Number of neo-Nazi Web sites has tripled in past four years

[Tony]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=294794&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y ..full article

FRANKFURT, Germany - Neo-Nazis are using the Internet to attract and recruit young people to the scene and the number of far-right Web sites in Germany has more than tripled in the past four years, according to a study released Monday.

A study released in Berlin by Germany's family ministry showed a drastic increase in the number of Web sites run by far-right extremists, many of them using a blend of sophisticated programming and a media-like approach aimed at attracting fresh recruits to the neo-Nazi scene.

"The tendency is worrying," Family Minister Renate Schmidt said in a statement. "Far-right extremists are using emotionally charged arguments to appeal to the feelings and fears of young people. At the same time, they are offering oversimplified answers with a far-right slant."

Monitoring of Internet use by far-right groups over the past several years has shown the number of neo-Nazi Web sites rose from 330 in 1999 to around 1000 in 2002, the ministry said.

[Roadtoad]

I find this unnerving. These groups are a greater threat in the US than those supported by Al Quaeda, mainly because they're homegrown. Al Quaeda's goons must learn the territory before they can act, and they rely on the establishment of a resident operative, which can take years to effect.

In the case of neo-Nazis, they already know the territory, they already have access to the weapons they need, or know where they can get them. They're a known quantity in their neighborhoods, and can downplay their links to Fascist outfits, and blend right in.

We're not talking about mindless kids, either. Many of these groups are far more sophisticated than we've given them credit for. They know ways around the internet that will make your head spin, and they've developed a media savvy that would be the envy of any DC spin doctor. If you read through the articles about them, the ones who get caught are the sloppy and the stupid. The truly dangerous ones let their hair grow, buy Brooks Brothers' suits, and get gigs in places you'd never expect. (In my case, I never thought they'd get into radio.)

I'm not surprised. I'm scared.

[shemp]

Um, I'd be willing to bet that the number of ALL websites has at least tripled in the past four years, so it shouldn't be surprising that there are more neo-nazi sites.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shemp
Um, I'd be willing to bet that the number of ALL websites has at least tripled in the past four years, so it shouldn't be surprising that there are more neo-nazi sites.

True, but in theory, wouldn't your goal be the end of neo-Nazi sites in the first place? Wouldn't you hope that in an information age, you can undercut the lies of such groups?

I could be wrong, of course, but I have a hard time believing that all these groups' followers are irredeemable.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Wouldn't you hope that in an information age, you can undercut the lies of such groups?



I would hope that in the information age we could undercut the lies off ALL extremist groups. I think the radical communists are the bigger threat.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


I would hope that in the information age we could undercut the lies off ALL extremist groups. I think the radical communists are the bigger threat.

biggest of all? and what group would that be?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by shemp
Um, I'd be willing to bet that the number of ALL websites has at least tripled in the past four years, so it shouldn't be surprising that there are more neo-nazi sites. :D You beat me to it, shemp! I collect vintage radios, and I'd say that the number of websites dedicated to vintage radios has been multiplied by ten during the last four years. :rolleyes:

Still, of course, even one neo-nazi site is one too many. In my neck of the woods, they are not a factor, though; just a few handfulls of misfits that would be into some kind of extremism in any case.

Hans

[CSSMariner]

This is America, and they have the right to express an opinion and cast about for like-minded idiots. Unfortunately, they will snag a few misfits and malcontents, but at the end of the day they are just laughable noise. The typical demonstration of a KKK group consists of 20 or so marchers, probably half of whom are informers of some sort and an undercover FBI agent, surrounded by a hundred or more police officers.

Such freedom of expression is the strength, and perhaps the inherent weakness of our system of government. However, until such groups take active measures to overthrow the established order they are on legal ground.

Personally, I think exposing them to the light of day reveals the itty-bitty intellect the vast majority of them possess. Although they might sound terrible in the dark, every supremacist, be they white or black, I have ever seen looks very funny in the light of day.

The really great thing about America, is that one has the constitutional right to be STUPID and I would not have it any other way. Of course there will always be those who exercise that right to the illogical extreme, and in so doing provide some comic relief in these serious times. It is the religious nut that concerns me the most.

In about ten days I am moving far from the madding crowd to a place where my nearest neighbor is one-half mile away, and no other structure other than that which I own can be seen. A video system and a remote control opener is going on the gate that is about six hundred yards from the house and that is as close as the riff-raff can approach without my knowledge. No I am not a recluse, I'm just tied of being surrounded by seven million folks down here in the American banana republic of S. Florida.
:)

[BillyTK]

Just trying to get my head around the idea of a "radical communist"... is there such a thing as a moderate communist? As in "Give me all your wealth you capitalist scum, but like, in your own time, 'kay?". Also trying to get my head round the idea that communists are more of a threat than neo-nazis ("well, those neo-nazis might beat up the odd black, jew or asian and burn down the occasional synagogue or mosque, but at least they're not as bad as the communists...)

Anyway, the increase in the number of neo-nazi websites doesn't bother me; the way that countries in Europe are leaning to the right wrt to immigration and ethnic issues does. You don't deal with a threat by becoming more like it.

[Mike B.]

That is the price of having the internet. Every extremist group can have a website, make it look professional and lie their a--es off on it.

[c0rbin]

I think the radical communists are the bigger threat.

What is a radical communist?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by c0rbin


What is a radical communist? And who are they threatening?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
And who are they threatening?


They are a threat to the capitalist world.

[CSSMariner]

I don't think the communists are threatening anyone who has open eyes any more. The last holdouts, N Korea and Cuba are blustering jokes. There will eventually be regime changes in both places, but I think the Korean version will be very violent while the Cuban change will just happen quietly.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CSSMariner
I don't think the communists are threatening anyone who has open eyes any more. The last holdouts, N Korea and Cuba are blustering jokes. There will eventually be regime changes in both places, but I think the Korean version will be very violent while the Cuban change will just happen quietly.

I hope you are right.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony



They are a threat to the capitalist world.

Well, that goes without saying, but are they any kind of clear or credible threat? And is it in any way comparable with the activities of the far right and neo-nazi groups?

[c0rbin]

I think the ultimate plan for those who are looking to irradicate extreme leftists (I guess those are the "radical communists" though no one has answered the question) is to ultimately marginalize the moderate progressives (non-radical lefts). And in doing so, make right leaning folk more mainstream.

Kidding, really. I just don't understand the fear of communism.

In a small commune, the system works. At the state level, it turns into dictatorship--like Stalin, Castro, Mao, Kim Jong Il, etc.

So why attack communism, when the real threat are dictators?

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin


So why attack communism, when the real threat are dictators?

Because, like you just said, communism at the state level turns into a dictatorship.

[c0rbin]

So you suggest pre-emtively rooting out communism before it turns into dictatorship?

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin
So you suggest pre-emtively rooting out communism before it turns into dictatorship?

No, people should have the right to be communists (accually I think it would be cool to live in a commune for a while), but, like religion, we should not fashion our government after its ideals, and resist any attempts to do so. When the communists try to impose their religion on everyone else, I have a problem with it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
:D You beat me to it, shemp! I collect vintage radios, and I'd say that the number of websites dedicated to vintage radios has been multiplied by ten during the last four years. :rolleyes:

Still, of course, even one neo-nazi site is one too many. In my neck of the woods, they are not a factor, though; just a few handfulls of misfits that would be into some kind of extremism in any case.

Hans

I took these statistics from the JREF forum and Stormfront at the exact same times:

At JREF, 2:34 P.M. EST, 5/21/03:

There are currently 97 members and 47 guests on the boards. Most users ever online was 190 on 01-08-2003 at 09:24 PM.


At Stormfront, same time and day:


There are currently 104 members and 178 guests on the boards. Most users ever online was 477 on 04-02-2003 at 08:08 PM.

Every time I have made a comparison, Stormfront has had a bigger crowd in active attendance than JREF.

Just for comparison, the biggest paranormal site I know of is Communities@Anomalies.net. Here are their numbers at the same date and time:


Registered Members: 1287

The Communities @ Anomalies.net Recent Visitors: 68
duhh, zanny, Sgaileach1, Meynard, Treversal, realeyes, Furtherman, Lazarus Starr, saefting, octorock, Cspace, twilight_28, Aramus, Mazebo, kayos, WurlWynd, and 51 guest(s)

I don't think "recent visitors" is how many are on the board at that time. I think the actual people on the board are the ones listed (duhh, zanny, Sgaileach1, etc.) So it looks like there were only 16 people on the site at that time. But even if you count the 68 visitors and 51 guests, it doesn't compare to JREF or Stormfront.

Stormfront is the clear winner on "draw power."

Think about that.

Then come on over and debate them with me. That is where I have been hanging out lately. There are maybe half a dozen "antis" over there at any given moment. And we are seriously outnumbered. A little help would be greatly appreciated.

If you want to know more, PM me. I will help you understand what you need to know before you step in. There are certain rules of behavior you must understand before entering into debate with the White Nationalists.

And these guys aren't dummies. You are making a serious mistake if you think it is just a bunch of inbred, backward yahoos with a grammar school education who don't pose any threat to our political system, and who shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open their mouths. You couldn't be more wrong. That is not even close to taking a skeptical approach, judging them without checking them out.

So check them out.

[Luke T.]

I'm going to rant a little right now, because I'm a little angry. I hope you will extend a courtesy to a long-time member of JREF to read all of what I have to say.

I love the JREF, it will always be near and dear to me. But one can only debate about the efficacy of magnetic therapy or the reality of John Edward's claims so many times. And one can only put up with the annoying trolls and whiners for so long.

I have made a pitch for people to join me on Stormfront on here in the past, and a couple of people came over for a day or two, and then left. But some of the people I would really like to see come over there have not. And I don't buy the excuses I have heard.

I think the truth is that people are surprised to find that White Nationalists are a very smart bunch. They aren't the wispy, pie-in-the-sky airheads one mostly finds in the paranormal community. I mean no offense to those in the paranormal community I have come to know, respect, and befriend.

It takes some real mental effort to debate a WN. And it takes serious convictions.

I would rather every American wear magnetic soles in their shoes than see nazism or communism or any other poisonous political philosophy take deeper root in our society. Which is the greater threat to our society? I think the answer is pretty plain.

Many of the "antis" on Stormfront are non-whites. That ain't gonna work. The WNs, and the vast onlooking crowd of lurkers, need to hear opposition from their fellow whites. Especially white males. And I know there is sufficient brainpower here at JREF to make a profound impact over there.

These guys are convinced they are right because they feel no one has proven them wrong. And I gotta say, most of the antis that drop in are not exactly the highest quality of debaters. Most of them do a drive-by "you guys suck!" post, and take off. So the WNs are constantly trumpeting the superiority of their arguments.

You guys know me well enough to know I am not the smartest guy on JREF. But I think I am holding my own pretty darn well on Stormfront against a multitude of WNs simultaneously. Some of the very smartest WNs come to the Opposing Views section of their forum, and they really pile it on. I can barely keep up with the number of posts to which I must reply. And that is why you haven't been seeing me around here much lately.

I have made well over 200 posts there in the past couple of weeks. And most of those require about an hour of my time apiece!

I think I have earned a good deal of respect from the WNs in this time. And I have come to have a great deal of respect for some of them. Our conversations are starting to take on some form of civility and understanding. It is a fascinating experience. And I am learning one heck of a lot. And ain't that what this is all about?

We had to get past a lot of assumptions about each other to get to this point. And I think that is what turns most people away. I was assumed to be black, and I was assumed to be Jewish. This prompted me at one point to ask, "What do I look like over here, Sammy Davis, Jr.?" :D

I think they now understand that I am as white as they are, finally. And I have found I had a lot of misconceptions about them as well.

So now we are really getting down to some meat and potatos conversations. Great stuff.

If you would like to join in, and I could really appreciate the help, and would like to avoid some of the learning experiences I had to go through, PM me. I'll get you started on the right track.

Just so you all know, I never leap into Stormfront from JREF, as the board Admins are able to tell from what site you came. I never even mention JREF on Stormfront, out of respect for JREF. I am sure you don't want a bunch of White Nationalists showing up here.

They use the same vBulletin program this forum does, so there is nothing you need to learn about how it works.

So what do you say?

[MRC_Hans]

Luke:
And these guys aren't dummies. You are making a serious mistake if you think it is just a bunch of inbred, backward yahoos with a grammar school education who don't pose any threat to our political system, and who shoot themselves in the foot whenever they open their mouths. You couldn't be more wrong. That is not even close to taking a skeptical approach, judging them without checking them out. I commented on those in my neck of the woods only. The Danish branch is not very frightening. I hear the Swedes are worse.

Tell me, do you think you will convince them of anything?

(I'll have a look at that site)

Hans

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Luke:
I commented on those in my neck of the woods only. The Danish branch is not very frightening. I hear the Swedes are worse.

Tell me, do you think you will convince them of anything?

(I'll have a look at that site)

Hans

I don't expect to convince a believer in John Edward that he is a fake, so I certainly don't expect to convince a WN that they are wrong.

However, there are an awful lot of lurkers who go there.

And I think I have helped to change the opinion of some WNs of what kind of people antis are. They assume we are all blacks or Jews or marxists. Or a combination thereof.

If you post there, you will be accused of being one or more of these things. Or, most likely, a "multiculturalist" or "multicult."

Anway. I'm writing a Stormfront "primer" which I will be posting here in P&CE momentarily.

[Tony]

What is your username on that website Luke? You can pm it to me if you want.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Tony


(accually I think it would be cool to live in a commune for a while), but, like religion, we should not fashion our government after its ideals, and resist any attempts to do so. When the communists try to impose their religion on everyone else, I have a problem with it.

Don't confuse the unreconstructed hippie commune with hard-core communism the likes of the former USSR, and the remaining dregs of the concept. Communism works only on paper. Put real people in them and they go all to hell. The Soviet model was 70 years of the worst possible fiscal management ever devised by man.

The only thing that works is personal incentive and personal reward for the effort. When the young folks of China experimented with personal expression in Tianamen Square, and were ruthlessly put down, I said then that the die had been cast. When anyone, especially the young, get a taste of fredom, they will eventually have it as the old ones will die in time. I also said that China would still be China at the end of the day and have its own brand of capitalism. That is exactly what is happening. Who would have ever thought there would be wesern style clothing seen on virtually everyone in Beijing?.

Churchill said that capitalism was the absolute worst form of government - - - - except for all the others we have tried.

[Skeptic]

Just trying to get my head around the idea of a "radical communist"... is there such a thing as a moderate communist? As in "Give me all your wealth you capitalist scum, but like, in your own time, 'kay?"

Probably like Jesus said: The meek shall inherit the earth... if it's all right with everybody else, that is.

Also trying to get my head round the idea that communists are more of a threat than neo-nazis

The threat of both groups is NOT in their ideology, but in WHAT THEY ARE WILLING TO DO TO ACHIEVE IT. Ideologically, they hope for an utopia--the difference between them is what kind of utopia they want (a world without blacks and jews, or a world without capitalists, or a world without heretics, in the case of religious fanatics.) But they are all similar in their willingness to use violence and evil means to achieve this utopia.

This is why they are all EQUALLY dangerous. I agree with you that, if forced to choose, an utopia without capitalism is probably more humane than one without blacks or heretics, as it doesn't require mass murder of billions, at least, only of a few millions. But history repeatedly proved that the nature of the utopia is of purely academic interest, since it is never reached--while the horrors used while trying are the only real legacy of the group. In this, there isn't much difference between them.

[Luke T.]

The most dangerous enemy is the one no one thinks is a threat.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by CSSMariner
I don't think the communists are threatening anyone who has open eyes any more. The last holdouts, N Korea and Cuba are blustering jokes. There will eventually be regime changes in both places, but I think the Korean version will be very violent while the Cuban change will just happen quietly.

I suppose the bigger question in regards to North Korea is what sort of violence, against whom, and how. Not to mention what happens to their WMDs, which we actually know they have.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tony


I would hope that in the information age we could undercut the lies off ALL extremist groups. I think the radical communists are the bigger threat.

Can you support this view? I don't recall any communists blowing up government buildings in the US.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tony


I hope you are right.

are you one of the paranoid bourgeoisie afraid of losing your property?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CSSMariner

Churchill said that capitalism was the absolute worst form of government - - - - except for all the others we have tried.

I hate to be pedantic (well actually I don't ;) but I appreciate that being so can be rude), but Churchill was actually talking about democracy, not capitalism; what I think he means is the problem with democracy is that there's too many people get to have their say when decisions are being made, but this is better than (and also a protection against) only one person making all the decisions.

[BillyTK]

Just want to offer some responses to some of the comments made about communism; firstly it's not intrinsically evil in the way that fascism or fundamentalism is, in fact just the opposite, it's about enabling people to live together free of oppression of governments or authorities or religion or whatever -ism people currently suffer from.

The second point is that communism is not inherently totalitarian, again it's just the opposite, it's about collective self-government based on the idea that human nature is social and collaborative, and all other forms of government and economy are bad because they alienate people from their own basic nature.

The problem with communism though is that to achieve this goal there's a necessary redistribution of wealth via centralised government control, and this is where just about all major attempts at communism that we've seen get stuck, because people get into power who decide they like being in control of stuff and don't want to let go of this power, and in this respect the communist states we've seen and still see today are closer to fascism than the principles of communism they're supposed to uphold.

It looks great on paper, but there's a real problem of getting it to work. But overall, I don't see it as the same level of threat as fascism or fundamentalism, which are a clear and immediate threat, and which have no redeeming qualities. Sure there's some communists who advocate the violent overthrow of the state, and there's some who are actively involved in achieving that goal, but if you're going to see communism as an homogenous threat you ought to consider that white males threat, because white males are more likely to be serial killers, although there's nothing inherent in being either white or male which turns them into serial killers.

So this is basically why I don't see communists as anywhere near the threat that fascists or fundamentalists pose; sure they might organise protests that you don't agree with, and close some roads or even smash windows, but hell, any protest group can do that, and it's no way in the same category as people who advocate and commit violence against people and property because of skin colour or religion.

End of rant. Thanks to anyone who's stayed with me throughout it.

[LW]

Originally posted by c0rbin


What is a radical communist?

I would put the dividing line likse this:

- radical communist: a person who wants to create a communist society by a violent revolution.
- non-radical communist: a person who wants to convince everybody that it would be a good idea to peacefully form a communist society.

And I agree with BillyTK in that none of the "communist" societies of the Eastern Block were communist in the sense how Marx initially defined the term. I personally believe that the idealistic communism may work within a group of at most 30 persons. Any more than that and the selfishness and free-rider problem will break it up. Perhaps it may work with more people if there is some external factor (like being surrounded by enemies) that gives some extra motivation for cooperation.

[c0rbin]

Thanks, LW. I can see how those definitions make sense.

I agree that communism in small tribes would work nicely. At the state level, it becomes dictatorial, er dictatorish---umm, like a dictatorship.

CSSMariner:
don't confuse unreconstructed hippie commune with hard-core communism

Precisely my point. One is communism and one is not. One has the potential to thrive, the other does not (without the oppression of the many).

Now I must ask, CSSMariner, what you mean by "unreconstructed hippie commune."

[Skeptic]

Just want to offer some responses to some of the comments made about communism; firstly it's not intrinsically evil in the way that fascism or fundamentalism is, in fact just the opposite, it's about enabling people to live together free of oppression of governments or authorities or religion or whatever -ism people currently suffer from.

...unless the poor, suffering people want to actually own private property, or keep money they've earned, or dare to actually CRITICIZE the infinite wisdom of the humble general secretary of the people, or engage in trading for profit, etc., etc., etc.--in which case it's off to the gulags (or firing squad) with them.

And don't tell me this isn't "intrinsically" part of communism. It is, because communism is based on an utterly unrealitic view of human nature, and must in consequence always exterminate those who express their humaness in the desire for profit, or in disagreeing with the leaders.

Communism has been, next to nazism, the worst catastrophe in European history since the black death. When a political system causes tens of millions of murders and billions to live in fear, the discussion of whether or not it is "inherently" evil has long ago been settled.

The second point is that communism is not inherently totalitarian, again it's just the opposite, it's about collective self-government based on the idea that human nature is social and collaborative,

...which it ISN'T.

Therefore, to repeat, any individuality, any refusal to be cooperative enough to fit the ideal, must be dealt with drastically, lest it "contaminate" the rest of the people. This is why Marx saw a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for a few decades, until all those evil individualistic people are exterminated and a "new man", the wished-for communist robot or machine peg, is built.

Of course, this didn't happen: the only outcome of communism was this "temporary" dictatorship, which always found some excuse to extend the period of dictatorship a longer and longer time. The "collective and social human nature" never materializes, for some reason.

But overall, I don't see it as the same level of threat as fascism or fundamentalism, which are a clear and immediate threat, and which have no redeeming qualities.

You miss the point. What you call communism's "redeeming qualities"--its desire for a collectivist utopia of social justice and human mutual help--IS precisely its most dangerous side.

You see, when you have realistic political goals dealing with the here and now (or near future), you have no fanaticism. No republican is is going to butcher millions of democrats to ensure the passage of a bill giving a 8.53% tax to the middle class over the next three years. No democrat is going to hang republicans in the street to force them to pass a more comprehensive health care bill.

It is precisely when people think that they are just about to reach a wonderful utopia, like communists most definitely DO think, that the butchery of millions becomes inevitable. First of all, they deserve it for trying to stop the coming utopia (or, as it is called in communist countries, being a "counterrevolutionary")--surely a grave crime. Second, what are the lives of a few millions compared to eternal peace and justice, even if a few hundred thousands of them are actually innocent? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, you know.

You think that communism is essentially different than fascism or fundamentalism because you like their utopia better (if forced to choose, so would I.) I say they are all the same, since all of them HAVE an utopia to look forward to which they are WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO GET, including mass murder.

Since none of these utopias are remotely realistic, it is purely academic which one of them the fanatic prefers; what matters is what he'd do NOW to try and achieve it. And in this, the communists are no different than the fascists or religious fanatics.

[BillyTK]

To engage in pedantry once more, "radical" means a return to the roots or fundamentals of a thing, so a "radical communist" would be someone who returns to Marxism (which sought emancipation of the working class through political means), or even the ideals of communism prior to Marx; probably a better term than "radical communist" would be "revolutionary communist"--of the Marxist-Leninist variety--who "popped up" in 1918 to lead the Russian revolution, and who were condemned by other Marxists, suprisingly enough (he said, neatly side-stepping the 1848 Revolutions).

However, I doubt if there's enough concensus over what needs to be done and how it may be achieved for the communists to be any kind of threat anyway--anyone seen "Life of Brian"?

[BillyTK]

Skeptic,
Just want to offer some responses to some of the comments made about communism; firstly it's not intrinsically evil in the way that fascism or fundamentalism is, in fact just the opposite, it's about enabling people to live together free of oppression of governments or authorities or religion or whatever -ism people currently suffer from.

...unless the poor, suffering people want to actually own private property, or keep money they've earned, or dare to actually CRITICIZE the infinite wisdom of the humble general secretary of the people, or engage in trading for profit, etc., etc., etc.--in which case it's off to the gulags (or firing squad) with them.
Which is the point I made about the way communist states have become almost fascist societies because of the way individuals have been able to exploit their positions of power. But that is the total antithesis of communism.

And don't tell me this isn't "intrinsically" part of communism. It is, because communism is based on an utterly unrealitic view of human nature, and must in consequence always exterminate those who express their humaness in the desire for profit, or in disagreeing with the leaders.
Actually, it's one of the more realistic characterisations of human nature; we are social animals; we like to live in groups and we like to collaborate. To deny that would be to deny one of the fundamental aspects of well hell, just about any society you care to name, and also to deny the very activity you're engaging in now. But like I said, the atrocities have been committed under communism are because people don't want to relinquish their power, and let's face it, this isn't unique to communism. Now, you don't want me to tell you that this but I will attempt to anyway; there is nothing in the original communist or marxist literature that demands totalitarianism or mass oppression and genocide.
Communism has been, next to nazism, the worst catastrophe in European history since the black death. When a political system causes tens of millions of murders and billions to live in fear, the discussion of whether or not it is "inherently" evil has long ago been settled.
I agree that the communism we've seen have been disastrous, but to repeat myself, this is because people get into power who decide they like being in control of stuff and don't want to let go of this power.
The second point is that communism is not inherently totalitarian, again it's just the opposite, it's about collective self-government based on the idea that human nature is social and collaborative,

...which it ISN'T.

Which it IS!

Therefore, to repeat, any individuality, any refusal to be cooperative enough to fit the ideal, must be dealt with drastically, lest it "contaminate" the rest of the people. This is why Marx saw a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for a few decades, until all those evil individualistic people are exterminated and a "new man", the wished-for communist robot or machine peg, is built.
Dude, which Marx have you been reading? Yes, Marx does see a centralised control as necessary (I mentioned this and pointed out that this is the reason why communism so far has always failed. But he also stated that capitalism would destroy those nasty individualistic property owners--and so far he ain't been that wide of the mark. The communist robot machine peg "new man" that you're so fearful of is simply people being who they are--social and colloborative.

Of course, this didn't happen: the only outcome of communism was this "temporary" dictatorship, which always found some excuse to extend the period of dictatorship a longer and longer time. The "collective and social human nature" never materializes, for some reason.
I said this.

But overall, I don't see it as the same level of threat as fascism or fundamentalism, which are a clear and immediate threat, and which have no redeeming qualities.

You miss the point. What you call communism's "redeeming qualities"--its desire for a collectivist utopia of social justice and human mutual help--IS precisely its most dangerous side.
Sorry, but you miss the point; it's not the "redeeming qualities" which are the dangerous side, it's how they are going to be achieved which is the danger. The "desire for a collectivist utopia of social justice and human mutual help" is not the problem, it's the centralised control necessary to achieve this which is the problem.

You see, when you have realistic political goals dealing with the here and now (or near future), you have no fanaticism.
:eek:
No republican is is going to butcher millions of democrats to ensure the passage of a bill giving a 8.53% tax to the middle class over the next three years. No democrat is going to hang republicans in the street to force them to pass a more comprehensive health care bill.
Which is probably more to do with the limitations of representative democracy than anything else. But I digress...
It is precisely when people think that they are just about to reach a wonderful utopia, like communists most definitely DO think,
Can you back up this claim? I think I could support the assertion that "most communists" would more than likely think the opposite.
that the butchery of millions becomes inevitable. First of all, they deserve it for trying to stop the coming utopia (or, as it is called in communist countries, being a "counterrevolutionary")--surely a grave crime. Second, what are the lives of a few millions compared to eternal peace and justice, even if a few hundred thousands of them are actually innocent? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, you know.
Iraq? But I digress again. I think the clue is in "revolutionary" (from "counterrevolutionary"). But again, you're saying nothing I didn't mention in my post.

You think that communism is essentially different than fascism or fundamentalism because you like their utopia better (if forced to choose, so would I.)
No. I think that communism is essentially different because the problems have always come about as a result of the way it was operationalised--as I said, and have repeated here, "because people get into power who decide they like being in control of stuff and don't want to let go of this power"--whereas fascism and fundamentalism have very clear goals, which are utterly reprehensible. I'll fight with the communists against the fascists, but then if necessary I'll fight against the communists.
I say they are all the same, since all of them HAVE an utopia to look forward to which they are WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO GET, including mass murder
That's your own opinion, and you have every right to express it, but to suggest that all communists will do anything including mass murder to achieve their goals is an unsupportable generalisation which borders on the insulting.
Since none of these utopias are remotely realistic, it is purely academic which one of them the fanatic prefers; what matters is what he'd do NOW to try and achieve it. And in this, the communists are no different than the fascists or religious fanatics.
Woah, there! That's one hell of a jump from communist to fanatic; care to expand on that a little?

[Tony]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


are you one of the paranoid bourgeoisie afraid of losing your property?


No, I just dont want my (future) children and grandchildren to grow up in a communist dictatorship.

[max]

luket
i have been trying the site you recommend and keep getting.....'site not responding'