I would object to granting to 'chavs' the dignity of being a movement or cultural phenomenon: it is just Brit slang for something that has existed forever.

That is, street hooligans and juvenile delinquents.

Ummm - no. It's an actual working class subculture descended from the Mod and skinhead movements which incorporates hip-hop and Jamaican yardie cultural elements.



I'm in love!!

The reason we can't just "all get along" is because there are people who aren't interested in so doing; people who insist on their right to oppress and exploit others and will defend such "rights" with violence. When it comes to such matters, I'm neither a pacifist nor a pragmatist. Many seem to think for example it was very noble of the civil rights movement to bus black people to "whites-only" restaurants and have them just sit (or lay) there and take blow after blow after blow. I don't find that sort of thing noble at all. People should be able to and encouraged to resist and fight against oppression rather than just conceding to it in the name of "getting along" or "getting things done". I'm not opposed to negotiation or compromise, but I do have a conscience and a backbone.

There is no virtue in 'just getting along' at all if the people you're trying to get along with are a bunch of fascist/communist scumbags.

They'll just see it as weakness and run roughshod all over you.

Communists and Fascists are not the same thing. Listing them with a '/' in between doesn't make them the same thing. You are teetering very close to the edge of being added to our Political Exile user group if you cannot keep it civil. This post marks the last time you'll be warned about it.

Who did I insult in my post? I referred to no one on this forum personally, even in my thoughts, as I was posting. So i'm more than a little confused.

As for Communists/Fascists:

They're six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Both have their origins in early 19th century German Idealist philosophy, and later both were heavily influenced by a corrupt interpretation of Darwinianism.

Both despise capitalism and liberal democracy, even when like Lenin and Hitler they had to make temporary compromises with it to keep their ugly little social experiments alive.


Both define human beings in artificial collectivist terms, one as race and the other as class, and both must demonise them as false enemies that are marked for extermination.

Whether you murder 6 million innocent men, women and children for the crime of being born Jews or murder 6 million Ukrainian men women and children for being kulaks and 'class enemies' is a purely academic point, especially for the people who are being liquidated.

There are self-described Communists on this forum. Or have you struck your head and forgotten the discussions during the past week or so?

They are not the same thing, and in fact one tends to despise the other, if you're going to generalize.

Look, these threads lately have become really tiresome, and it's starting to feel like an election year. Conservatives vs. Liberals. Republicans vs. Democrats. It's starting to look a lot like these threads are started for the sole purpose of stroking each other's e-penis and anyone who's ideas differ or disagree are lumped into some dismissive category. And every other thread appears to be devolving into a contest to see who can start spouting off first about the scumbag commies.

The next post that has nothing to do with answering Adze original fucking question will result in this thread being closed. It can't be any clearer than that.

Yes ma'am.

-- Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:46 am --




You're correct in pointing out that both despise each other, but only because they were in competition for the same people: they were rivals, not opposites. One sought international socialism, the other sought national socialism. One exterminated races; the other exterminated classes [and sometimes even races too].

It's Democratic Capitalism--that finds its fullest, oldest and most stable expression in what has been called 'the Anglosphere'--that is the genuine opposite of communism/fascism, or so the history of the world from 1922 has shown.

Fascism and communism are polar opposites, not merely distinct in a "purely academic" sense. Fascists believe the people exist to serve the state. Communists envisage that the state should exist to serve and empower the people. Fascism is the very worst form of capitalist imperialism (not socialism) in that it's the most tyrannical and most aggressive. Fascists are fundamentally distinguished from bourgeois-democrats in that they reject the legitimacy of all political opposition, however moderate it may be, seeing the existing democracy not as inadequately democratic, but as too democratic; inefficient (i.e. weak). I pointed to George Will's certain similarities with such views on that basis.

Communists are not at all opposed to the rule of law, as you (sebastion) have claimed. All (sincerely) socialist countries have national constitutions and binding legal codes. But no that doesn't mean we (communists) support the existing ones. Yes I think the U.S. Constitution needs to be completely replaced. That's very different from saying it should be superceded by those in positions of authority.

I continue to dispute your unsubstantiated "statistics" vis-a-vis the history of socialist societies as well, but we'll not pursue that topic further.

Now Kimilsungism (which I adhere to) should be differentiated from Marxism. While Marxists are concerned mainly about class, Kimilsungists are equally concerned with class and self-determination issues. Hence there is a sense of revolutionary patriotism to Kimilsungism that's not present in Marxism. This patriotism, however, should not be confused for the national chauvinism of imperialism and fascism. Just to clarify that point as well. Likewise I would clarify that for people living in imperialist countries (so long as they're still imperialist countries, that is) to be patriotic is inherently chauvinist as far as Kimilsungists are concerned. Hence why I'm not exactly patriotic myself.

But getting back to George Will, I'm of course not saying he's a fascist per se. Rather, I was pointing out identifiable similarities between some of his views and fascist ones. The Republican Party in general, in my view, has these sorts of fascistic tendencies, as do its corresponding movements (e.g. the state militia movement, the tea party movement, etc.). That party corresponds to a more authoritarian and aggressive approach to imperialism. That much I believe is quite evident. You can see this ideological divide in the ruling class everywhere in society. In terms of press outlets, to take those as just one example, on Fox News you have thinly-concealed fascism, whereas CNN presents itself as the more "respectable", "neutral" news network corresponding to a more liberal attitude. The former of those two regularly and unambiguously attacks the "liberal media", arguing for a more "fair and balanced" (by which they mean right wing) consensus in news presentation overall. In a fascist America, Rupert Murdoch would get his wish: networks like Fox would be subsidized by the government, while ones like CNN would be outlawed.

[OT]I find it hard to believe that 'chavs' evolved from any form of Skinhead.[/OT]