the same aversion to reason and intelligence that we have to stupidity and arrogance.

See what I mean?

Sixgun has an immunity to logic... ?

Not to sure on that one...

I always just thought he was devoid of logic to begin with.

[quote=Sixgun_Symphony]Simply put, people are poor because they put themselves there and they wish to destroy people of greater accomplishment. QUOTE]

That is a disgraceful, ignorant, and offensive comment. I don't think you really mean it. If you do, justify it.


Just to see if I can shed a little light on the differentiations between Marxism/communism/socialism, I understand it like this:

Communism, at its core, means a classless society, where no class exploits another. Most (probably all actually) believe that the capitalist bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat and is rewarded disproportionately, and they seek to redress this. It is based on an assumption that if people were fairly rewarded for their labour they would willingly work hard without extra incentives. All countries that have got that far with socialism have found that assumption to be incorrrect. The USSR and China both brought in competition into their economy, the latter with great success and the former with the result that it collapsed.

Marxism is a form of communism, but is not synonymous. Maoism, for example, might be another form of communism, but is not Marxism. Marxism-Leninism is a form of communism adapted from Marxism from Lenin (duh), and is what the USSR followed. China did/does in theory but not in practice. Marxism-Leninism is very similar to Marxism, whereas Maoism is very different, being highly nationalistic (communism feels nations are artificial distinctions) and non-humanist (Marxism is supposedly the furthest extension of humanism).

The USSR never claimed to have ever achieved either true Marxism-Leninism or any other sort of communism. It claimed to be in stages of 'developed socialism' and then 'developing socialism' but was always trying to achieve communism, but never made it. By the mid-1960s most of the Soviet leaders quietly thought it impossible, and they were probably right.

Socialism, as has been said, means all sorts of different things. The Soviets felt their country was socialist, in the sense that it was progressing towards communism. For them, socialism was seen as an intermediate stage. For most others though it simply means that the state is 'large' and attempts to oversee large areas of people's lives, on the principle that pooled resources work more efficiently for the group as a whole. As it works for the group as a whole, it also involves wealth distribution.

Nazism has some socialist traits. It has a large state with a big budget and a high degree of control. All fascist economies do, I believe. However, it did not engage in significant wealth redistribution, which is a key trait of socialism, especially in the original Marxist sense, and was keen on big business, which is very unsocialist. It's economy also came to rely on the conquest of other nations. In other apsects it was also decidedly unsocialist, being aggressively nationalistic.

Anyway, that's what I've picked up from my various courses on Russia, China and Germany. There may be some more to it than that.

Whats offensive is the marxist worldview being expressed here.

Karl Marx did write the communist manifesto, so communism really is "marxism".

Nothing offends the marxist more than a merit system (capitalism). The marxists condemn merit and reward mediocrity. The classless society is one where the losers and misfits tear down the achievers.

You mentioned the various college courses and I can imagine the old hippie professors sporting pony-tails and birkinstock sandals.

The fact that Marx called his book 'The Communist Manifesto' does not mean that he either invented communism or defined it. He gave his version of it, that is all. Plato is often thought to be the first communist, and Thomas More was another in the early 16th century. Marxism is a type of communism, as I said, which included a definite and concrete theory on how communism could and would be achieved, whereas others had seen it in a more Utopian light.

Your idea of a marxist society is interesting, because you seem to assume that because it failed, their motive was to produce a society that failed. You should at least make an effort to understand why they thought what they did. Most of the original Marxists were well off and middle class. How does that tie in with your theory?

Well surprisingly enough I'd be impressed with myself if I was Sixgun...the most virulent topic on the site!

Neon

I think I found Sixgun's livejournal linked from Somethingawful.com
{LINK}

Many of those inherited their wealth. Then there are the rich Hollywood communists. Lets just say that the psychiatrists and psychologists get alot of work down there in Hollyweird.

BTW, Plato was also described as the first fascist too. So you might have a point about his alleged extremist tendencies.

Still the word "marxist" comes from Karl Marx, who of course wrote the Communist Manifesto.

"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
Tacitus

Which catagory do you think that you fall into Sixgun?

So what? They still weren't the jealous poor you seem to think they were.

So all the communists in Hollywood are mad? And what about the ones who don't. What is your point?

Maybe he was. So what?

That's right, and the word communist doesn't come from Karl Marx, it predates him, and communism and Marxism are still not synonyms.

You can hardly call what China and the USSR had going on was Marxism...

The USSR and Red China were communist states. It was Karl Marx that wrote the Communist Manifesto. Thus what the ChiComs and the USSR had going on was Marxism.