You've been doing a lot of thinking today

....that explains why it's so humid

Infinity wrote: You've been doing a lot of thinking today ....that explains why it's so humid

it's the first time this year that I've cranked up the old grey matter!

spectral wrote: I'm thinking that perhaps Russia or China may have contributed a few bands of this nature.

Could be in Europe too.

WIGWAM's lyrics on "Proletarian" from "Being" album were concidered as praising of communism, but the players stated they attacked directly towards bourgeoise and counter-directly towards communism. Or then they only try to save their faces today.  Communism was "the thing" for many stundents in Finland during 70's and 80's. It was an easy and efective way to rebel against their parents, who went through the war with Soviet Union in their youth.

that's an interesting way to rebel.  couldn't they have just taken drugs!  would've been less dangerous!

wasn't there a finnish leader of dubious political morals who is highly regarded in finland?

BaldFriede wrote: Matching Mole (by the way, a play on words with Soft Machine. "Soft Machine" in French is "Machine Moll", which was "retranslated" into "Matching Mole") were a communist band, although with tongue in cheek. Their "Little Red Record" self-ironically deals with communism; one just has to take a look at the cover of it.

cool...

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00000JAXT.02.TZZZZZZZ.jpg -

philippe wrote: The first Amon Duul belongs to a communist political tribe! also  Floh de Cologne, maybe more anarchist

Not quite true, Philippe. Amon Düül were members of the "Kommune 1" (together with some members of the RAF terrorist group, by the way), but "Kommune 1" was more about the lifestyle of living in a commune than being communists.

thanks Mr Professor

floh de Cologne are real terrorists

Henry Cow

Frasse wrote: jackinthegreen wrote: Well, I'm swedish, and in the 70's the musical movement known as prog clearly was a left-political thing. (Xcuse my bad english)! The Swedish "progg" movement of the seventies weren't really about progressive music, altough some of the band played prog. Samla Mammas Manna and Kebnekaise are examples listed here at progarchives.

There are a few more: Trettioåriga Kriget, Älgarnas Trädgård, Kaipa etc... http://progg.se - http://progg.se is a good site (in Swedish).

Regarding Samla Mammas Manna. The album title "Klossa Knapitalet" is a wordplay of "Krossa Kapitalet" which means "Smash Capitalism!".

well Robert fripp is a red ..!!

Robert Wyatt Is a red.!   Song for Ché From the album "Ruth is Stranger Than Richard" - The DONDEESTAN Album

Salvador Allende

http://imageshack.us">

Hmm...A slight resemblence. That's why Fripp had part of his face blocked out on that album cover.

Only joking!

Robert Wyatt was a memebr of the Communist Party of Great Britain for over 10 years, and this is refelected in some of his songwriting and the songs he chooses to cover. Nothing Can Stop Us, Old Rottenhat and Dondestan all have a lot of politically explicit material on them.

Henry Cow were also into left wing politics, a commitment which most of those involved retain up to the present day, Chris Cutler in particular.

The other RIO bands - Etron Fou, Art Zoyd, Stormy 6, Zammla Mammaz Manna and Univers Zero - all shared a similar political outlook, though the exact nature of their engagement varied considerably - Art Zoyd, for example, had a detailed manifesto to describe their art and politics, while to the best of my knowledge Univers Zero have never made any public statements about their political beliefs.

I've always though that most prog is inclined more to the left than to the right. can anyone think of any explicitly right wing prog acts?

VIVA FIDEL CASTRO AND THE FREE CUBA

Viva la libertad Y viva el rock Progresivo.!!!!

http://imageshack.us">

jeje

Viva cuba and the Habanos

German bands  of early 70s such as Eloy were left oriented.It is interesting tthat countries with extreme right past is growning with extreme left youth,and vice versa.But speaking about politics in music, criticizing capitalism and consuming society Pink Floyd's Animals was the best in my opinion.

Viva communismo e la liberta

A lot of the English kids in the late 60s and 70s found joing the Party fashionable....only to have it come back and bite the uncommited among the lot on the ass as the govt. made the list public to potential employers....."Ahhhhh, Mr. Blythe-Smith, your resume looks great but what's this Communist Party membership here, lad?".   The groovier ideals of Communism....the Manifesto, not the Vanguard of the Proletariat....was essential to the hippie and often the inspiration for a lot of the fledgling prog bands.  It sure beat working.....for the man. 

Eetu Pellonpää wrote: spectral wrote: Couldn't they have just taken drugs!  would've been less dangerous! No! If you were caught from smoking (or even thinking about) weed you got exessive punishment from the authorities. Finland shares the mass hysteria towards drugs with America and Sweden. It's OK to be a violent alcoholic, but if you smoke dope you are taken to face the riffle squad.

When will those American republican bastards ever learn? First it's "marijuana has 4 times as much as tobacco as a cigarrett" (Camel cigarrette  ) Then a few years ago they do a new campagne against marijuana saying that the money goes to terrorists and show the 9/11 tragedy with the planes crashing into the buildings, trying to be real dramatic.

That makes a lot of sense, instead of growing it at home or getting it from people that can easily grow it at home, marijuana comes from terrorists in asia and is somehow smuggled here when it's nearly impossible to smuggle marijuana across our border anymore.

They will stop at nothing to make anything fun a crime. Not that I smoke it or anything.

Viva la Resistance!

AtomHeartMother wrote: Viva la Resistance!

        great episode btw.

nousommedusolei wrote: Hmm...A slight resemblence. That's why Fripp had part of his face blocked out on that album cover. Only joking!

You think that's a resemblence? Check this out.

take a look at Roger then at Napolean, the facial features are closely related.

Here in Brazil, prog bands of the 70s opposed the right-wing military dictatorship... I wouldn't say they all were communists but certainly they were left-wing.

As a leftist myself it made me more keen to the Brazilian prog-movement: Mutantes, O Terço, Som Imaginário, 14-Bis, Secos & Molhados, etc.

Other musical movements here (in the 60s and 70s) like tropicalismo and clube da esquina were left-oriented too - together with many people from the so-called MPB (more traditional Brazilian music including samba and bossa nova).

It's funny to read people praising communism from the comfort provided by a democratic Government.

We had a Communist Government, and the first thing they did was to ban Rock because they considered it a Yankee influence against our inheritance.

Our country broke, we passed from being the N° 1 country in fishing Industry to be out of the 100 list, we passed from providing potato to all the world to buying in from communist countries, all our sugar industry collapsed, but the Government friends were richer every day.

Nobody could have dollars, the banks were opened and our money stolen, farms were taken from their owners, The Government controlled all the media placing members of their party as Directors, we almost had a new war with Chile because it was the excuse to buy more weapons to be used in order to control the citizens who asked for freedom.

Viva the Free Cuba????

Have you ever been in Cuba?

I've been twice and that country is anything except free, people is starving but tourists throw their warm mohitos into the sand in the all inclusive resorts. Women fell in prostitution for 20 bucks (Three months salary), Stores don't accept Pesos to buy groceries even when carrying dollars is a crime.

You can find lots of doctors and engineers, but most of them work cleaning toillets in the luxury Hotels for 140 Pesos a month (US$ 7.00) just because they can take the food that the tourists leave in the buffets to their homes.

Ask Armando Valladares who spent 24 years in jail, this poet was captured in 1960 whe he was 23 and set free due to the pressure of all the world in 1984 at the age of 47 years. What was his horrendous crime? He refused to put a sticket that said "If Fidel is a communist, then put me on the list. He's got the right idea."  on his working desk.

There are a lot of members here who come from Polland, Hungary, etc and one of them told us some time ago what really happened in his country.

It's easy to shout Viva el Comunismo in a democratic country, but try to shout Live Capitalism in a communist country.

Iván

BTW: At this moment and after what this thread has turned into, should be moved fromn the Prog Music Lounge.

[QUOTE=abyssyinfinity]Area, Stormy Six & Venegoni & Co., obviously!
Banco del Mutuo Soccorso in the 70's were near the Italian Socialist Party, they had an album called Garofano Rosso (Red Carnation)...[/QUOTE]

Don't know why the quote box did not appear????

Area's version of Internazionale (worker's anthem) appears on Areazione (the live LP) and the new box set, Revolution.

As for Garafano Rosso, it was a soundtrack to a film by Luigi Faccini. It is set in Sicily in the 1920's, and it follows the activities of a love-struck young man who is slightly involved with the local fascist party. Fascists, socialists and communists were all wrestling for control of that area at that time. I may be wrong, but I think the carnation was used by the fascists...???

Lamont! You big dummy!

Most Italian prog bands of the 70s, like Area, Banco, Osanna; some French bands, Heldon for sure; most kratutrock bands (Surely Faust); many Spanish bands rebelling against fascis, etc. That is, in most part of the western world there were not only prog band but generally artists and thinkers that would abide communist ideas. In fact the "weirdness" of being or feeling communism is very much an anglo-american thing, and the difference between the "real socialism" put in practice in Eastern Europe and a communist philosophy and ethic as embedded in a democratic state is neglected. I was born in a country (Italy) where the Communist party was the largest for long periods, excluded from national governments but ruling the wealthiest cities and regions with very good results. And I now live in a country (Spain) where Socialists and Communists are governng, also with very good results. Today communist ideas are "out of fashion", but they have simply been replaced by what is commonly known as no global movement, which preaches egualitarianism and justice at a world level instead than in one counrty. The context for this battle has not changed substantially after 100 years, only the dangers from unruled capitalism have become worse. I am also sure that many prog bands (not in UK or US, with some excpetion e.g. Radiohead) would consider themselves "no global" and therefore are communists with another name.

abyssyinfinity wrote: Trouserpress wrote: Ooh you beat me to it, Abyssy! Area were at one stage heavily involved in the Italian Communist movement, I believe. Perhaps over the Italian Communist Party, they were near to insurrectional movements as "Brigate Rosse" or "Lotta Continua", one of the reason as Prog was removed from Italian broadcasting and memory is because it remember those "Leaden Days" (Years of terrorism in Italy were about 1969-1980, when Prog was on the top...)

To compare "Brigate Rosse" with "Lotta Continua" is simply ridiculous. I have many friends which were members of Lotta Continua, and they have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Area (apart from being a great band) were an anti-system band ina  period in which the Italian Communst Party was blamed by young people for being old-fashioned, traditionalist, heterodox and willing to come to terms with right-wing ruling parties. I don't think prog was banned from broadcasting for this reason, anyway: otherwise one couldn't eplain the success of folksingers with much more outspoken leftist political ideas. Maybe it has been banned for the same reasons it has been banned everywhere else, that is lack of appeal for the superfical majority.

Syzygy wrote: Robert Wyatt was a memebr of the Communist Party of Great Britain for over 10 years, and this is refelected in some of his songwriting and the songs he chooses to cover. Nothing Can Stop Us, Old Rottenhat and Dondestan all have a lot of politically explicit material on them. Henry Cow were also into left wing politics, a commitment which most of those involved retain up to the present day, Chris Cutler in particular. The other RIO bands - Etron Fou, Art Zoyd, Stormy 6, Zammla Mammaz Manna and Univers Zero - all shared a similar political outlook, though the exact nature of their engagement varied considerably - Art Zoyd, for example, had a detailed manifesto to describe their art and politics, while to the best of my knowledge Univers Zero have never made any public statements about their political beliefs. I've always though that most prog is inclined more to the left than to the right. can anyone think of any explicitly right wing prog acts?

Rush are admittedly right-wing inclined or anyway anti-communist. I love them anyway. Some "dark" bands of the 70s like Jacula or Antonius Rex are certainly right-wing. Battiato was blamed to be so. He is certainly not a communist but a more radical "expressionst" thinker rather than a fascist or liberal. Many power-prog bands, and I bet Styx are in there, are right-wing, and so are most southamerican bands (white priveileged bourgeosie). Blue Oyster Cult is definitely left-wing for me. I'd love to think that Genesis are left-wing (but Phil Colins isn't).

aprusso wrote: Rush are admittedly right-wing inclined or anyway anti-communist. I love them anyway. Love them anyway? Have their political beliefs any relation with their music????? Would you like Rush even more if they were communists?  Some "dark" bands of the 70s like Jacula or Antonius Rex are certainly right-wing. Battiato was blamed to be so. He is certainly not a communist but a more radical "expressionst" thinker rather than a fascist or liberal. Ok, so you're a communist or a Facist? Do you know Facist ideology is closer to Communism than to right oriented Democratic parties? Facism is corporativist and Communism is essentially State Corporativism Facist leaders were autoritarian as most Communist leaders (Stalin, Kruschev, Castro, Tito, Mao Tse Tung and of course the ultra radical Pol Pot) Facist and Communist leaders hate democratic elections (Read the same names). So before using cliché words, better analyze them. If I had a dollar for each time they called me a Facist in University for not being Communist I'd be rich,  Many power-prog bands, and I bet Styx are in there, are right-wing, and so are most southamerican bands (white priveileged bourgeosie). Have you ever been in South America? I'm white and I never had a priviledge, my mother had to work 10 hours a day top pay my school and today if I don't work I don't eat, you surely don't have a clue about what you're talking, BTW: Directly or indirectly I know most of Peruvian musicians and most of them are working people.  Blue Oyster Cult is definitely left-wing for me. I'd love to think that Genesis are left-wing (but Phil Colins isn't). Again, why would you love to think they are communist? Would that make The Musical Box or Supper's Ready better? Probably Phil Collins created so much crap as a soloist because he's not a communist. I really don't care if they are communists, anarchists (left or right oriented), Socialists or liberals, the music is the only thing that really matters. I love the music of Sylvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanés (Their lyrics make me sick because are created as an instrument to support Castro's Government) even when they sold their souls to a dictator and live as kings singing for the Revolution while Cuban population doesn't have freedom.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: aprusso wrote: Many power-prog bands, and I bet Styx are in there, are right-wing, and so are most southamerican bands (white priveileged bourgeosie). Have you ever been in South America? I'm white and I never had a priviledge, my mother had to work 10 hours a day top pay my school and today if I don't work I don't eat, you surely don't have a clue about what you're talking, BTW: Directly or indirectly I know most of Peruvian musicians and most of them are working people. Iván

Europeans and North Americans must know that modern societies in Latin America (with few exceptions) are very similar to their societies since we are inserted in the so-called Western World and the capitalist belt (chain?). The most noticeable difference is a greater percentage of people living below the poverty line (the 'poor') although there are local, national and regional characteristics also to be observed.

The 'old vision' of a minority of white previleged urban burgeoisie and a majority of illiterated peasants of amerindian or african ancestry have disappeared since the 50s-70s (depending on the nation). In all countries here there is a powerful middle-class with living standards at least equal to that of present Mediterranean Europe.

Fortunately we are (in South America) becoming more and more united and we may get good advances in all fields (although I still have restrictions to the globalization and other bleeding practices).  

Atkingani wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: aprusso wrote: Many power-prog bands, and I bet Styx are in there, are right-wing, and so are most southamerican bands (white priveileged bourgeosie). Have you ever been in South America? I'm white and I never had a priviledge, my mother had to work 10 hours a day top pay my school and today if I don't work I don't eat, you surely don't have a clue about what you're talking, BTW: Directly or indirectly I know most of Peruvian musicians and most of them are working people. Iván Europeans and North Americans must know that modern societies in Latin America (with few exceptions) are very similar to their societies since we are inserted in the so-called Western World and the capitalist belt (chain?). The most noticeable difference is a greater percentage of people living below the poverty line (the 'poor') although there are local, national and regional characteristics also to be observed. The 'old vision' of a minority of white previleged urban burgeoisie and a majority of illiterated peasants of amerindian or african ancestry have disappeared since the 50s-70s (depending on the nation). In all countries here there is a powerful middle-class with living standards at least equal to that of present Mediterranean Europe. Fortunately we are (in South America) becoming more and more united and we may get good advances in all fields (although I still have restrictions to the globalization and other bleeding practices).

OK, I don't know anything about the bands ... and I don't know about the situation in South America itself, not ever having been there ...

But in my life, first as a diplomat's kid then as a journalist I have met 80-100 South Americans ... almost without exception they seemed to be members of an oligarchy of European descent.

I"m not saying every South American of European descent is filthy rich ... and that there aren't non-Europeans who are wealthy ... but that externally my own experience from my travels and being in international schools indicate that this is true in general for Latin American nations (I include Cubans too, former Cuban ambassador to Mali Alberto Juarez was a family friend ... his aunt was Che's secretary) ... even my first love (from Chile) was born into a family of German descent and her father dated Pinochet's daughter ...

the most recent Brazillian journalist I met was a typical example, of Portugese and Italian descent, her parents landowners in Brazil, with a share in one of the Sao Paolo football clubs ... and a very Euro-centric direction (her fiance was European) ...

maybe the diplomatic circle is biased, although I don't think it should be ... but this sort of dominance, disproportionate to the racial groups of these countries, is certainly reflected in my own experience of South Americans ...

No accusations ... just a curious observation that from the outside, despite recently having had leaders of Asian descent in Peru, Argentina and Ecuador (for which I have great admiration for South America ... not the leaders themselves mind you ), the percentage of wealth that is in the hands of those of European descent seems heavily imbalanced.

Is that an unfair assessment?

ivan_2068 wrote: Ok, so you're a communist or a Facist? Do you know Facist ideology is closer to Communism than to right oriented Democratic parties? Facism is corporativist and Communism is essentially State Corporativism Facist leaders were autoritarian as most Communist leaders (Stalin, Kruschev, Castro, Tito, Mao Tse Tung and of course the ultra radical Pol Pot) Facist and Communist leaders hate democratic elections (Read the same names). So before using cliché words, better analyze them. If I had a dollar for each time they called me a Facist in University for not being Communist I'd be rich, Iván

Back on topic ... I have no dispute that the authoritaranism of many countries calling themselves Communist and that of Fascism make the regimes similar ... both were police states after all, and I have stated that I prefer living under a relatively free, right-wing government like in Malaysia or US than what I experienced albeit from a diplomatic cocoon in Laos, the old Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

But I have just one question Ivan ... which do you admire more ... the democractically elected Socialist government of Salvador Allende ... or the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet?

I know there are many factors ... the instability of Allende's regime, inflation, unemployment, etc, plus Pinochet'e stablising of the ecomony and eventual handover of power ... I have met Chileans who prefer the stablility of Pinochet's rule even if they knew others were suffering ... but if you can give me an answer in just one word (without taking the easy option of neither ... not that I have seen you taking the easy option before )  I will appreciate it ... Allende or Pinochet?

ivan_2068 wrote: [QUOTE=aprusso] Rush are admittedly right-wing inclined or anyway anti-communist. I love them anyway. Love them anyway? Have their political beliefs any relation with their music????? Would you like Rush even more if they were communists? Blue Oyster Cult is definitely left-wing for me. I'd love to think that Genesis are left-wing (but Phil Colins isn't). Again, why would you love to think they are communist? Would that make The Musical Box or Supper's Ready better? Probably Phil Collins created so much crap as a soloist because he's not a communist. I really don't care if they are communists, anarchists (left or right oriented), Socialists or liberals, the music is the only thing that really matters. I love the music of Sylvio Rodriguez and Pablo Milanés (Their lyrics make me sick because are created as an instrument to support Castro's Government) even when they sold their souls to a dictator and live as kings singing for the Revolution while Cuban population doesn't have freedom. Iván

Finally ... I agree with Ivan that a band's politics don't make that much difference in my appreciate of them ... I would rather listen to a good right-wing prog band then a bad left-wing punk band ... but I will say it has some effect ...

can you sing a leftist chorus with as much gusto as a non-political song, Ivan?

I do find that if message is abhorrent to me, then it makes it more difficult to accept the music ... however Rush is hardly a nasty, racist band, they (or at least Peart) just have some philosophical ideas that I disagree with ...

if some brilliant prog band had lyrics espousing violence, racism, fascism, etc ... maybe a pro-Hitler, anti-Jewish concept album ... then yes, I would have issues with it.

Norbert wrote: When you were able to visit Hungary, the regime was much softer than it was before  1963.Not to mention the early 50's. And you didn't like what you experienced, that shows your views are correct.  I suppose you were here in the 80's.

Yes, I was there in 1987 very briefly on an Eastern European tour ... which was not an easy thing to accomplish back then ... Budapest was, and I hope still is very beautiful, and I met friendly people, whereas in Czecholovakia it seemed to be more grim ... of course as a leftist I have an interest in the governments of Bela Kun and Imre Nagy (which of course was the one crushed in 1956) but if the average Hungarian is better off now, then I am happy to hear it. 

Trotsky wrote: Norbert wrote: When you were able to visit Hungary, the regime was much softer than it was before  1963.Not to mention the early 50's. And you didn't like what you experienced, that shows your views are correct.  I suppose you were here in the 80's. Yes, I was there in 1987 very briefly on an Eastern European tour ... which was not an easy thing to accomplish back then ... Budapest was, and I hope still is very beautiful, and I met friendly people, whereas in Czecholovakia it seemed to be more grim ... of course as a leftist I have an interest in the governments of Bela Kun and Imre Nagy (which of course was the one crushed in 1956) but if the average Hungarian is better off now, then I am happy to hear it.

felt safer. The government of Béla Kun had a Soviet-like authoritarian system, but thankfully it lasted

only 133 days. They did quite a lot of damage in that short time. Hungary completely lost any sympathy by France and Britain because of being a bolshevist nation.This caused the loss many of our territory and our people. Among them  there were a lot not-really-Hungarian ones, but what

happened in Trianon is anything but fair.

Imre Nagy is interesting.He spent a lot of time in the Sovietunion, his role in the Hungarian politics

is somehow surprising. There is a quite good movie about him called The Unburied Dead(A temetetlen halott), directed by Márta Mészáros. I don't know where is available beyond Hungary,

It has already been displaye somewhere abroad.

Ivan is spot on. Ask anyone who had to actually LIVE in a far left government what they think of it. How many people have been slaughtered in the name of far leftist movements? Not that far rightist movements haven't done their share, but the consistency with which the leftist movements do so is worthy of discussion.

But the point I want to get to is another one that Ivan suggested and that is the societally received perception of the politics of various bands. While exreme leftism and extreme rightism are very close, as in the horse shoe analogy, one gets treated well and is given high praise by our media (and often by our societies), while the other is not. When you look at the punk movement, far left bands are idolized all the time while bands from the far right are vilified. This vilification is justified, but why are the leftist bands given a free ride and even complimented for "fighting the power?" Why is the far left (who vocally support regimes who kill people for a living) considered better than the far right (who kill people for a living). To my eyes, at least from living in New York City, much of the "power" IS ALREADY LEFTIST, making the claim of fighting the power bogus since the the left IS predominantly the power (ESPECIALLY on virtually any college campus you examine). Rather than fighting any power, they are merely holding hands and all joining the mutually agreed-upon laugh track. This may also hold true in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington, DC.

Lastly, someone mentioned (and perhaps in a complimentary way) that today's left is different from the murderous left of previous generations in that is now about "anti-globalism and equality." To me, anti-globalism is NOT about egalitarianism and justice as much as it is about isolationism and moral equivalence. Anti-globalism is the post-modern, head-in-the-sand ideology that states to murderous regimes that it's OK for them to continue butchering and intimidating their people as long as they don't do it in the anti-globalists' country. Anti-globalism's "egalitarianism" also suggests that everything is equal in that there is no right and wrong, merely grievances that have not been addressed.

There was a day when the Left stood up and actually faught against fascists, as they did in Spain. Today's Left holds up most Fascist leaders with praise and excuses while hypocritically casting down hail storms on the possibility of achieving liberal democracy--Freedom--in more of the world.

No country or government has ever achieved Communism, instead they managed to change the definition of the word to mean the same as socialism.

The definition should be:

An economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Instead they made it:

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power.

All music should steer clear of communism, in my opinion! It was okay in the 60's when no one knew better but it is blatantly obvious now that communism has been a blight on the world and caused just as much damge as Fascism! Democracy is the only way of government that should be promoted. Communism is unnatural and

Anti Artistic!!!!

All this talk about what does comunism really mean is absolute bulls**t. I totally agree with Ivan. What we need here in Brazil is just a decent social-democratic government, that doesn't sell the country to the "free market" but doesn't try to recreate the wheel and to insist in live without connections to the outside world.

With all its defects, western democracy is the better thing we could create to rule our lives. I'm talking more of the european conception of democracy than the north-american and its maniqueism. I know that everyone of us can see the flaws of our countries better than who looks from the ouside, but the coments of Trotsky about the upper classes of Brazil are absolutely true.

We can't praise Cuba or the USA either, 'cause the irrealistic situation of the first and the distorted view of the rest of the world from the last don't left space to a true dialogue between differentes, that could help to construct a better model.

My country is living a tremendous ethic disaster nowadays: the political group that carried the hopes of the lower classes was caught doing the same corrupt practices of his ideological oponents. The christian right is growing up in Brazil in a very sordid way, and I fear for a political future in my country that can be compared with that on the USA - but with a giant social exclusion of 3/4 of the population.

Solutions? We all know that there is no solution. I just think more in local actions connected with a global ethics than in traditional ways of classifying a political action. This can be seem as pure alienation, but I'm talking about reconstruct the relations between people, with self-respect and respect for the others, acceptance of the difference, etc. My greater concern is about the lack of laicism in the relations between the public and the private, and this is a problem so huge that I put the "wings" in a second plane. I hope I'm not totally wrong.

An ex-left-wing, non right-wing and ABSOLUTELY NOT christian or maniqueistic.    

Trotsky wrote:

But in my life, first as a diplomat's kid then as a journalist I have met 80-100 South Americans ... almost without exception they seemed to be members of an oligarchy of European descent.

Well, things have changed very much since the 70's in Prú, there's no more Aristocrats, the new aristocracy is formed by the industrials, most of them started as workers and are far from being white.

Look at our President Alejandro Toledo, he's an a$$whole who tried to be liberal but doesn't know a sh!t about anything, he's 100% native Peruvian from a small town in Cuzco, of course he married with an ex-communist French woman who now lives in luxury and forgotten about her dreams of youth.

As an example, the biggest market chain called Wong (An emporium), started placing their stores in San Isidro or La Planicie where the wealthiest people live, but their store in San Miguel (A zone for supossedly low middle class and with very very few white families) sells more than all thier other stores together, this is incredible.

People who have a stand in the fruit markett (wodden 2 X 2 Mts) sell an average of 10 or 20 grands a day, those stands cost more than US$ 100,000 each one, more than a 300 ms2 house in the best zone whre the quare meter costs US$ 1,000 (Built).

Trotsky wrote:

Back on topic ... I have no dispute that the authoritaranism of many countries calling themselves Communist and that of Fascism make the regimes similar ... both were police states after all, and I have stated that I prefer living under a relatively free, right-wing government like in Malaysia or US than what I experienced albeit from a diplomatic cocoon in Laos, the old Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

Neither do I, but I hate people using the cliché of calling Facists to every person that doesn't dream with the Revolution and killing the rich b*****ds, giving all the food to the poor (I don't know how this utopic state will work without industrials to give job and a mega inflation), without knowing that Facist Populism offered exactly the same thing.

Of course those gus only dream in coffe shops drinking a 5 bucks Isrish coffee, but when they leave University and start gaining money, they become more capitalist than the most fanatic anti-communist.

Cmigkiff wrote:

But I have just one question Ivan ... which do you admire more ... the democractically elected Socialist government of Salvador Allende ... or the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet?

None of them, Alende was an honest idealist, I give him that, but the chaos in Chile was terrible, the extremist who helped him reach the power were trying to take control, people had to stand in the front of the markets where you couldn't buy anything.

Pinochet is a bloody criminal.

Trotsky wrote:

can you sing a leftist chorus with as much gusto as a non-political song, Ivan?

It's funny, in the University while witting for the results of elections I sat in the rotonda (Small plaza) with my cheap guitar singing revolutionary songs of Silvio Rodriguez, and enjoyed most of their lyrics, because even when I'm not a commie, I believe in social justice.

My mother laughed and asked me how could I sing this songs being a right oriented person, she said i was (and still am) contradictory.

I love The Knife which lyrics are about a Communist revolutionary, honestly I rarely listen a right oriented song, people of this political position rarely use music as propaganda.

Trotsky wrote:

I experienced albeit from a diplomatic cocoon in Laos, the old Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

Have you ever heard how the Praga spring of 67 (If I'm not wrong about the year), and the Tian Nam Meng (Can't remember who it's written) plaza movements ended, that's Communist justice and re

action against people asking for democracy. 

Cnidkiff wrote:

No country or government has ever achieved Communism, instead they managed to change the definition of the word to mean the same as socialism.

Ib believe Communist has been achived as a form of state capitalism, what haven't been achieved is real Socialism except maybe in Sweden at some moment, where everybody has the same oportunities, but no one is given anything for free. 

Captain Beyond wrote:

far left bands are idolized all the time while bands from the far right are vilified.

That's exactly my point, if someoe sings the Fourth International Anthem is a dreamer, if someone sings the Giovenezza (Facist anthem) or Cara al Sol (Franco's anthem) is a criminal. Both are wrong, but it's beautiful to feel as the Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give it to the poor.

What they don't know is that when this Robin Hoods reach the power they steal from the rich, repress the poor worst than the Notingham Sheroiff and Prince John together and they stay with the stolen money.

Iván

moodyxadi wrote: ... My country is living a tremendous ethic disaster nowadays: the political group that carried the hopes of the lower classes was caught doing the same corrupt practices of his ideological oponents. The christian right is growing up in Brazil in a very sordid way, and I fear for a political future in my country that can be compared with that on the USA - but with a giant social exclusion of 3/4 of the population. Solutions? We all know that there is no solution. I just think more in local actions connected with a global ethics than in traditional ways of classifying a political action. This can be seem as pure alienation, but I'm talking about reconstruct the relations between people, with self-respect and respect for the others, acceptance of the difference, etc. My greater concern is about the lack of laicism in the relations between the public and the private, and this is a problem so huge that I put the "wings" in a second plane. I hope I'm not totally wrong. An ex-left-wing, non right-wing and ABSOLUTELY NOT christian or maniqueistic.

Take care with these numbers, moodyxadi... 3/4 for a population of 186 millions means 140 millions of 'excluded' which is far from reality!

According to several census made by the government (IBGE - a serious entity) and also UNICEF, FAO, etc, the number of people living below the poverty line is 51 millions but using the PPP (purchasing power parity) this number decreases to 23 millions - a great and terrible number in my opinion but representing 13% of Brazilian population instead of 75%.

Korova wrote: this poll shows just how many stupid things people can say abuot communism...having never read a single word written by Marx, Lenin, Che Guevera or Gramsci. Ivàn seys we are free...but the question is free of doing what? A small gruop of person rule this world and use his power to become everyday more rich, and we have to pay them a lot of money to have things that we should have for right. So what the hell you people are talking about? First to speak, read.

It's not a question of "free." It's not a question of wealth distribution. It's about the hypocrisy of giving the left a free ride when they have been responsible for as much--maybe more--butchery than the right. It's the double standard that's frustrating, especially because it is often very smug, self-satisfied, condescneding AND often spoken most loudly by wealthy people living in secure, bourgeois states.

As for "Freedom," there is no absolute freedom on Earth, nor as there ever been. If you feel you can design it and make it happen, I'd love to see the plan. And, no, communism is not an acceptable answer.

Behold them seated in their glory

The kings of mine and rail and soil

What have you read in all their stories

But how they plundered toil?

The fruits of the people's toil are buried

In the strong coffers of a few

In voting for their restitution

The people only ask their due

In the final conflict let each stand in her place

The international party shall be the human race

In the final conflict let each stand in his place

The Internationale unite the human race

No saviour from on high deliver

No trust have we in prince or peer

Our own right arm the chains must shiver

Chains of hatred, greed and fear

Until thieves will out with their booty

And to all give a happier lot

Each at his forge must do his duty

And strike the iron while it's hot

In the final conflict let each stand in his place

The international party shall be the human race

In the final conflict let each stand in her place

The Internationale unite the human race

http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Namiki/3684/kaihou/inter2.htm - http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Namiki/3684/kaihou/inte r2.htm

I still think it's a worthy cause.

about the original topic, I think that "prog" (widely defined) can be most associated with left-wing thoughts (even more widely). the importance of reflexion, of questioning of what is stablished, of searching of innovative forms of art, among others, are common attitudes I see in both movements. I'm not talking about statements made by concrete artists, but about tendencies and attitudes...

speaking of south american bands, particularly in Argentina, many of them (prog and non-prog, and I'd say most of the artistic community) have some ideological, social, political thoughts that loosely relate to leftism, known here as "progre", progresismo, progressivim (funny, eh?). Thoughts centered in vague concepts as social justice, progressive (again) distribution of wealth, rights including homosexual marriage, drugs despenalization, etc. But that kind of social reformism is far from being "communism".

by the way, "a state which kills people" isn't communist either. yet that seems to be the only thing that comes to our heads when we think of the word communism. I agree with cmidkiff when he says:

"The definition should be: An economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Instead they made it: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power."

All so-called communist regimes have had these dicatorian-authoritarian characteristics, but communism is about the opposite of central despotic authority, it indeed IS about freedom, a cherished word for US americans and liberal-democratic ideology in general which takes the "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (freedom, equality, fraternity) only in its superficial meaning.

anyway, very much off topic...

Alejandro

Cifaxon,

Your definition of communism sounds great. There are all sorts of Utopias we can think of that would be fantastic for all involved. But that's why they are Utopias. It doesn't take much to think of them but it takes a lot to make them happen.

Communism ideals sound fine but doesn't it strike you as curious that it has never come close to being and that the "state [never seems to] wither away and die." Is there something at odds with human nature here?

The only leader in history that I know of who has rejected power/kingship when it was offered to him was George Washington. His refusal to, in essence, become king of this new country was the most important decision in allowing the US to ever become itself--what I consider the most important and overall best country in the world. THAT decision by Washington was the true beginning of modern Democracy. Which leads me to ask: how would you have Democracy within a Communist economic scheme? How would it function? How would the various member of the "commune" decide how certain governing tasks were to be done? Communism may or may not address the economic distribution in a way that you favor but I stil do not see how it addresses anything else.

Iván

The argument "it has never come close to being" is strong. however it proves nothing. imagining a system like capitalism was absolutely impossible 600 years ago. what makes you think that capitalism is not as well transitory? maybe that it suits better an abstractly defined "human nature"? could it be that the way you think the human nature is derivated from you living and having been raised and educated in a capitalist culture? and that the form that this and other concepts assume are functional to the system in which they were originated? The nowadays so despicable "nobility-clergy-peasants" strong social class-division from the Middle Ages was also supposed to correspond to the "natural order" of things. The fact is that what is "natural" is socially (mainly by the dominant classes) defined.

I don't know much about Washington, but argentinian (and so many others) patriotic history also has some "great men" with no apparent interest in personal power/fortune/etc. who set a model for the nation. but I don't think that the decision of a few men can determine the "fate" of a country. that decisons may be the symbol of modern democracy, but are not its explanation. democracy came to USA as it came to Europe (England, then France, then other countries along the nineteenth century) mainly because it is the political system which is most appropriate to the economic reality of (free-)market capitalism.

sure USA is "the most important country in the world". it's the center of the current phase of capitalism, it concentrates the biggest number of biggest companies, and based on that economic power acts as world police, starting wars, and imposing "freedom" on third-world countries (Middle East, Latin America in the 70s -maybe they'll do it again soon) directly or not: militarly, politically, economically. So I definitely don't consider it "the best country". (absolutely no offense intended by saying this, I'm only trying to describe an objective process I see.)

finally, I honestly have as well some doubts about how communism could be taken into practice seriously. I think of a true democracy, which can be participative, which favours fair economic distribution, which governs for the common of the people in reality, not only in its speech.

Cifaxon wrote: I don't know much about Washington, but argentinian (and so many others) patriotic history also has some "great men" with no apparent interest in personal power/fortune/etc. who set a model for the nation.

Sure you have, I recognize in Don José de San Martín the man that set us free of Spain with absolutely no personal interest.

He came, lead our army with his money and stayed for two years, the first Congress offered him the charge of "Protector" (Almost a perpetual President), but he galantly said his duty had ended and it was our turn to choose a Peruvian ruler.

The funny thing is that he wasn't a democrat or a capitalist, he was even behind democrats his real option was the monarchy but leaved to us the power to decide our destiny.

Another person fought for Peruvian liberty but asked the charge of President for live as payment, when we refused, this guy divided our country, and sadly most Peruvians don't recognize the real value and honor of José de San Martín.

Iván

The argument "it has never come close to being" is strong. however it proves nothing. imagining a system like capitalism was absolutely impossible 600 years ago. what makes you think that capitalism is not as well transitory? maybe that it suits better an abstractly defined "human nature"?

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: I'm not saying that capitalism is the ultimate form of human nature. It may very well give way to something else. However, I am saying that it provides a lot of good for a lot of people when it is carried out by a representitive democracy. I'm also saying that, since communism has NEVER come close to being--except as murderous police states--maybe there's something about it that is not consistent with human nature.

 could it be that the way you think the human nature is derivated from you living and having been raised and educated in a capitalist culture? and that the form that this and other concepts assume are functional to the system in which they were originated? The nowadays so despicable "nobility-clergy-peasants" strong social class-division from the Middle Ages was also supposed to correspond to the "natural order" of things. The fact is that what is "natural" is socially (mainly by the dominant classes) defined.

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: The problem with the medieval system was that it was primarily a theocracy. Only the Church had any power to determine what was going on. No independent idea can really emerge from a state that controls all means of thought--on pain of imprisonment, or worse. In that kind of world, only one voice can say what human nature is. In our world, anyone can say what human nature is and the truth (or as close to it as we can figure out), takes shape on the ground.

I don't know much about Washington, but argentinian (and so many others) patriotic history also has some "great men" with no apparent interest in personal power/fortune/etc. who set a model for the nation. but I don't think that the decision of a few men can determine the "fate" of a country. that decisons may be the symbol of modern democracy, but are not its explanation. democracy came to USA as it came to Europe (England, then France, then other countries along the nineteenth century) mainly because it is the political system which is most appropriate to the economic reality of (free-)market capitalism.

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: Maybe Democracy would have come to Europe, maybe it wouldn't have. Maybe some of these other great guys would have rejected the power given to them, maybe they wouldn't have. George Washington (the general given most of the credit for winning the American War of Independence) was unanimously chosen to continue to serve as America's president. He was the most famous and popular guy in the country. If he claimed the presidency, no one would have complained. By essentially refusing to be made king, George Washington did what was never done in the history of mankind (to the best of my knowledge) (and if you think refusing a kingship is easy, check out every single attempt at communism). Without him doing this, there probably never would have been a USA. Without a USA, it is doubtful that any other country would have tried this experiment. 

sure USA is "the most important country in the world". it's the center of the current phase of capitalism, it concentrates the biggest number of biggest companies, and based on that economic power acts as world police, starting wars, and imposing "freedom" on third-world countries (Middle East, Latin America in the 70s -maybe they'll do it again soon) directly or not: militarly, politically, economically. So I definitely don't consider it "the best country". (absolutely no offense intended by saying this, I'm only trying to describe an objective process I see.)

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: No offense taken. I just differ with you substantially. For one, we HAVE to take the role of world police because 1) there are a lot of psychos out there and 2) no one else has the balls to step up to the plate. Second, I don't think that Freedom is something that can be "imposed." Freedom is the greatest of all ways of living. Why is freedom OK for you but for someone who is living under a military dictator? The question I have for you is why do you support the Husseins, Ahmedinejads, the Assads, the Arafats and many other people who steal from their people, kill their people, mutilate their people, gang rape their people, deny most rights to women and all rights to gays? It seems to me that you would allow these people to continue functioning the way they always have--through fear and intimidation.

finally, I honestly have as well some doubts about how communism could be taken into practice seriously. I think of a true democracy, which can be participative, which favours fair economic distribution

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: Please let me know what "fair economic distribution" means.

which governs for the common of the people in reality, not only in its speech

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: Please let me know what "the common of the people" means.

Holy God, I love this, taking the racist crap THIS IS ALMOST EXACT TO THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination. 9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. 10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. We demand therefore: 11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work. The breaking of the slavery of interest 12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises. 15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age. 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders. 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. * 18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race. 20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State. 21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth. 22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army. 23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand: The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand. 25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states. The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.

If you didn't noticed this is part of the 25 points of the NAZI MANIFESTO from Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler.

Now, how some of you dare to call right wing people facists when this is clearly Communist oriented??????

Tis is exactly the opposite to what any normal right wing party will ever demand, but exact to what any Communist country will demand.

I'll try to find the Facist manifesto by Mussolini on the net to see how similar it can be.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Trotsky wrote: [quote]ivan_2068 wrote: Have you ever heard how the Praga spring of 67 (If I'm not wrong about the year), and the Tian Nam Meng (Can't remember who it's written) plaza movements ended, that's Communist justice and re:action against people asking for democracy.  It was 1968, in Czech, Wenzel's Square I think, and 1989, Beijing Tianamen ...I have visited both places and mourned the losses ... even the name of my initial idol should give you a clue as to how I feel about virtually all so-called Communist governments. Well, at least we agree in something, all Communist Governments up to the date commit worst crimes that almost anybody else. Cnidkiff wrote: Quote:  No country or government has ever achieved Communism, instead they managed to change the definition of the word to mean the same as socialism. Ib believe Communist has been achived as a form of state capitalism, what haven't been achieved is real Socialism except maybe in Sweden at some moment, where everybody has the same oportunities, but no one is given anything for free.  I think you're off there, the final state of communism ... as initially written about by Marx (and Engels, depending on who you believe ) ... is one where government's fade away after a state of dictatorship by the proletariat ... I think the state capitalism/market socialism of welfare states in Scandinavia (and arguably places like New Zealand) is the closest thing to a workable model the left has had since Marx ... and even you'll get your gripes and it's noticable that these nations have relatively tiny, homogenous populations and lots of resources.  According to Engels, the determinism ohistory leads to Communism and only after Communism has proved it's the best system and it's preminet in all the world then and only then we can achieve the absolute abolition of Governments. So yes Communism existed but it failed, probably nobody ever reached the final state of political evolution that would come after Communism, but Communism existed. Of course this is absolutely BS. Communism was the second major force in the world since the end of Worl War II, when the winners took Europe and divided it, and this system has failed, the economies of all those systems is collapsed, the injusties and crimes were worst than ever, I read that Stalin killed more people than the Nazis. And again is obvious for any intelligent person that the absolute dictatorship of the proletariat is absurd, a central Government woill always be needed, absolute abnarchism is equivalent to chaos. Captain Beyond wrote: Quote: far left bands are idolized all the time while bands from the far right are vilified. That's exactly my point, if someoe sings the Fourth International Anthem is a dreamer, if someone sings the Giovenezza (Facist anthem) or Cara al Sol (Franco's anthem) is a criminal. Both are wrong, but it's beautiful to feel as the Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give it to the poor. What they don't know is that when this Robin Hoods reach the power they steal from the rich, repress the poor worst than the Notingham Sheroiff and Prince John together and they stay with the stolen money. I think the reason that the far left still gets more credit is that the ideas they were committing evil in the name of sounded far more noble ... brother and equality rather than the superiority of one people over others ... I don't know these fascist anthems but there's nothing ignoble to me about the Internationale and such ... are you telling me you don't see a difference in theme between (and maybe even just the tiltes) of The Internationale and Deutschland Uber Alles? I'm sure you know history Trotsky, and Facism was born as popular system (Don't mix it Nazism yet), but Mussolini betrayed his own beliefs and joined Hitler (BTW NAZI = Natiobnal SOCIALISM and if you read Mein Kampf you'll notice that Hitler's  Manifesto is almost Communist). Just the same things that happened with Communism, the leaders were thirsty of power and when they took control it all became a form of State Capitalism. That's why I don't believe in Facism, Communism or any political system that in any moment will centralize all power the in the Government. You can say Bush is allmighty, but that isnn't true people voted for him twice, but he will leave and probably the Democrats will win. But you know ideas can always be stretched, Ivan you seemed outraged that the extreme left doesn't get enough criticism ... yet surely you remember back to the mid-80s when Thatcher and Reagan (I'm guessing their names fill your heart with joy ) were doing everything they could to support the likes of Pinochet and the apartheid system and a whole bunch of brutal dictators also ... Thatcher never had my sympathy, I can't forgive her for what she did to the Irish Congresmen that started the hunger strike like Bobby Sands, but as long. BTW: Yes Reagan supported Pinoochet as most Chile in the 80's and Thatcher suported in a more covered way the appartheid, but I believe Reagan was a good President according to most USA citizens, but Thatcher was almost a dictator. and these moderate rightist weren't just singing songs, my friend ... they were diverting substantial resources to keep fascist police states going Well before that USSR supported Cuba, Vietnam and even the Pol Pot revolution, Cuba by their side was the trainning camp of all terrorist moivements from Latin America, that's called balance of power. BTW Trotsky, you avoided several parts of my post.   Korova wrote: this poll shows just how many stupid things people can say abuot communism...having never read a single word written by Marx, Lenin, Che Guevera or Gramsci. Probably I read more Marx and Engels in University than you during all your live (BTW: Also read Utopia), and about el Che, he had nothing to do in Cuba or Bolivia. How you dare to say USA shouldn't participate in foreign conflicts,and we  must accept that an Argentinian terrorist should be participating in Cuba and Bolivia? Why everybody was happy when USA supported Fidel Castro against Batista? Why all the leftist guys kept silence when USSR invaded Afghanistan and now the same guys attack USA? Ivàn seys we are free...but the question is free of doing what? A small gruop of person rule this world and use his power to become everyday more rich, and we have to pay them a lot of money to have things that we should have for right. So in Cuba the people control everything? In China' Vietnam? Laos? ex- USSR? Cambodia (Or as you probably like more the ex-Democratic  Campuchea)? It's always a small group who controls most things with the differencet is that in Communist Governments the party controls everything, call it Politburo or whatever you want, but a bunch of people control EVERYTHING and supress all freedom. At least in democratic countries you can say fu*k Bush and nothing happens, try to do that in Cuba Just to end, What do you desserve to have by right that you can't earn with your work? Don't you believe that guys like Bill Gates have earned the last cent he has? Do you want him to share it with you? What have you done to deserve that? I'm not rich, I don't even have a secure job, but I simply don't envy the guys that have more than me, probably thet deserve it and I don't. So what the hell you people are talking about? First to speak, read. Not only I read, but I LIVED IN A ONCE COMMUNIST COUNTRY so you won't teach me your theories from the comfort and freedom  provided by Italy. .   Iván

If I avoided any posts, Ivan it's because we have either covered the ground before or I don't want to get too involved in this ... now you are linking the right wing dictators with communism (and I never denied it grew out of it) perhaps to avoid the fact that most called moderate right wingers have a few things in common with the xenophobic extreme rightists (look at Australia's John Howard, for example) ..

I can look through at many things you say... like all the leftist guys kept silence when USSR invaded Afghanistan  ... and both you and I know that simply isn't true (just study the Trotskyist Fourth International and Social-Democractic Second International ) ... I for one blame the USSR and USA's foreign policy for much instability all around the world today ... (to me they were just another extension of the colonialism of the English, French, Spanish, etc) ... using these so-called ideologies to pursue power ...

I think you misused my terminology ... I said so-called Communist ... I have a big problem with these regimes, because they distorted good ideas with cruel and inhuman practices ... they repluse me ... but to reject an idea because of the people who claim to practise it is wrong ...

You seem quick to dismiss leftist ideas on the grounds of those who have practised it, but when it is the Catholic church/Christianity involved ... (and by the way I think you know it is behind a fair amount of cruelty itself) ... I believe I have heard you singing a different tune ... you see all this sounds personal, when you know very well we are quite entrenched in opposing ideas

We can sit here trading examples of cruelty/oppression by different governments ... but my ideal government has never existed ... certainly not one that could applied to a large nation like the US or Brazil or India. Has yours?

BTW, when was Peru "Communist"? Do you mean Alvarado, which is a reasonable stretch or please don't tell me Alan Garcia ... either way, which one of Peru's multitude of Communist parties played the dominant role in their governments? Or are you just playing with terminology again?

This is even better, this is the FACIST MANIFESTO:

Politically, the Manifesto calls for: universal suffrage at age 18, including non-landowners proportional representation on a regional basis voting for women (which was opposed by every other European nation) representation at government level of newly created National Councils by economic sector, and the abolition of the Italian Senate, which were political appointments made by the King to his friends. In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for: an 8-hour day and a minimum wage involvement of workers' representatives in industry reorganisation of the transport sector revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, and reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55. In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates: creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities armaments factories are to be nationalised, and a peaceful but competitive foreign policy. In finance, the Manifesto advocates: a heavy progressive tax on capital (envisaging a "partial expropriation" of concentrated wealth) expropriation of the property of religious congregations revision of all contracts for military provisions and sequestration of 85% of all war profits by the state.

Now, who is closer to Facism?????

Funny, Communist are close to Facism but even closer to Nazi doctrine.

Iván

BTW, when was Peru "Communist"? Do you mean Alvarado, which is a reasonable stretch or please don't tell me Alan Garcia ... either way, which one of Peru's multitude of Communist parties played the dominant role in their governments? Or are you just playing with terminology again?

Yes, I ment the military dictator Juan Velazco Alvarado (In Spanish the middle name is the one that counts).

He was a total communist, started the Land Reform, confiscation of profit, cbnfiscation of property, natinalization of corporations, etc.

But ruined Perú.

Alan García claims to be a Social Democrat, his party APRA is directly relatd to the Mexican PRI, he declared total moratory of the payments of external debt, tried to confiscate the Bank, etc.

But we had a 7'000,000% inflation (Yes SEVEN MILLION). If you had 7'000,000 soles at the beginning of the Government, at the end you had one sol.

But at the end of his government he return o the populist meassures.

Iván  

BTW: Most of my comments are not against your point of view which I don't share but that i respect, mostly is against those persons who use cliché words as Facists to describe people with a right wing orientation without knowing what Facism was.

And they even ask us to read when they are the ones talking before thinking.

BTW, Ivan, I just went through your last posts

the only points I didn't address were the Pinochet, Allende one, where I have nothing to say about your "neither" response ... it is about as dignified as a moderate rightist could muster

Also, as for the European thing ... well, since you're talking about Peru, I have to accept your word that you correct, but it doesn't explain why all the South Americans I've met who are rich enough to travel or take up lucrative careers in diplomacy, etc are all of European descent ...

Just saw your latest post ... as a lawyer you must know where you're coming from, I assume you have studied some sort of logic also. Do you want me to argue that as a Christian, you are closer to a Satanist than an atheist is?

ivan_2068 wrote: Trotsky wrote: BTW, when was Peru "Communist"? Do you mean Alvarado, which is a reasonable stretch or please don't tell me Alan Garcia ... either way, which one of Peru's multitude of Communist parties played the dominant role in their governments? Or are you just playing with terminology again? Yes, I ment the military dictator Juan Velazco Alvarado (In Spanish the middle name is the one that counts). He was a total communist, started the Land Reform, confiscation of profit, cbnfiscation of property, natinalization of corporations, etc. But ruined Perú. Alan García claims to be a Social Democrat, his party APRA is directly relatd to the Mexican PRI, he declared total moratory of the payments of external debt, tried to confiscate the Bank, etc. But we had a 7'000,000% inflation (Yes SEVEN MILLION). If you had 7'000,000 soles at the beginning of the Government, at the end you had one sol. But at the end of his government he return o the populist meassures. Iván

And I recently read that Alan Garcia is planning a comeback too!

My main hope is that the people of the country are better off ...

It is one of those contradictions ... many of Malaysia's neighbours have a far more vibrant recent political history than us ... Vietnam, India, Indonesia ... but the average Malaysian is much better off, despite moderate-right wing one-party rule for 48 years ... of course, I believe that outside forces play their part, and essentially steering a moderate left/moderate right course (until like in Germany and UK, it becomes a little difficult to tell who is who!) is the safest route to prosperity for many people ...

But to me, it doesn't overcome underlying injustice ... if 60% of the world are living below the poverty line now ... can you still blame communism for that ... for how long?

Communism in Prague!?

Just saw your latest post ... as a lawyer you must know where you're coming from, I assume you have studied some sort of logic also. Do you want me to argue that as a Christian, you are closer to a Satanist than an atheist is?

I agree that we believe in the existence of the devil satan or however you want to call him.

But we don't share a common ground with him, in the case of Facism, Nazism and Communism, there are lots of common grounds.

For any right wing person the words:

1. Land reform
2. Expropiation
3. Confiscation
4. People's Army
5. Strong central power
6. Communalization
7. Profit sharing
8. Sequestration of profits

Among others are a sin, but you can find each and every one in Marxism, Facism and Nazism.

But again, you never called me a Facist, I think you're too intelligent to do that, this wasn't against your beliefs.

BTW: I don't share his beliefs, as a fact I disagree but honestly I respect Trotsky much more than any communist leader like Stalin (Despite he was co-founder ofthe Polit Boureau), but I can accept more easily Social Democracy than radical Bolshevikism (Again despite he considered himself a Bolshevik).

Iván

.

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: Maybe Democracy would have come to Europe, maybe it wouldn't have. Maybe some of these other great guys would have rejected the power given to them, maybe they wouldn't have. George Washington (the general given most of the credit for winning the American War of Independence) was unanimously chosen to continue to serve as America's president. He was the most famous and popular guy in the country. If he claimed the presidency, no one would have complained. By essentially refusing to be made king, George Washington did what was never done in the history of mankind (to the best of my knowledge) (and if you think refusing a kingship is easy, check out every single attempt at communism). Without him doing this, there probably never would have been a USA. Without a USA, it is doubtful that any other country would have tried this experiment. 

do you really think that if instead of President Washington it had been King George, history would have changed so radically? what I said and what I'm saying is that in those conditions, with presidence or with kingship, with or without Washington, democracy took place. in USA, in western Europe, in South America. and "those conditions" are capitalism. by the way, capitalism and representative democracy are also compatible with monarchy. (Sweden, Norway, Belgium, USA allies UK and Spain)

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: No offense taken. I just differ with you substantially. For one, we HAVE to take the role of world police because 1) there are a lot of psychos out there and 2) no one else has the balls to step up to the plate. Second, I don't think that Freedom is something that can be "imposed." Freedom is the greatest of all ways of living. Why is freedom OK for you but for someone who is living under a military dictator? The question I have for you is why do you support the Husseins, Ahmedinejads, the Assads, the Arafats and many other people who steal from their people, kill their people, mutilate their people, gang rape their people, deny most rights to women and all rights to gays? It seems to me that you would allow these people to continue functioning the way they always have--through fear and intimidation.

I definitely don't support any kind of dictator: not Saddam, not Castro, not Videla, not Pinochet. but I'm saying that behind that police role lie economical and geopolitical neocolonialistic interests. the ghost of terrorism is used politically to legitimate governments and their foreign affairs politics, while terrorism itself isn't even one of the greatest problems in the world in my opinion. just consider the number of deaths it produces, in contrast only with deaths by hunger. not even in Africa, in many capitalist industrialised countries...

anyway, this has gone very much off the subject

My answers are in blue this poll shows just how many stupid things people can say abuot communism...having never read a single word written by Marx, Lenin, Che Guevera or Gramsci. Probably I read more Marx and Engels in University than you during all your live (BTW: Also read Utopia), and about el Che, he had nothing to do in Cuba or Bolivia. How you dare to say USA shouldn't participate in foreign conflicts,and we  must accept that an Argentinian terrorist should be participating in Cuba and Bolivia? Why everybody was happy when USA supported Fidel Castro against Batista? Why all the leftist guys kept silence when USSR invaded Afghanistan and now the same guys attack USA? Is widely known  that USA never supported Castro, but they supported Batista, and almost every rich american buisness man went to Cuba for his holidays bringing more money for their beloved dictator. Beep......Wrong my friend, read a bit of history, USA Government supported Fidel Castro's Revolution at the start, until CASTRO'S closest collaborators AND HIS OWN SISTER (Juanita Castro) declared that he was taking Cuba to Communism and that they fought against a tiranic Government but didn't wanted to fall in the hands of another dictator. All the world was against Batista, he was a bloody criminal, but there was no need fopr a Communist Government, especially when that wasn't offered to all the people that supported therevolution. At first The United States supported the revolution of Fidel and his buddies, until it became obvious that this new Castro Regime had some different ideas about how the country would be run.  http://www.pbs.org/adventuredivas/cuba/curricula/history_3.html - http://www.pbs.org/adventuredivas/cuba/curricula/history_3.h tml USA supported a suposedly democratic movement destined to remove a dictator but they are not forced to support a Government that is a menace against their way of life and the system elected by their citizens. Of course the investors and the casino mafia was happy with Batista, butthat's not the Goovernment Cuba before the revolution was even worst than now. Beep....Wrong again, when a few Cubans wanted to leave the country, Fidel opened the prisons and sent all this people to our embassy, one of my collaborators in the company I usedto work used to say "When Batista was President we ate sh!t, now that Fidel is Presiden't we don't even eat sh!t" But I don't support Batista because he was a bloody dictator, but since Castro is President (Without elections of course) more people has died in the jails and at least 40% of the population has escaped from your so called páradise risking their lives in rubber boats. Why do they escape is Cuba is so wonderful? Did Cuba closed their frontiers to avoid people from comming to their paradise or did they cloised them to avoid that all the population escaped???? Because, if you don't know it, many people from all over the world choose to be cured in Cuba because they have the best hospital and medical cure are for everyone not just for who pays a powerful insurance company. Beep...Wrong again  and this I can tell you because it happened to me, nobody told me. I was in a hotel in Varadero and broke a teeth in an accident, I went to the dentist. First it was a dirty big room with chairs all around the doctor's work station, he didn't cleaned the artifacts after using them in any patient, no medicines availlable, so I only accepted a bit of cement because any invasive treatment would be risky of hepatitis B or Aids. Of course he charged me US$ 300.00 (Not as free as you say) for a bit of cement (This costs in my country maybe US$ 25.00 at the most and in USA maybe US$ 50.00) so I can't talk about a good health system because I'm wittness.  And they even have one of the higest educational leve of the world because every child goes to school. Yes, the girl than cleaned my toilet in the hotel wa an engeneer and her husband who served the drinks was a doctor, they recieve 140 pesos a mont which represents US$ 7.00, the tips are forbidden (Well any humanitarian person doesn't care for that prohibition) and the only extra benefit they have is that they can take the leftovers from the buffetts to their families. All the people who worked in the hotels were proffesional, but of course they knew nothing about theoir careers, because a doctor has as much classes of Marxism as classes of medicine. So what's the point of being a professional if you have to clean the crap of the tourists????? Do you know that people with AIDS is sent to a mini island that works almost as a leprasorium and isolate them from the rest of the population...very advance medicine and very human. Tell this wonderful histories to anybody that hasn't been there. So perhaps your readign of Che Guevara was a bit uncareful. He was uncareful, but he also had no business in Cuba or Bolivia. Yes, USA are not allowed to move war to anyone without a resolution of the United Nations as every other country in the world. Bush is not an emperor, he must respect the international rigths, and I believe he should be punished for the damage caused to the Iraq people especially for what happned in Falluja, where an entire city was burned to find just a little gruop of terrorist. I don't necesarilly agree with all USA actions either. Che Guevara did not burn the farmer's house, and that is the reason why he was helped by the cuban people during the revolution. Ok, lets talk about Ernesto Che Guevara: First he took no part in student Revolutionary movements in Buenos Aires because he was more interested in finishing his career. He had no bussines in Cuba, but still he took part in a foreign revolution, and was betrayed by Fidel Castro in 1965 because he was a danger to Cuban relations with the USSR. He was not a Communist, he was really an anarchist, he was against organized Capitalism and Communism. Without any right to do so, he took 140 Cubans and tried to turn towards communism  the Democratic oriented revolution of Congo (Kinshasa). What right did he had to do that??? How Communist dare to criticize USA when this was in  an invasion? Ke was kicked out of Congo. Again with no right he went to Bolivia and tried to organize a Communist revolution where he was killed. So better stop throwing stones to other countries when Communists have a glass roof!!!! Ivàn seys we are free...but the question is free of doing what? A small gruop of person rule this world and use his power to become everyday more rich, and we have to pay them a lot of money to have things that we should have for right. So in Cuba the people control everything? In China' Vietnam? Laos? ex- USSR? Cambodia (Or as you probably like more the ex-Democratic  Campuchea)? I never said that. The country you are talking about never saw communism, they just suffred an oligarchy who used the word communism just to be helped by the USSR and reach the power. (In fact the history of the USSR is different and much more complex than you think) But they were communist governments and you can't deny that. And by the way USSR didn't helped them because they were so nice, they helped this countries because they needed strategic locations all around the world to put their misiles and plant an occupation army. The invasion of Afghanistan is a great example, it was a masacre thousands if not millions of Afghans were killed, so how you criticize USA?, and USSR was not attacked. It's always a small group who controls most things with the differencet is that in Communist Governments the party controls everything, call it Politburo or whatever you want, but a bunch of people control EVERYTHING and supress all freedom. About this I agree with you but you have to recognise that if you read Marx you find that this is not the aim of communism But it's the way it works, what is more important than theory. Commutist doctrine valuates the praxis (action) much more than the theory. Just to end, What do you desserve to have by right that you can't earn with your work? Don't you believe that guys like Bill Gates have earned the last cent he has? Do you want him to share it with you? What have you done to deserve that? Because I am an human being just as he is. But you didn't invented a computer system that is being used in all the world, your contribution to humanity is 0 compared with his, he invested his money, effort and knowledge, he deserves what he gained. I'm not rich, I don't even have a secure job, but I simply don't envy the guys that have more than me, probably thet deserve it and I don't. So was Jesus Christ envy when he said that rich people had to give up their goods? But Jesus Christ also said there will be poor always. And by the way, he is God and I'm just a human. So what the hell you people are talking about? First to speak, read. Not only I read, but I LIVED IN A ONCE COMMUNIST COUNTRY so you won't teach me your theories from the comfort and freedom  provided by Italy. Well you know, I LIVE IN A ONCE FASCIST COUNTRY, so please don't say again that Communism is near to Fascism because I FIND IT OFFENSIVE (and this is the second time I say it). Read the Nazi and Facist Manifestos, are almost IDENTICAL to communist manfesto, the three talk about nationalizations, land reforms, cooperativism, people's army, etc, you just need to read them, I didn't invented a word. BTW: Unless you were born in 1930, I doubt you lived in a Facist country, because if what you say is true I also lived in a colony of Spain. I suffered the Communism of Velazco, I was there, nobody told me. What about the confort and freedom in Italy? Do you know what the Berlusconi government is doing to turn our democracy in oligarchy? The majority of Italians choosed Berlusconi in a democratic election which he won wth an amazing  53% of the votes (This can seem short in a two party system as  USA but in Italy where you have a lot of parties is amazing), people wanted him, but due to the election mechanism you can send him to his house (What I don't believe will happen because Casa delle Libertà has 49.7% of approval in the last polls), something that doesn't happen in Communist countries where Presidents are for ever. But in this case you are in the minority, so you have to accept the rules of Democracy or go to live in paradisiac Cuba, but do it fast because Castro may die soon (Due to his advanced age) and I'm sure that Communism will die with him. Do you know what all the political class did after the war since the early '90 to prevent the growth of the communist party even with the help of the CIA? Who started that? Do you remeber the Red Brigades who killed Aldo Moro, Leamon Hunt, Licio Giorgieri, etc and commited a lot of crimes including the kidnapping of James Dossier (Who was rescued before being murdered)?? Each government has the duty to protect their country for what they considered a threat, they were elected by the majority who wanted this. And do you know that in Italy there are people in jail just for their left-wing or communist ideals? Do you know who Adriano Sofri is? He is an innocent accused of a murder wich now is proved he never committed, but he's still inprisoned and Berlusconi don't let him free just because he is a communist even now that he had a bad heart attack. Adriano Sofri was accused of the murder of Comisario Calabresi by Leonardo Marino, another member of his own movement (Lotta), not by the oligarchy or by the police, it was his own partner. He had not one, but three trials and the penalty was confirmed, I read there were many doubts but he has not been proved innocent as you say. At the end he was found guilty by the Judicial power, not by Mr. Berlusconi. Maybe it's a mistake of the system and it's unfair, but at least he recieved three trials, not as people like the mentioned Armando Valladares that suffered 24 years of prison without any trial, or the millions of jews executed by Stalin or the 20% of citizens of Cambodia killed by Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge. If he had a heart attack it's a duty of the Government to provide him medical treatment not to set him free. BTW: Sofri is in Prison since April 27, 1990 and Berlusconi is Prime Minister since 1994, so it's hard to blame him for Sofri's imprisonment. Italy is a country ruled by the media that are all in the hand of one person. And there is a small group of capitalist that currupt the politicians to have more power and more "freedom" but obviusly only for them. How can you call this? Well, 53% of the people agree with this and in Communist countries ALL THE POWER IS IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON.

Iván

Korova wrote:

Ivàn...speak with you is useless..and it's just a waste of time, you just go on telling lies and pretending taht all the world must agree wiht you. So wil never speak with you again. Bye

Don't you dare to say I lie, every word I wrote is backuped by a quote, I discussed in this forum with guys that are 100 times more prepared than you are and always was respectful.

Tell me where I lie:

The Nazi Manifesto?: http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm - http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsda pprogramme.htm

The Facist Manifesto: Wikipedia

The real Adriano Sofrri story: http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/cultura/2000/03/19/e-00601d.htm - http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/cultura/2000/03/19/e-00601 d.htm

What I said about the Red Brigades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades

What I said about USA supporting Castro at the beginning of the revolution: http://www.pbs.org/adventuredivas/cuba/curricula/history_3.html - http://www.pbs.org/adventuredivas/cuba/curricula/history_3.h tml

What I said about el Che Guevara: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8702/bio2.html - http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8702/bio2.html

I can trace each and every word I said, you can only say cliche phrases and whine because you don't have the money that Bill Gates has even who haven't done anything in your live to earn it.

If there are lies or half truths, they come from your side:

You wrote:

Well you know, I LIVE IN A ONCE FASCIST COUNTRY

But you didn't said that it was Facist maybe 50 years before you were born

Again you wrote:

And do you know that in Italy there are people in jail just for their left-wing or communist ideals? Do you know who Adriano Sofri is? He is an innocent accused of a murder wich now is proved he never committed, but he's still inprisoned and Berlusconi don't let him free just because he is a communist

I proved you Sofri was sent to prison FOR MURDER after 3 trials and 4 years before Berlusconi was Prime Minister.

BTW:  Just found that Berlusconi asked for a pardon for Sofri, so everything you said is a LIE (Sorry, probably you're not a liar, most surely you don't have the slightest idea about what you write).

Over 300 members of parliament, from both government and opposition parties, subsequently called for Adriano Sofri to be granted a presidential pardon. Although the President and Prime Minister indicated their support for a pardon, the Minister of Justice blocked it, Source: http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/Ita-summary-eng - http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/Ita-summary-eng  Amnesty International

So, the criminal Berlusconi who according to your "expert opinion"   kept Sofri in prison, really  SUPPORTED A PARDON FOR SOFRI, sorry kid, you better get informed of what happens in your own country before daring to talk about the rest of the world.

After discovering you don't even know what happens in your own country, I better won't care anymore about you.

Iván

I would like to know if capitalism (or whatever new name it receives) is able to take millions from poverty and misery in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America. The events of the Katrina disaster proved (at least for me) that capitalism failed even in its 'greatest jewel' - the USA.

As a person who fought the right-wing military dictatorship in my own country (and I was a supporter of a Roman Catholic group that suffered tremendously in the hands of our 'gorillas') and who have a mind towards the leftist movements (not necessarily communists) I believe that it is time to rethink the farse that capitalism is the only solution or that capitalism=democracy (which is not).

The World Social Forum held every year (until 2004) in Porto Alegre, Brazil showed/presented some solutions that should be evaluated instead of being neglected by the wealthy with the support of the big press (paid by 'you know who') which is only capable to see the folkloric or exotic situations of the Forum - a manner to deride the meeting and to deviate attention from the main agenda. There at the Forum people do not talk only about economy but also about culture, environment, income distribution, etc. but it seems that Davos is still mandatory (of course to condemn millions to a painful death).

abyssyinfinity wrote: Area, Stormy Six & Venegoni & Co., obviously! Banco del Mutuo Soccorso in the 70's were near the Italian Socialist Party, they had an album called Garofano Rosso (Red Carnation)...

"Garofano Rosso" is a soundtrack to the same name movie (sorry, someone already wrote about before me). 

But I believe many Italian bands shared ideas of political left wing movements.

spectral wrote: Are there any communist prog bands out there?  I'm thinking that perhaps Russia or China may have contributed a few bands of this nature.

I don't know about China.

But it's funny to read about communist rock bands in Russia. Rock was rather in spiritual opposition to Soviet regime.

Rock was not banned in former Soviet Union, but everything has been censored. Rock musicians could play in universities, small clubs, but they couldn't make albums, appear on TV and radio. They could not be paid officially for their music. When they were paid for concerts they always had the risk to be arrested for illegal profits. Rock was almost totally in the underground, only few bands (ARSENAL, PESNIARY) could perform officially. Things became a little better only in 1980, after the festival "Tbilisi-80". Then, in 1985, Perestroyka came, but it's another story.

Ivan you are not respectful at all...I'm a communist and I find offensive to be compared to a fascist  especially for the fact that I'm italian and here the word fascist, is considered as an offensive word. So you offended me and you continued to do it even when I asked you to stop it. The similarity between the Nazi and the Communist Manifesto is just your opinion that I do not condivde. You can't say is a fact.

Read it!!! even communist that have read accept there are similarities in doctrine, read about the Facist People's Army, read about the massive Nationalizations, read about forbidding  the profits from other source than work, you have to blind not to notice there are a lot of similarities IN THE DOCTRINE.

By the way, here's a comparison that I found today on the net, it's huge, so I only copied some points that reveal a lot:

NAZI-FACISM COMMUNISM They obey common ideologists: Marx and Hegel. "The National Socialist movement has one single master: Marxism." - Goebbels http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn1 - 1 "Mussolini likes to affirm that Marx is his spiritual father." http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn2 - 2 Croce and Gentile, the ideological mentors of Fascism, resort to Hegel in the elaboration of Fascism. "We are Communists, disciples of Marx and Engels." http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn7 - 7 The Marxist affiliation of Communism is evident. Marx for his part drew his dialetics from Hegel. Both have an atheistic doctrine. "We want no other god than Germany" - Hitler http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn3 - 3 "God is the personal enemy of the Communist society." - Lenin8 Both have a dialectical doctrine. "Struggle is the origin of all things, because life is full of contrast." - Mussolini http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn4 - 4 "The law of contradiction, which is inherent to all things, to all phenomena, is the fundamental law of dialectical materialism." - Mao Tse Tung http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn9 - 9 Both have an evolutionist doctrine. NOTE: I would say determinist more than evolutionist "We know that there is no definitive state, that there is nothing durable, that there is only a perpetual revolution." - Rauschning http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn5 - 5 "There is nothing definitive, absolute, or sacred. The only thing that exists is the uninterrupted process of the future and the transitory." - Engels Both have a revolutionary doctrine. "The program of the conception of the world has the sense of a declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists." - Hitler http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html#fn6 - 6 "Everything which exists must die." - Engels. NOTE: This quote is terrible, but it's obvious that Marxism is revolutionary, for example: Power comes from the barrel of the gun ....Mao Tse Tung. 1Goebbels, Kampf um Berlin, page 19. 2Mussolini y el Fascismo," in Que sais je. (in Spanish), page 31. 3Bayrischer Kurier, May 25, 1923. 4Mussolini, "Le Fascisme," in Discursos al Politeoma Rosetti de Trieste, 9-20-1920, Ed. Denoel et Steele, Paris. 5Rauschning, Hitler Said to Me, 1937. 6Hitler, Mein Kampf, page 508. 7Thorez, M., Discurso del 28 de Octubre de 1937. Ed. Comite Popular de Propaganda. 8Ousset, J., "Carta a Gorki (dicembre de 1913)" in Le Marxisme-Leninisme, page 132. 9Mao, On the Question of Contradictions. SOURCE: http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html - http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html

For God's sake, Mussolini and Goebbles (Minister of Propaganda and ideologist of Nazism) claim that Mark is their spiritual father, WHAT MORE DO YOU ASK??????

I'm a member of Rifondazione Comunista, wich I'm sure you know is the italian communist party, so  when I speak about italain political life I know what I'm talking about because I'm very careful about it.

But you're talkin about a Communist party that plays with democratic rules because they don't have enough power to take control of the nation.

Italy has a more recent memory of the Red Brigades, the criminal murder of Aldo Moro, I even remember that because it was front page in all the newspapers of the world, but you don't remember that.

 Italy should be more worried about this than about Facism that will hardly resurrect.

Regarding Sofri he was arrested for murder it's true, but it was considered a political murder organized by Lotta Continua. I know Berlusconi is very good acting the part of the merciful king but don't let him fool yourself. What you don't know is what happens behind the scene because you don't live in this country.  I know it because I'm italian.

1. He was accused BY HIS OWN PARTY PARTNER WHEN BERLUSCONI WAS NOT IN THE POWER, he was arrested 4 years before Berluconi was elected.
2. Sofri had three trials, even Amnesty International doesn't say he's innocent, they ask the pardon for humanitarian reasons.
3. Berlusconi has publicly asked for tha pardon, that's a fact, if you doubt of his sincerity that's a subjective opinion from a Communist who has wrote here that he hates Berlusconi.
4. 53% of Italy voted for Berlusconi, so you have to accept that you're in the minority, those are te rules of Democracy.

Regarding the fascism I've done many historical research on fascism, even speaking with many people who have seen the atrocity of it, as my Grandparents for exemple. The memory of the fascism is still alive in Italy.

1. Yes Facism commited a lot of crimes, but are small in comparisson with what Stalin did in USSR and pale in comparison with the Red Brigades or even worst with the Democratic Campuchea and Pol Pot.
2. I give you facts, quotes and you give me your grandparents opinion
   

Anyway I don't like to waste my time speaking with unrespectful people and I want to stop this useless and off-topic private discussion (i'm already accused to be a fascist, I don't want anyone to say I'm a spammer) so ...

You're using the cheepest and worst trick ever,  your lack of doctrinarial support and absence of knowledge has been proved so you try to gain the pity of tbe people acting as offended.

Lets be clear, the one that started calling Facists to  all the people that are not Communists was APRUSSO casualy Italian as you.

Proving that there are similarities between Facist and Communist doctrines is not offending anybody IT'S A FACT, I never called you a Facist I proved that democracy and even Capitalism are in the opposite sideof the political spectrum than Facism.

Do you know that Juan Domingo Perón was a left oriented President of Argentina and he was clearly Facist? Read some history it's good for you, don't believe in political dogmas, do some research, don't call the rest of the world Facists if you don't want to be proved that your ideology has a lot of similarities with Nazism that's even worst.

I only compared the Communist Manifesto with the Nazi 25 points and the Facist manifesto, and nobody can deny they have incredible similarities.

And even more, the so called Communist Governments acted with equal or even worst cruelty than Facism, why don't you cry for those killed at the end of the Prague Spring, why don't you complain about those Cubans who died in the sea trying to escape from the Communist paradise, why don't you suffer for the people in Congo killed by Che Guevara and his band who went to that country without any right????

Iván

Iván, I can see your interest and your effort in your research about fascism-communism similiarities. however, I must say that this (mis)information shown in this table can't be in my opinion used in a serious discussion.

first of all, it isn't serious either to base a viewpoint, in this case a comparison between two ideological systems, purely on a small number of unconnected quotes. these quotes are totally taken out of its context, not only its literal "textual context", but also the big structure of thought in which quotes can be understood. I mean, while they are often useful as illustrations and examples, they are meaningless (when not misleading) when used as an argument. the meaning of quotes can be easily be twisted, and one can make people say what they didn't mean and would have never meant.

in addition, just looking at where you took the "comparative table" from just makes me sick. "the american society for the defense of tradition, family and property". well... right-wing, ultraconservative, anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-reactionary church... anyway, even that doesn't matter, it might be just my prejudice...

what I'm trying to say is that if they in fact read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and all the people they quote (no, I have not read first-hand nazi-fascist literature, but I did read some Marx/Engels and other marxist theoreticians) it's clear they didn't understand them.

of course Hegel is a strong influence on Marx and Engels. being one of the greatest modern philosophers, and sort of a culmination (in that time) of german/western philosophy, they couldn't not have that influence, just for the fact of being men of their time. it is known that they were followers as well as critics of Hegel, and that there were both left- and right-wing hegelians.

(apart from those quotes, I don't see the marxist affiliation in the fascist movement)

this TFP society claims that both ideologies are atheist. but they don't make their reasons explicit. as for marxism, communism and most left-wing ideologies, they are atheist because they consider "religion the opium of the masses", and God a human creation that later rises upon them and becomes used in benefit of a generally small class of human beings. (I think of JT Aqualung...)

i'd say there are some similiraties in the superficial aspects of both ideologies (and that superficiality is what that table tries to show). but there are greater differences. marxist was born in mid 19th century as a philosophical system which tried to understand capitalism, how it works, and how it could be overcome. fascist movements on the contrary are products of the beginning of 20th century, mainly after world war 1 and 1930 economic crisis. it is in this context of crisis of the bourgeois world where fascism can be understood, as a movement of reactionary romanticism, which longed for a sort of a return to an ideal or idyllic past. in that way, it does dislike the harms of modern capitalism, but the ways to overcome them are radically different from the ones in communist theory (and practice sometimes). to roughly sum up, if fascism and communism are unsatisfied with how capitalism works (only a specific phase of capitalism in the first case), fascism is mainly reactionary while marxism is revolutionary.

and it's revolutionary because marxian materialistic theory of history is centered in social conflict. conflict between social classes, which causes tension which ends in a revolution redistributes the power between classes according to the new material (economic mainly) conditions. wasn't capitalism born defeating mediaeval feudalism and the class that stood for it? how many kings did bourgeois revolutions guillotine? isn't that violent and revolutionary as well?

while on one hand fascism and nazism worked as state capitalism, communism is ideally a state-less society. (of course this was very far from happening in real attempts at communism) in fact, marxism considers state to be an instrument of the dominant classes, and under the capitalism, the "commitee for the common affairs of all the bourgeoisie".

(part "V. Concept of the family" (not quoted) is particularly hilarious.)

one more thing I should say is that Perón was definitely not left-oriented. although he introduced the first labour rights for workers, that wasn't because of his "social ideology". rather he was a populist who used that kind of social reformations to have a mass-movement base, and as a mean to develop a national-industries model of capitalism in opposition to the previous agro-exporting model. he did have fascist tendencies, and banned the communist party (and others) for a while. he is a polemic character in argentinean history, still today loved by half the people and hated by the other half.

anyway... I didn't mean to ramble on with "marxian propaganda", but I felt I had to say something about that light (and ideologically tainted -while apparently denying its ideological bases-) comparison.

Alejandro

Cifaxon wrote: Iván, I can see your interest and your effort in your research about fascism-communism similiarities. however, I must say that this (mis)information shown in this table can't be in my opinion used in a serious discussion. I agree, it was only a visual aid that only sets some superficial points, valid but not trascendental for a serious discussion first of all, it isn't serious either to base a viewpoint, in this case a comparison between two ideological systems, purely on a small number of unconnected quotes. these quotes are totally taken out of its context, not only its literal "textual context", but also the big structure of thought in which quotes can be understood. I mean, while they are often useful as illustrations and examples, they are meaningless (when not misleading) when used as an argument. the meaning of quotes can be easily be twisted, and one can make people say what they didn't mean and would have never meant. After I posted the Nazi and Facist Manifesto and this guy was accusing me of lying I had to make it so simple, that he could understand it. in addition, just looking at where you took the "comparative table" from just makes me sick. "the american society for the defense of tradition, family and property". well... right-wing, ultraconservative, anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-reactionary church... anyway, even that doesn't matter, it might be just my prejudice... Yes it matters, I agree with you. what I'm trying to say is that if they in fact read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and all the people they quote (no, I have not read first-hand nazi-fascist literature, but I did read some Marx/Engels and other marxist theoreticians) it's clear they didn't understand them. Believe me, the quotes are reliable even when supreficial but indicative of a tendency. of course Hegel is a strong influence on Marx and Engels. being one of the greatest modern philosophers, and sort of a culmination (in that time) of german/western philosophy, they couldn't not have that influence, just for the fact of being men of their time. it is known that they were followers as well as critics of Hegel, and that there were both left- and right-wing hegelians. But both movements are strongly influenced by Hegel, because the interpretation of Hegel and any Philosopher may be adapted. Butthere's something that you can't deny, Capitalism and Democracy have absolutely nothing in common with Facism,n as a fact Facism, Nazism and Communism are against Capitalism (Except State Capitalism of course). (apart from those quotes, I don't see the marxist affiliation in the fascist movement) Please, read the points of the Facist Manifesto, it's based in expropiations, confiscation of profit not comming from work, comunalisation, people's army, etc. You don't mention the 25 points of the Nazi ideology, which I posted (Deleting only the racist and xenophobic crap) which are virtualy identical, just in case you haven't read them,  I post it again.: The 25 point Programme of the NSDAP 1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination. 9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. 10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. We demand therefore: 11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work. The breaking of the slavery of interest 12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises. 15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age. 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders. 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. * 18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race. 20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State. 21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth. 22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army. 23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand: The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand. 25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states. The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action. Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler I don't believe Marx was a Facist of course, but I'm sure that Facism has a Marxist fundament which is evident after reading this platform. this TFP society claims that both ideologies are atheist. but they don't make their reasons explicit. as for marxism, communism and most left-wing ideologies, they are atheist because they consider "religion the opium of the masses", and God a human creation that later rises upon them and becomes used in benefit of a generally small class of human beings. (I think of JT Aqualung...) Of course TFP's opinion is not reliable because they only scratch the surface, but there are many other interesting articles and books that you can read like: Kolakowski and the Anatomy of Totalitarianism (Leszek Kolakowski was cathedratic at  McGill, Yale, the University of Chicago (for more than a decade he was part of the Committee on Social Thought), and Oxford, recently dead. Throughout the 1980s, he aided and  the Solidarity movement. I believe you can consider ghis opinion reliable. Martín Malía (Expert on Russian History from the University of Berkley) article  in http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_2002_Fall/ai_92042422#continue - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_2002_Fall /ai_92042422#continue  You can find his biography in http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/19_malia.shtml - http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/19_malia .shtml  Also reliable I believe. Hannah Arendt's  book The Origins of Totalitarianism All of them mention the clear similarities between Facism, Nazism and Communism or Marxism, and all of the are reliable. Some of them clearly draw a paralellism between Stalinism and Nazism. i'd say there are some similiraties in the superficial aspects of both ideologies (and that superficiality is what that table tries to show). but there are greater differences. marxist was born in mid 19th century as a philosophical system which tried to understand capitalism, how it works, and how it could be overcome. fascist movements on the contrary are products of the beginning of 20th century, mainly after world war 1 and 1930 economic crisis. We're not talking about when each one of the systems was elaborated in theory, but mostly when both systems where in practice, the USSR was created in 1922, the same year year of Mussolini's march. Remember that the platforms of Mussolini in 1922, was against the power of Catholic Church and Oligarchy, it is in this context of crisis of the bourgeois world where fascism can be understood, as a movement of reactionary romanticism, which longed for a sort of a return to an ideal or idyllic past. in that way, it does dislike the harms of modern capitalism, but the ways to overcome them are radically different from the ones in communist theory (and practice sometimes). to roughly sum up, if fascism and communism are unsatisfied with how capitalism works (only a specific phase of capitalism in the first case), fascism is mainly reactionary while marxism is revolutionary. The ways are different in theory, because Marxism is essentially more violent in theoiory,. but in the practice Governments of both tendencies have worked in the same way. There is even Perón as an example, a leftist, marxist, facist. and it's revolutionary because marxian materialistic theory of history is centered in social conflict. conflict between social classes, which causes tension which ends in a revolution redistributes the power between classes according to the new material (economic mainly) conditions. wasn't capitalism born defeating mediaeval feudalism and the class that stood for it? how many kings did bourgeois revolutions guillotine? isn't that violent and revolutionary as well? while on one hand fascism and nazism worked as state capitalism, communism is ideally a state-less society. (of course this was very far from happening in real attempts at communism) in fact, marxism considers state to be an instrument of the dominant classes, and under the capitalism, the "commitee for the common affairs of all the bourgeoisie". (part "V. Concept of the family" (not quoted) is particularly hilarious.) That's why Ididn't lost my time and your's posting this crap, but the resy of the table give an idea for people who are not willing to read lenghty books or articles, which obviously is not your case. one more thing I should say is that Perón was definitely not left-oriented. although he introduced the first labour rights for workers, that wasn't because of his "social ideology". rather he was a populist who used that kind of social reformations to have a mass-movement base, and as a mean to develop a national-industries model of capitalism in opposition to the previous agro-exporting model. he did have fascist tendencies, and banned the communist party (and others) for a while The Communists in Cuba banned all the democratic parties that supported them as well as in ISSR and almost every "Communist" country. he is a polemic character in argentinean history, still today loved by half the people and hated by the other half. Juan Domingo Perón is described by most History experts (From both sides) as left oriented with Marxist tendencies,  but only a few mention his Facist symphaties He reached power with the the massive support of the communist CGT, not even the CGT1 (Moderate Socialist) but also from the radical Communist CGT2, with the support of both factions and even before being Presifdent he became the head of The National Department of Labor in 1944, so don't tell me he didn't had left tendencies. He probably changed during his term, but his background is Marxist. anyway... I didn't mean to ramble on with "marxian propaganda", but I felt I had to say something about that light (and ideologically tainted -while apparently denying its ideological bases-) comparison. Obviously both movements have different perspectives of everything, but the philosphical fundament of the three is very similar in many points. Alejandro

Iván

I  Democracy!

Religious zealots who pray on our fears and power-hungry politicians are what screw up America!

Mategra wrote: http://progg.se - http://progg.se is a good site (in Swedish).

Thank you for this great site recommendation!  (sorry for offtopic)