Although by this late date I personally find it hard to give much slack to those who march under a Stalinist group's banner without any consideration of who these people really are. Fellow travelers who later claimed not to know what crimes were occurring thousands of miles away can no longer make that claim in the age of satellite communications and the Web.

I suspect a disturbingly high number of those in attendance know exactly who they've aligned themselves with and either approve or don't care.

I cannot forgive those that had a romance with Communism. They supported atrocities that were not different--actually much worse--than those of any known Fascist. Most are still defending those atrocities or prefer to forget them (except leftist European intellectuals that practice both depending on the circumstances). We should always remember what they did and we should never minimize what they would do if they were in power today.

"But equality and solidarity were the rallying cries. It was an irresistible siren song for some well-meaning fools."

..so are the cries for "stability and order" that seduce fascism's useful idiots. I would even argue that these are more well-meaning motivations than cries for "equality", which rarely mean well for the particular target needing to be "equalised".

Fascism, though, is another matter. It isn’t a bastard child of the liberal Enlightenment.

Actually, it is a near-twin to Communism, and both are the immediate offspring of Marxism.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004802.html#004802

Both are equally abhorrent.

Michael,

Communism is the degenerate bastard child of the Enlightenment...Fascism, though, is another matter. It isn’t a bastard child of the liberal Enlightenment. It is deliberately anti-Enlightenment.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, a thousand times WRONG!

Fascism is one bastard step-child of Marxism/Socialism and like its communist sibling is just one reactionary alternative to liberal Enlightenment. The primary reason Germany became the quintessential fascist state is because Bismarck's Germany was a socialist state. Hitler was a manifestation of socialism carried to its ultimate conclusion just as Stalin was. Germans are no more inherently militant or anti-Semitic than any other people. But like all socialist states, they will eventually need a scapegoat for the inevitable failures of socialism.

And if you want to understand the resurgance of anti-Semitism and anti-American in Europe, don't look to the policies and Sharon and Bush. Look to the socialist policies of the EUrocrats. European socialists policies are failing. Their economies are stagnating with 10% and climbing structural unemployment. They have tens of thousands die in heat waves. Fascism is returning to Europe because Europe is socialist. Whether they wake up and change course before the inevitable bloodbath is not at all certain.

Why do left leaning people insist on trying to distinguish between Communism and Fascism? How is it that socialist intellectuals have managed to convince us that National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism, and that the Soviet Union was just a matter of good intentions being hijacked? Hitler and Stalin were idealogical siblings and both were bastard step-children of Marx. Please read some Hayek.

Until we wake up to the fact that fascism is the natural outcome of socialism, we will continue to repeat the same mistakes. America like any other nation isn't immune to this progression, even if our Constition makes it somewhat more difficult.

Beware the "progressives" because they will have us progressing into fascism.

You're psychotic* -- Fascism is a reaction to Marxism; it is an attempt to fight against the modernity of which Marxism is a thread. I understand that it may be politically incorrect for you to take up the mantle of the philosophy which describes your worldview, but you may wish to do some reading of your Mussolini -- this is a guy whose political philosophy (wars of expansion; support of Christianity against invading Muslims, atheists and pagans; suppression of a corrupt democratic process) is extremely close to your own. It may be time for you to rehabilitate "fascist," the same way that you've already rehabilitated its respectable cousin.

*Just doing my HA-requested part to degrade the national discourse. Never let it be said that I am not willing to accomodate my opponents' requests.

"POSTSCRIPT: Let me clear up any potential misunderstanding in advance. I am referring specifically to the rally organizers at ANSWER, not to every person who shows up to protest or who opposes the war."

Fine. Same here, with one caveat: if the antiwar movement continues to allow their marches and demonstrations be run and organized by ANSWER, then they deserve every single verbal* brickbat thrown their way. I don't care if ANSWER is really, really good at getting permits: they're nasty people with a nasty agenda, and the rest of the antiwar coalition is tainted by giving them a voice.

Not that I expect them to listen to the Right-winger, of course.

Moe

*Only verbal though. I respect their Constitutional right to speak their minds, and I expect them to respect mine to do the same.

In fact, they'd damn well better.

Let's do a thought experiment:

Let us suppose that the following were shown, unimpeachably, in various courts of law:

1) It Really Was All About The Oil. Various energy department memos, pre- and post-9/11 briefings, and sobbing whistleblowers come forward, and the case is airtight; the Bush Administration planned to conquer Iraq since before taking office, and it planned to do so for the purpose of securing long-term American access to oil fields. The democracy/human rights business was explicitly a smokescreen.

2) Most of the White House Senior Staff, including the President, were either part of the burning of Valerie Plame or knew about it and actively sought to cover it up.

At that point, given that the Iraq war would have been organized by a gang of brutal, reckless thugs, would it suddenly become unjustified*? That is, do "good" acts organized by bad people always become "bad" acts?

*assuming one found it justified in the first place, of course.

That would depend on the results, Kimmitt. Assuming that the above was true - and, by the way, if your scenario were true, it would have played out already, in precisely the matter that you described* - and if the end result was a democratic and peaceful Iraq, then the proper response would be to arrest all the bast*rds who started the war and revel in the delicious irony that their evil rebounded to good. If the end result was a regime as bad as Saddam's, then of course the war was unjustified.

Luckily for all of us, it doesn't apply, as this war wasn't really about the oil, Ted Kennedy's voting record to the contrary. For that matter, given that the particular... individuals... mentioned in Michael Totten's post - that would be International ANSWER, for those playing at home - were and are explicitly against the overthrow of Hussein's regime (and if anyone thinks that they'd change their tune if a Democrat is in office, well, that's fascinating to hear), with all that entails and implies, I feel comfortable enough with saying that nothing 'good' could come from their (extremely unlikely) success, so it's not quite the same analogy.

Moe

*Note that I speak of #1. #2 is still being investigated as we speak.

PS: That "willing to accomodate my opponents' requests" bit got a honest, nonmocking chuckle from me. Just so you don't think that I'm always scornful.

the thought experiment - I would believe that ending sanctions, preventing Iraq from becoming the next North Korea, doing our best to bring democracy (or at least some semblance of sanity) to Iraq and the Middle East was and is a necessary and useful goal. I would also believe that we should continue to do whatever we can to prevent the spread of Islamic and Baathist-style fascism in that part of the world.

This fascism must be fought by any means possible. They are an enemy that must be confronted. I would believe this even if Karl Rove was frog-marched out of the White House. I would believe this even if Bush was impeached.

In his tech central column, Michael says:

"Excessive bipartisanship is the functional equivalent of a one-party state. What we need is an implicit understanding that despite our disagreements we are on the same side. Because we are on the same side. Murderous fanatics are trying to kill us. Save the talk of "enemies" and "evil" for them."

So, Kimmitt, are the people who carried out the terrorist massacre against aid workers our enemies? What do you think should be done about them?

Let's be realistic here. The 1920's was the last decade where one could realistically plead ignorance of the evil of communism. And I'd be very careful in that regard, too.

It is the Left's refusal to condemn communism without some kind of escape clause that really alarms me. The Right had this same problem regarding fascism in the run-up to WWII, but dumped it once and for all afterwards.

Look, any ideology promises some version of a utopia. People have an obligation as actors in the political process to consider the realistic consequences (good and bad) of their policy preferences. In hindsight, there is some 'partial credit' to be had, depending on how unforseen those consequences are. But the ultimate judgement needs to be on outcomes, not intentions.

The ideology of communism specifically endorses violent dismantlement of the capitalist, democratic system. Even in its most idealistic, "we'll-just-change-human-nature" version, it still demands that. The rest is just nuance and scale.

After Stalin, there could be little further doubt. After Mao, there can be none whatsoever.

Fascism, communism and the various theocratic movements all have defenders among pro-democracy forces. Would you cut the Taliban similar slack because they're doing what they think is "Allah's will"? Hell, even Sauron of Mordor wasn't evil in the beginning. :)

If the war that you and I supported in Iraq turns out to be ill-conceived, then our good intentions shouldn't completely absolve us. International ANSWER, for their support of brutal dictators and their pursuit of the overthrow of our democratic system, should get no sympathy whatsoever.

I know that most of the intent of your post is opposite to the portion I'm calling out. My focus is where it is because it makes a larger point about intentions. I'll save connecting the chain all the way to a point about demonization for my own blog. :)

r.e. flirting with Communism. I did in high school (during the Vietnam war) As I became educated about communism, I quickly abandoned it. I now think it is the most evil manifestation of humanity.

UPDATE: I just read your article on TCS. Fantastic job... and makes exactly the point I just got ready to attempt, only better.

I'd still say be careful about judging people by their purported intentions. It's a measure that oft goes astray, and encourages willful ignorance.

Wow, it's just like a liberal to ruthlessly get me to start parroting Sartre!!! LOL

The commie shoots 'em in the head,
The facist, in the skull.
Their ideological differences
For victims, rather null.

Prize Money! It's all about the prize money! The only reason our troops and the administration are interested in going to Iraq is all the oil money they will be sharing out after the place is secure. The generals will all be millionaires tax free and even the private soldiers will be wealthy enough to purchase a cottage in the country. As for those avaricious bastards in the administration, the billions they recieve will fill up their vaults with mounds of golden treasure that they will wallow in up to their necks!

No, wait a moment, the US hasn't endorsed that kind of military prize policy for more than 150 years. For that matter, all of the senior members of the Bush administration have more money than they can spend for the rest of their lives. It is true that weaning Iraq off the natural resources teat will improve their economy and the rest of the world's, too. As currently run, most of the economies in the region are predicated on a small number of people being fabulously rich and the rest of the populace left in poverty. While this is an extremelty gratifying state of affairs to those in power who have a 12th Century mindset instead of a 21st, this policy writ large is actually a dead weight on the economy of the world.

The United States Gross Domestic Policy is $10.4 Trillion a year. Iraq's is 58.4 billion. Our GDP growth on a bad year is 2.45% or roughly $254 billion. Insisting that the current administration was desparately interested in chasing $20 billion a year of treasure is small minded and inane. We never needed that $20 billion nearly as much as we needed the economic drag that terror sponsors cause released. Write this down in big letters so you remember, TERROR IS BAD FOR BUSINESS, AND OTHER THINGS, TOO.

So, Kimmitt, are the people who carried out the terrorist massacre against aid workers our enemies? What do you think should be done about them?

Does this happen every time someone disagrees with you, or is it at least confined to discussions regarding foreign policy? Because I imagine it might get a little old at the video store:

"I want to watch a romantic comedy; your action movie preference forces me to ask: do you support the actions of terrorists when they strike against the United States or innocent civilians?"

I feel comfortable enough with saying that nothing 'good' could come from their (extremely unlikely) success, so it's not quite the same analogy.

Right, but the point is that it doesn't matter who is doing the organization; it is the outcome which matters. Mr. Totten's advocacy of the idea that a US pullout from Iraq would be disastrous is quite reasonable. His continuing attempts at guilt-by-association are not.

Kimmitt: Mr. Totten's advocacy of the idea that a US pullout from Iraq would be disastrous is quite reasonable. His continuing attempts at guilt-by-association are not.

I wrote: Let me clear up any potential misunderstanding in advance. I am referring specifically to the rally organizers at ANSWER, not to every person who shows up to protest or who opposes the war.

Please read and pay attention to my entire posts. Thanks.

Well, crap. I have to apologize; I attributed sentiments to you which were appropriately attributed to Mr. Pobirs and other responders to the post.

Kimmitt - What was the disagreement about? You asked a general question about what our reactions would be if the Bush administration was revealed to be entirely corrupt. I said that the war on terror/Baathism/Islamic fascism is more important than the administration or any possible scandals. Sometimes we disagree about how the war against this sort of fascism should be pursued – but we don’t disagree that it should be pursued.

Is asking for ideas a form of confrontation? Or is it my taste in movies? I like films like 'Lost in Translation'. Our video store clerk likes anime. When I ask him for a recommendation or idea, he’s usually not offended. I guess it depends on the individual.

"But equality and solidarity were the rallying cries. It was an irresistible siren song for some well-meaning fools." And it was particularly attractive to fools of the intellectual variety, because most of these people live by words...and if the words were right, they weren't too concerned about actions and outcomes.

But, as you point out, today's enemy--who you rightly call "fascist"--don't even use the right words. Yet many intellectuals support them to some degree, or at least can't bring themselves to condemn them.

I believe that there has indeed been a significant degeneration among the "intellectual" classes in the last 20 years or so.

So, Kimmitt, are the people who carried out the terrorist massacre against aid workers our enemies?

This is the question you keep asking me, in various threads at various times -- essentially, "Does your opposition to my policy preferences come due to the fact that you are a terrorist sympathizer?"

This is probably a flaw on my part, but I'm just not capable of attempting to rationally respond to that question, so all I can do is point out that you've asked it.

but I'm just not capable of attempting to rationally respond to that question

Wow. Y'know, Kimmy, it's a pretty simple question. As a demonstration, I'll answer it.

YES. They are are our enemies.

Now, was that difficult? Even you can do it.

Oops, one "are," and one "are" only.

Arrrr, matey.

A.N.S.W.E.R

It was a really stupid question.

Are the people who carried out the terrorist massacre against aid workers our enemies?

It was supposed to be a rhetorical question – like standing in the middle of a flooded boat and asking ‘So, do you think there’s a leak?”

People who deliberately murder Red cross workers and kids going to school are the bad guys. It’s not a policy question, it’s a no-brainer, leading into the real question which was ‘do you have any idea how to fix it?’

Socialism and Fascism are the siblings who can't stand the sight of each other. They called it National Socialism for a reason. They never called it National Capitalism. Today's fascists have replaced the nationalism componet of old fascism with a new and improved trans-nationalistic anti-gobalistic schizophrenia. That must make them feel better about the whole 'ends justifies the means' thing. And everybody knows you got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, and crack a few skulls to make a uptopia. But hey, it works for them. Worked for Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Castro, and etc., and etc. also.

Posted by: Kimmitt at October 27, 2003 04:29 AM

> you may wish to do some reading of your
> Mussolini

I have... he was a Marxist who believed that Italy was not yet advanced enough for revolution and required an era of nationalism to build cohesion (since there was not yet a strong Italian identity) and promote industrialization...

> wars of expansion
Nope, communists never did those...

> support of Christianity against invading
> Muslims, atheists and pagans;
1) it was Italy / Rome
2) I know a few Trotskyites who say the current Muslim radicals are more 'reactionary' than the capitalists.. Hence, better to support us against them...

> suppression of a corrupt democratic process

Yup, never heard anything like that from a communist...

Lets face it, communist / fascist... different color shirts...

While communism as an ideology can be excused, I'm not so sure about the American Communists. When I came from the Soviet Union to the US in the late 1908s, I looked with a kind of bewilderment at the local communist party. I sort of felt sorry for them: seemingly decent people who made bad mistakes, got caught up in the ideology, etc: they were wrong, but at least they meant well. I guess my sentiment was fairly representative of other Russian Americans. I think we drew a parallel between Soviet and American communists. There was/is a very large minority of Russians, some party members and some ordinary folk, who spent their lives building communism and at the end wound up morally bankrupt. Unlike American communists, they didn't live in pluralistic society, and their ideology was unchallenged for decades. Have they been exposed to different ideas, they might have changed their worldview. Their generation also deserves some credit for defeating Nazism (along with the allies) and for that reason alone those old folks can be seen in positive light.

After 9/11 I have no illusions left about American leftist extremists. They had no problem allying themselves with the most repressive regimes imaginable. They are sad cases of arrested development, the only thing they are good for is defeating parental authority.

[Mussolini] was a Marxist who believed that Italy was not yet advanced enough for revolution and required an era of nationalism to build cohesion (since there was not yet a strong Italian identity) and promote industrialization...

Mussolini was a Marxist until he rejected Marxism for fascism. It's that simple.

Look -- Fascists simply do not share Marxist approaches. They do not view history as a series of dialectics (the fascist movement has no single view of history); they do not view the primary struggle as being between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (they view it as a struggle between ethnic or national groups); and they do not believe in the large-scale redistribution of income as part of a workers' dictatorship -- all fascist regimes have been capitalist regimes.

Lets face it, communist / fascist... different color shirts...

This is like saying, "All governments collect taxes coercively, so therefore all governments are essentially the same."

disagree with only one point:

fascism and communism are the same thing.
NAZI stood for natioanl socialist.
Both are trully left.
The old-time spectrum with one as the lef-extreme and the othert as the right-exteme is false.
PROOF? where do you pout anarchism in that old-time scheme?!?!?

The true spectrum has the commies and the nazis and all other extreme STATISTS on the same side -the left. and anarchists on the extreme right.

All statists are elitists; they favor statism becuase their narrow creeds cannot EVER win the popular support. So they need to inflict on the stupid masses.

so in this sense the commies the nazis the jihadis: they are birds of a feather.

never was a title so appropriate. i faced the brown shirts (yellow vests, really) of the International ANSWER enforcement brigade. they were thugs this weekend in DC. they assaulted me, along with the rest of the ProtestWarrior crew. there is a story about it at

http://www.johnnypnews.com/DCProtestclash.htm

expect the video to come out soon at
www.protestwarrior.com

Paul Berman has some interesting things to say about all this.

He describes what Communism, Fascism, and Francoism (in Spain) all had in common:

The shared ideas were these: There exists a people of good who in a just world ought to enjoy a sound and healthy society. But society's health has been undermined by a hideous infestation from within, something diabolical, which is aided by external agents from elsewhere in the world. The diabolical infestation must be rooted out. Rooting it out will require bloody internal struggles, capped by gigantic massacres. It will require an all-out war against the foreign allies of the inner infestation--an apocalyptic war, perhaps even Apocalyptic with a capital A. (The Book of the Apocalypse, as André Glucksmann has pointed out, does seem to have played a remote inspirational role in generating these twentieth-century doctrines.) But when the inner infestation has at last been rooted out and the external foe has been defeated, the people of good shall enjoy a new society purged of alien elements--a healthy society no longer subject to the vibrations of change and evolution, a society with a single, blocklike structure, solid and eternal.

Each of the twentieth-century antiliberal movements expressed this idea in its own idiosyncratic way. The people of good were described as the Aryans, the proletarians, or the people of Christ. The diabolical infestation was described as the Jews, the bourgeoisie, the kulaks, or the Masons. The bloody internal battle to root out the infestation was described as the "final solution," the "final struggle," or the "Crusade." The impending new society was sometimes pictured as a return to the ancient past and sometimes as a leap into the sci-fi future. It was the Third Reich, the New Rome, communism, the Reign of Christ the King. But the blocklike characteristics of that new society were always the same. And with those ideas firmly in place, each of the antiliberal movements marched into battle.

He then explains what the Islamofascists (both secular and religious) have in common with them.

The present conflict seems to me to be following the twentieth-century pattern exactly, with one variation: the antiliberal side right now, instead of Communist, Nazi, Catholic, or Fascist, happens to be radical Arab nationalist and Islamic fundamentalist. Over the last several decades, a variety of movements have arisen in the Arab and Islamic countries--a radical nationalism (Baath socialist, Marxist, pan-Arab, and so forth) and a series of Islamist movements (meaning Islamic fundamentalism in a political version). The movements have varied hugely and have even gone to war with one another--Iran's Shiite Islamists versus Iraq's Baath socialists, like Hitler and Stalin slugging it out. The Islamists give the impression of having wandered into modern life from the 13th century, and the Baathist and Marxist nationalisms have tried to seem modern and even futuristic.

But all of those movements have followed, each in its fashion, the twentieth-century pattern. They are antiliberal insurgencies. They have identified a people of the good, who are the Arabs or Muslims. They believe that their own societies have been infested with a hideous inner corruption, which must be rooted out. They observe that the inner infestation is supported by powerful external forces. And they gird their swords. Their thinking is apocalyptic. They imagine that at the end they, too, will succeed in establishing a blocklike, unchanging society, freed of the inner corruption--a purified society: the victory of good. They are the heirs of the twentieth-century totalitarians.

I'm a PhD candidate in the humanities at a major research institution in the northeast. I dealt quite a bit, hand-in-hand, with ANSWER in my younger, more naive days. I'm still, I suppose, a "leftist," or progressive, or what have you. But ANSWER's recent actions have convinced me of something I've been considering for a long time... the far Left has lost its mind. It's very disappointing, and I can no longer support it generally, or ANSWER (certainly) in particular. I say this not to write off the left, but because I think it's worth saving; saving from its own reactionary mindlessness. Sorry I can't offer any tremendous political philosophical insight, but I had to get it off my chest... and it that's something I could never dare to do among my colleagues. For that reason, I am

anon

Facsism married to Islam, particularly fundamentalist Islam, has that Loeb and Leopold feel to it. Taken separately they can have their own peculiar odious psychological quirks and practical shortcomings. But put them together and zap; man now you have yourself a thrill killing death cult.

It will probably be misunderstood, but here's a contrast between two forms of National Socialism.

They are not the same. They are not morally equivalent, despite outward similarities.

It's not the -ism, it's the people. I don't care what -ism people are espousing, if they put opponents in shredders or in ovens, they're my enemy.

Here is what Wikipedia says about National Socialism and communism.

"Like other fascist regimes, the Nazi regime emphasized anti-communism and the leader principle (Führerprinzip), a key element of fascist ideology in which the ruler is deemed to embody the political movement and the nation. Unlike other fascist ideologies, Nazism was virulently racist."

Like Mr. Totten pointed out Communism was the enlightenment/liberalism gone bad, while facism was anti-communist and is not from Liberal ideology. link

I'm shocked that a PhD candidate in the humanities at a major research institution in the northeast is a leftist/progressive; shocked I tell you!

Hang in there Anon if the far left in America implodes, and takes much of the sane left with it, there's almost a 100% guarantee that something will rise out of the wreck to take it's place. It seems that in America the left in general and the Democratic Party in particular are going through the convulsions of change, or political dry heaves if you prefer. The Democratic Party may come out a better party on the other side, but it's definitely going to be a smaller and less influential political party until the radicalist 60's diehard generation is gone. In American history this will not be a precedent setting occurence, but for some it won't be painless either.

National Socialism by its nature has to be anti-communist but not for the same reason capitalism is anti-communist. Communism and socialism are supposedly race neutral (that whole abilities to needs thing) and national socialism is race specific. But the methods and goals of the three systems aren't historically as antithetical as some on the left would like the record to show. They all are state driven economies and Josef Stalin was about as furherprinzip as you could get. Captialism, on the other hand, resists most state controls of the economy and is driven by that freedom. It's economic form of Darwinism, it's tough, adaptable, flexible, efficient, somewhat ruthless, and hard to kill. Strictly speaking socialism and all of its morphs go against nature, and all things that go against nature, always eventually die.

The fascism in the west today isn't nationalistic or racist, it's secular transnationalistic. And fascism in the Islamic world isn't racist or nationalistic either, it's theologic. They are incompatible because the Islamofascist believe that their destiny is devinely inspired world conquest, they cannot and will not tolerate unbelievers regardless if they are anti-western fascists also, and they are willing to kill and die for their causes and beliefs. Western fascists and socialists have no where near this kind of zealous committment to their cause. I'd doubt they can even understand it, and to an Islamofascist the western facsist is nothing more than someone to convert, enslave, or kill.

Drew,

Just because fascists were 'anti-communist' does not mean they were not socialists. After all, the communists were quite heavily anti-trotskyite. You can view fascist anticommunism as simply an internal socialist struggle - which is something that was lost on those on the traditional right in the 1930s who half sympathised with the fascists for being anti-communist.

Mao put it best:

"We shall support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports."

And considering the Maoist/Marxist/Stalinist [take your pick] bent of the WWP and ANSWER [I am sure thay all have his little red book on thier coffee tables] the quote is quite appropriate.

In the early part of the 20th century, Marxism reached an impasse. It became increasingly clear to most Marxists that the "proletariat" was not about to spontaneously overthrow their alleged exploiters. Many noticed that most of Marx's predictions, such as the notion that the wages and conditions of the industrial working class would grow worse over time, were proving to be false, as the plight of workers actually improved, and workers proved immune to exhortations to rise up against their oppressors.

Mussolini was one of the leading Marxists of this period, participating extensively in the internecine disputes. Along with others, he came to realize that waiting around for a complete revolutionary change was futile. He suggested that instead they should be more practical and push for incremental change within the system. (This is the eternal debate among communists -- whether to work within or outside the "system"). He also saw that workers tended to be intensely nationalistic, especially in the wake of WWI, where many had served in the military.

He proposed that they harness this nationalism as a means to appeal to workers, and use it to promote socialism within individual countries. Marxist purists refuse to go along, as they believed in the international struggle for socialism, which should abandon notions of nationalism. (In reality, virtually every communist nation, such as Russia and China, has harnessed the power of nationalism, while paying lip service to "internationalism.")

Mussolini is credited with creating this new version of socialism called "fascism" in 1919. Most of the leadership were former Marxists, disillusioned with the practical failures of Marxism. Yet they remained committed members of the Left. Some of his early supporters and admirers included Sigmund Freud, George Bernard Shaw, Ezra Pound, and Stalin, who shared with Mussolini the plans for Moscow's May Day parades, to help him in his own mystique-building exercises.

Yes, they grew into rivals with their communist counterparts, who naturally accused them of being bourgeois and capitalist (as every single splinter Marxist group declares about its erstwhile comrades). Remember, the bitterest fights are those between members of the same family. Hitler denounced communists, and yet he signed the non-aggression pact with Stalin.

Are there differences between the two? Certainly. But just read the programmes of the Fascists in 1930s Italy and Germany, and see if there aren't more similarities with communism that with laissez-faire capitalism.

Incidentally, the Wikipedia is not exactly reliable on these issues. Many of its entries are written by ideologically driven authors. Communists have engaged in a decades-long P.R. campaign to distance themselves as much as possible from fascism, and to associate fascism with capitalism. Naturally, with a largely compliant media and academy, they have succeeded in hoodwinking most of the public. Look at the facts before you accept their dogma as the truth.

Kimmitt,

Fascists simply do not share Marxist approaches.

They share the same means. Both fascists and Marxists distrust the free market to shape society. They both use the coercive power of the state to plan and direct the society towards desired ends. Whether or not those ends are the same is irrelevent. Once you grant an excess of coercive power to the state, that power will be used towards some designed end. Transitioning a marxist state to a fascist state is as trivial as changing a suit.

Due to the fundamental conflict between Marxism and human nature, the ends of socialism are unachievable. Therefore, it is inevitable that the coercive power of the state built by the Marxists will be co-opted and directed towards some other ends such as fascism.

The problem with socialists, Kimmitt, is that you guys refuse to accept the fact that socialism always fails. Marxism doesn't lead to fascism by the design of the socialists. It leads to fascism by the unalterable dimensions in human nature. Humans are not a blank slate:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670031518/102-6657113-7875351?v=glance

It doesn't matter what your intents are. Socialists seem to believe that the intents justify the means and the ends. Given the overwhelming historical evidence that socialism is doomed to failure with 100% certainty, socialists can no longer hide behind the claim that their intents are just and that they are therefore noble.

In order to be a socialist today, you have to be either delusional or evil. There are no other options.

Regarding Kimmitt's "thought experiment", an observation or two:
1. If, indeed, it were proven that the real motivation behind going to war was enrich the Bush folks and the generals with proceeds derived from Iraqi oil, then Mr. Bush would have to be as dumb as the Left try to make him out to be. Would it not be much easier to defeat Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to accomplish the same end. Why would one intentionally take on a seemingly huge and well armed Army when the neighboring countries are so ill-equipped to self defend. Also, does that presume that it would be easier to defeat Iraq to gain oil then the Democrats to gain access to ANWAR?
2. Anyone who thinks that an American administration would take such a huge risk simply to enrich themselves doesn't understand capitalism.

Let's cut the bullshit:

Fascists, Islamists, National Socialists, Maoists, Royalists, Trots and Kimmit's heroes the Communists are all ANTI-LIBERAL.

None are liberal. FUCKING NONE.

Some socialists are liberal (though not all, see above). Liberals are even sometimes liberal. Libertarians are classically liberal. As are most American conservatives.

Okay, let's all take a deep breath here and stop making things up.

I am not a socialist. I am not a Communist. At no point have I espoused the validity of socialist or communist economic or political policy recommendations or analyses.

Have a pleasant day, and please remember that the last three letters of my surname are "itt."

HA, you are a complete fuckwit without the sense God gave a gnat's genitals.

Sorry, almost forgot. Carry on.

Here is an excellent article on the genesis of Fascism as a revision of Marxism:

The Mystery of Fascism

by David Ramsey Steele

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

It is based on the work of the socialist historian Zeev Sternhell.

The more I learn about the leftist movement(be it Marxist, communist, socialist, whatever) in America, the more dumbfounded I become. Their blindness to history is remarkable. Even more remarkable is their blindness to the horrors their idealogy brings to the world TODAY.

I read the WWP article linked above extolling the virtues of North Korea. It is absolutely unbelievable. Maybe they should read about the holocaust occurring there (they don't need to; they know, yet chose to ignore it). Maybe they should go utilize the "free" health care system in North Korea. Maybe they'd want to live 69 years adoring the beloved leader, singing his praises (or at least you'd better be if you want to survive). I could go on.

Then I read about people like Walter Duranty who won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism with the NY Times for his "reporting" on Stalin's Russia (knowingly failed to report about the millions killed by the Stalin induced famine). And I say to myself, that couldn't happen today.

Yet it is happening today. We have the left supporting and defending and visiting and lauding the likes of Castro and Kim Joung Il. Or you have the left supporting the Islamofascists. You have reporters fooled or wowed (intentionally) by these evil dictators, leftists all. You have people who knowingly refuse to do anything about it. The South Koreans refuse to even put human rights abuses on the table because they don't want to offend. It's as if no one remembers. It's as if no one connects the dots (as if it's hard).

It's time to call a spade a spade. Leftist ideology has been and continues to be a hideous failure, responsible for the death of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people, and untold misery in the lives of billions of others. Can't put a shine on sh**.

I need you to point to a single leftist politician who supports the North Korean regime, Castro's Cuba, or Islamic terrorism.

No, not one who disagrees with you as to how best to handle them -- one who actually supports them.

You can't. Because that kind of idiocy is confined exclusively to the powerless fringes. So, tell you what -- ignore them, and we'll ignore Pat Buchanan telling us that the US deserved 9/11 due to its failure to be a sufficiently Christian nation.

Where does this "unconditional support" phrase show up in the ANSWER article that you cite? I read through the 2 page PDF, and did not see it, though perhaps I misread.

I need you to point to a single leftist politician who supports the North Korean regime, Castro's Cuba, or Islamic terrorism.

Uh ANSWER (Totten's whole point in his posting)? The americal left who are just gaga over Castro mystique? Gallway (sp?) of the UK and the cadre of Eurocrats who are gaga over Arafat and the PLO/PA? Do I need to continue?

Where does this "unconditional support" phrase show up in the ANSWER article that you cite?

It is the last sentence in the article. It's a pdf file for a pamphlet and so the format is a bit weird. So the "last" page is actually the page adjacent to the first page.

I find this quote by a great California author fairly illuminating:

I believe that there is but one story in the world, and only one…. Humans are caught – in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too – in a net of good and evil…and it occurs to me that evil must constantly respawn, while good, while virtue, is immortal.” John Steinbeck

Religious extremists, terrorists and hellish Marxist-spawned nightmares are today’s faces of evil. Leftist groups like ANSWER encourage the worldview that the U.S. itself is more evil than the situations which bring about its increased presence, even while making allegations about America’s aloofness.

Pat Buchanan? I believe the poster had Pat Robertson in mind as to 9/11 and God's wrath.

" Because that kind of idiocy is confined exclusively to the powerless fringes. So, tell you what -- ignore them, and we'll ignore Pat Buchanan telling us that the US deserved 9/11 due to its failure to be a sufficiently Christian nation."

Excepte Pat isn't organizing 10,000 Brownshirts to march around with signs and banners as ANSWER is.

They are powerless because people like Michael are not ignoring them and speaking out. So props to him.

There is no longer any excuse for people who attend or speak (Al Sharpton) at these marches - there has been plenty of publicity about ANSWER and its agenda. If someone attends one of these rallies they are facists, just like the organizers.

Motives matter and ANSWER'S motives are dirty. And the filth rubs off on any of the idiots that hobnob with them at these rallies.

I am struck by there being no comments on the particular flag ANSWER is marching under (whatever the real flags--fascist, socialist, islamist, etc.--comments would have them truly identifying with), namely "anti-colonial."

Post-colonial studies is one of the current branches of left-identified English literary studies in colleges and universities. It is gospel that this particular vantage-point for slamming western, male, and white culture--begins with Edward Said's "Orientalism," but the need for inventing scapegoat narratives with the above as targets precedes Said's particular scenario. The notion that "colonialism" is "what the male-dominated white west 'does'" develops from Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth," published in English with a preface by that hearty left-winger J.-P. Sartre and similar screeds expanding 19h-century colonialism into a trans-historical archetype of the central model, which is a world that conforms wholly to a domination/subordination model. The main point is to invent a narrative into which you inject the particular paradigmatic good-evil, victim-oppressor, female-male, black-white model of your choice, and go one from there to slander, scapegoating, and in some instances murderous assault.

It's all been done before, and it is no accident that university campuses with their anti-male hate propaganda machines called "Women's Studies" and "post-colonial literature" courses (not to mention the small host of ultimately marxist-inspired narratives of the same sort coming out of philosophy, political science, sociology, and history departments) have become places of toxicity unparalleled by any other type of institution in the U.S.

The fact that the U. S. occupation of Iraq bears either in its over-all configuration nor in its implemention any similarity to what the British did in its colonies (or the French, or the Belgians--read Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"--or the Germans, or the Dutch), is all beside the point. People like ANSWER live and (sometimes) die by the verbal rhetoric they jazz themselves (and hopefully others) up with.

Calling the U.S. "colonial" is nothing more (and nothing less) that calling it "maliciously and deliberately evil." They could just as easily have used "racist," or "western," or "masculinzed," or "capitalist": these people need evil scapegoats to do something for themselves that they profoundly need. For all scapegoating is a form of shedding something about the self that one cannot stand, and projecting it onto another person, or group, or nation, or whatever, justifying the attacking of the scapegoat, thereby leaving the scapegoater "clean."

I'm sure that the anti-U.S. rallies left the Answer people feeling really very "clean.'

"I need you to point to a single leftist politician who supports the North Korean regime, Castro's Cuba, or Islamic terrorism."

Ramsey Clark comes immediately to my mind. Hell this man was attorney-general of the United States. Cynthia McKinney and Maxine Waters bear some scrutiny too.

Alistair is spot-on with his outline of Fascism's development posted above. The best one-sentence description of Fascism is: A pragmatic form of Marxism which fuses expansionistic nationalism and socialism for the purpose of rapid national development. The Fascist/Communist split is in many ways a later incarnation of the Menshevik/Bolshevik split.

Some good reading on this:

Joshua Muravchik, Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism

A. James Gregor, The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century

George Watson, The Lost Literature of Socialism

Alistair writes:

Incidentally, the Wikipedia is not exactly reliable on these issues. Many of its entries are written by ideologically driven authors.

Absolutely. Any topic that's at all controversial or politically loaded is not handled in a balanced way there.

Communists have engaged in a decades-long P.R. campaign to distance themselves as much as possible from fascism, and to associate fascism with capitalism. Naturally, with a largely compliant media and academy, they have succeeded in hoodwinking most of the public.

The book by Gregor discusses how Marxist theorists were dumbfounded by the advent of Fascism and struggled to fit it into their ideological framework. The best they could manage was to accuse it of being a reactionary movement orchestrated by capital in an attempt to stave off the imminent workers' revolution. This is, of course, the interpretation that many today accept, Marxist or not -- but it's dead wrong, and as Gregor shows, later Soviet Marxist theorists had to admit as much.

"New Skinheads" is totally appropriate... while having an elitist attitude (and hate of Jews) in common they are much more intellectually cunning than you're typical dumb, brute, physically inclined skinhead. All you have to do is look at the raging undercurrent of anti-semitism that rears it's ugly head at anti-war protests, on the campuses around the country, in left wing indy media etc. etc.

These so called "progressives" are always bashing the status quo while zealously romanticizing the next socialist revolution UNTIL it fails miserably in it's often repeated totalitarian implosion of death and destruction. These "progressives" then conveniently sidestep away denying any association and/or trying to blame western democracy for the said implosion.

It's a laughable charade of deception that repeats itself with a disturbing frequency. They set themselves morally well above the communist "poseurs in sheeps clothing" so to say...

They only claim that their "true goal" is merely socialist equality in economic terms. However they realize their "ideas" cannot be fully implemented without blunt force (i.e. rallying the proletariat to their cause to do the "dirty work" then blindsiding them once in power) OR more subtly through the educational and legal systems which they are currently at work in now in this country and many others.

Let's not forget that the Nazis could not have come to power without the aid of the largest party in the Reichstag which was the Social Democrats (progressives in their day). The voting records show they often voted with the Nazis. When approached by the German communists to oppose Hitler... they sided with the Nazis... it's obvious who they felt more affinity for.

Now a few of them did defy the Nazis and paid for it with their lives but most went goosestepping along (temporarily anyway) only to dissappear in the ranks and resurface later most likely in E. Germany or some other eastern bloc country.

The charade continues... and to their embarrassment again with the situation in Venezuela. The Venezuelans cry out and yet it is these elitist progressives OUTSIDE the country in Europe and elsewhere that tell them to shut up and accept their "elected" dictator and the fate that follows (usually death at the hands of these murderers).

Ironically these progressives march under the banner of peace and human rights while standing on the sidelines in dissent any western democratic establishment intervention. In doing so they permit this likeable revolution (supporting any and all dissent of course) to reach a bloody climax but after it's downfall agree that "yes it is a good thing those baddies are gone now".

And so goes the sick charade of deception these treacherous "progressives" play... with so much embarrassment piled up over time it should be no wonder (as another poster noted) that they are constantly redefining history wherever they can (books, schools, colleges etc... and obviously in their own bloated minds) in an attempt to erase the associations of old and disguise who they truly are and what they are about.

(Mussolini was a Marxist until he rejected Marxism for fascism. It's that simple.)

No, Mussolini was a Marxist who rejected communism for fascism. He embraced a different interpretation of Marxism. That's the distinction.

(Look -- Fascists simply do not share Marxist approaches. They do not view history as a series of dialectics (the fascist movement has no single view of history); they do not view the primary struggle as being between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (they view it as a struggle between ethnic or national groups); and they do not believe in the large-scale redistribution of income as part of a workers' dictatorship -- all fascist regimes have been capitalist regimes.)

Fascism was Marxism for the middle classes. It's petit bourgeoisie adherents hated the upper class holders of capital as much as the proletariat did. The fact that many in this class were Jewish was just icing on the cake.

It's simply an oxymoron to say fascist regimes are capitalist regimes. Fascism was (is) deeply anti-capitalist. I don't know what your understanding of capitalism is, but breaking up sectors of the economy into corporate structures under the control of a government ministry is not capitalism. When are people going to understand that the role of government in a true capitalist society is limited to enforcing contracts and maintaining stability?

Fascism and communism were (are) both anti-democratic and anti-capitalist variants of Marxism.

Maybe she was confused that followers of the Religion of Peace would blow the Red Cross up. Maybe instead of tightening security at the Red Cross, they should relax it. Tightening their security would only send the wrong message that they do not trust the followers of the Religion of Peace. The Red Cross must show the Iraqis that they are only trying to help and the best way to accomplish that would be to remove all security at all Red Cross compounds throughout Iraq... better yet throughout the entire Muslim lands.

Ok, I'm a pretty hardcore leftist. And I've even used ANSWERs buses to get to a rally, twice. They were cheap. And yes, I know ANSWER is filled with evil bloodyminded idiots. But most people on those buses disagree with them.

The impression I'm getting from the rally this weekend was that while a bunch of the organizers were screeching "US OUT OF IRAQ" the VAST majority of people there were more concerned with getting the UN in, with internationalizing the forces there.

When ANSWER is the only "antiwar" game in town, and you honestly think that this is "the wrong war at the wrong time," you really don't have much of a choice. You can either sit home and write letters to your congressmen, or you can go to the rallies and talk to people about how nasty ANSWER is.

And although I haven't gone to one of these suckers in months (getting out of college and getting a job tends to suck your time up), every time I went and talked to people, they were fairly uniformally against what the WWP stood for.

ANSWER has a small group of very dedicated, discipline people. They tend to hijack other anti-war groups. They have the hard core organizers who book buses months in advance. They do not have a wide following.

This is really disjointed, but my point is basically that ANSWER is really not that big of problem, since they are mostly ignored at their own rallies.

Dan: When ANSWER is the only "antiwar" game in town, and you honestly think that this is "the wrong war at the wrong time," you really don't have much of a choice. You can either sit home and write letters to your congressmen, or you can go to the rallies and talk to people about how nasty ANSWER is.

I'm glad to hear you don't agree with ANSWER. I figure this is probably true of most of the protesters.

If I were anti-war I would not attend their rallies for the same reason I would not attend an anti-affirmative-action rally sponsored by the Ku Klux Klan.

That said, I do sympathize with your dilemma. I'll defend your right to protest, and I'll stick up for you if anyone here calls you a Stalinist or a fascist. But I'll also ask you to help me isolate ANSWER. Give me a hand here, please. Do it for America, for Iraq, and for the health of the left.

Even our parents knew about this. Remember when they were worried about the "friends" we had. One is identified by the group one is with. If you attend an ANSWER rally, one must assume that the attendee is a fan. If you don't agree with the ANSWER philosophy, and be vocal, I bet you would last more than 5 minutes before you are rousted. I was. But then I was carrying a PROTESTWARRIOR sign. And don't believe any news you hear about "10-20,000" people at the rally. It was closer to 6000. All this talk about the difference between fascism and communism is moot. They both want your liberty. There is no need to debate a terrorist. Just shoot him in the head.

Wrong war at the wrong time? Does that mean if Hilary was waging it, it'd be the right war at the right time?

Mercantilism isn't socialism. Fascism was mercantilist at its core, not socialist.

I am an anti-war & anti-globalization activist and a member of an activist group that organizes around anarchist (ie., libertarian socialist) principles. I have attended all the major anti-war & anti-globalization rallies in NYC and Washington, DC, since the threat of war began looming overhead. I have attended organizing meetings, staged direct actions, and have been arrested and assaulted by police while protesting. I only say this to demonstrate my level of commitment to the movement.

I can tell you, firmly, that I, and 8 of 10 members of my affinity group (of hardcore, vocal, well-known NYC activists), are completely opposed to ANSWER and refuse to have any part in their rallies.

When it was first discovered that ANSWER was tied to the WWP, and likewise the WWP's ties to dictatorial communist governments, we began to completely disavow any relationships with ANSWER and pressured our fellow activists not to support them. Within days of this information becoming public knowledge (within the activist community) a new coalition was formed--United for Peace & Justice--which became the leading anti-war organizing group. ANSWER quickly became #2 on the scene.

ANSWER has stolen the movement's thunder simply for their controversial stance, and have thus co-opted our concern for very prevalent issues to support their own agenda. But more often than not, the people attending ANSWER's rallies have no idea of the groups ties to the WWP, nor the fact that ANSWER claims that its rallies attendees support their agenda. The problem is that, in fear of fractionalizing the anti-war movement, more Leftists have not come out to publically denounce ANSWER. This is not because they agree with ANSWER's stated beliefs, but because they would rather spend their time demonstrating and being active than fighting amongst themselves.

Further, the only news sources which make abundantly clear these connections between ANSWER and the WWP are conservative publications, which go on to liken anti-war demonstrators to terrorists & terror-enablers. If such fair criticisms of ANSWER could be waged without the need to resort to namecalling, nor the diminishing of the concerns raised by activists, then I'm sure they'd be much more open to hearing the concerns of those opposed to the WWP.

The fact that many of the modern day Marxists & Leninists you refer to are nothing more than teenagers who, in their ignorance, romanticize Communist revolution, surely does not help things. But these people are certainly not the majority, nor the core activists within the movement. They are just kids who are looking to make sense of a senseless world and believe they've found it in the populist rhetoric of a Communist past. I don't blame them, and I don't hate them for it. I do, however, confront them, and try to make clear to them the destination that road leads to.

Therefore, ANSWER does not represent the anti-war movement, any more than Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell represent conservatives. They may have stepped up to the plate and put together some big rallies, but they are by no means the voice of the movement. They are the minority of left-wing extremists who found themselves in a position to parlay their way to the top of the game, but they most certainly are not heralded there by anyone in the know. They are opportunists who hijacked our movement, and trust me, there are those of us out here who are indeed fighting to get it back.

"Libertarian socialist"?

Snork... pheh.... BWAHAHA HAHAH AHAHHAHAH.... ohgodstopyerkillingme

mobius 1 – I think I saw you on LGF. Did you post this?

“It's just too fishy to be ignored. I don't want to theorize conspiracies but Occam's Razor says that they wanted the attacks to happen. And considering the PNAC report "Defending America's Future," and its stated need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to advance the invasion of Iraq, Bush's ties to Bin Laden, and all the other suspect behavior that went down prior to and after the attacks, it's obvious to me that it was a covert op created to further advance America's defense contracting industry.”

“How to end terrorism? End the reign of defense contractors and covert ops."

So somebody wants to speak out for the rational side of the ‘anti-war’ movement. I guess the rational group prefers conspiracy theories to the old, boring Marxism of ANSWER. If that was you, I guess you know all about Carlyle group, the black helicopters, the pipeline through Afghanistan, Roswell and the AFLAQ duck.

When it comes to the 'anti war' movement, rational is relative.

whatever it is that i may believe on a personal level as to the actions of the intelligence operations in the u.s. and their impact on world affairs is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

don't change the subject by attacking my personal motives for political action. they are my views alone. i do not claim to speak on anyone's behalf other than my own when i reflect on such 'conspiracy theories'.

however, its apparent that by attacking me, you aim to divert attention away from the very valid points i raise about ANSWER and the people who you claim pledge their undying support thereof.

it's obvious you have no valuable response to my contentions.

on a more personal note--i say i'd rather be a conspiracy theorist and be wrong in the long run, than blindly rationalize and support the grave misdoings of evil men, as you accuse me and my fellow activist of.

Mercantilism isn't socialism. Fascism was mercantilist at its core, not socialist.

You're still wrong, Kimmitt. Any "mercantilism" in Fascism was a temporary means to an ultimately socialist end, similar to the approach of Menshevism. How many different ways will we have to say this before you at least consider the possibility?

Don't confuse the anti-war movement now (really, the U.S. withdrawal movement) with the anti-war movement before the war. It's a tiny fraction of it's former self, and it's the worst fraction.

Also realize that it's not a single entity, and you can't fairly blame the "anti-war movement" as a general, nebulous force for the sins of its worst members. The other protest groups should have beat ANSWER to the punch in organizing and refused to co-sponsor ANSWER rallies. The individual person who opposed the war can denounce ANSWER till they're blue in the face but it doesn't seem to make any difference to anyone. She can (And should) also vote with her feet and not go to their rallies--but she cannot prevent them from holding them, prevent thousands of people she has never met from showing up, or prevent the media from covering them.

It's a general dilemma--how to prevent idiots and worse from discrediting a legitimate cause. I saw recently that the British Labor party expelled a bad MP, but I don't think the U.S. national parties have a comparable power or I assume David Duke wouldn't have been the Republican nominee for governor of Louisiana however many years ago. And of course fringe opponents of abortion have actually committed violent, even deadly, attacks, which I don't think even the craziest anti-Iraq protestors have ever done.

If I remember my European history correctly, it was the traditional right of center parties that became a part of Hitler's original coalition rather than allying with the socialists or social Democrats.

mobius1,

I don't share your conspiracy theories, but I am glad to hear you are vocally against ANSWER. Thanks for that.

Katherine: It's a general dilemma--how to prevent idiots and worse from discrediting a legitimate cause.

I sympathize.

Think about it this way.

We all can imagine what would happen if the Ku Klux Klan organized anti-affirmative-action rallies and thousands of conservatives showed up to march with them. But that wouldn't happen. It's only a hypothetical, and I don't need to elaborate.

What does happen when the Klan organizes rallies is that they are met with massive numbers of counter demonstrators who villify the Klan as the fascist scumbags they are.

So that's what I suggest you do. Counter-protest ANSWER. Call them fascist scumbags to their faces. Because that's what they are. That's what the mainstream anti-war left can do to solve its dilemma and earn some real respect from the rest of us.

Anyone on the anti-war left who does this will get a lot of credit from me. I'm a disaffected liberal myself. If you take my advice, you'll remind me and others like me that we still share some of the same values.

"But more often than not, the people attending ANSWER's rallies have no idea of the groups ties to the WWP"

Gee, Mom, I didn't know it was THAT kind of a party.

Kimmitt,

HA, you are a complete fuckwit without the sense God gave a gnat's genitals.

Your insults are as well reasoned as your politics. Both can only be described as reactionary.

Dan,

When ANSWER is the only "antiwar" game in town, and you honestly think that this is "the wrong war at the wrong time," you really don't have much of a choice.

You have plenty of choice. You can organize your own rallies and explictly and loudly exclude ANSWER. The only problem is that nobody will show up. I don't believe for a minute that most of the people at these so-called "peace" protests disagree with the ANSWER brownshirts. The reason nobody organizes alternative protests is that ANSWER's message is central to the anti-war constituency. The truth hurts.

Here is a good example of the "peace" protesters in action. I wonder how many of those attending the rally would have intervened against this gross violation of civil rights by ANSWER "security"?

http://www.johnnypnews.com/DCProtestclash.htm

mobius,

don't change the subject by attacking my personal motives for political action.

It is completely valid to question your motives. One can have good motives and be wrong. That is forgivable. One can have evil motives and be wrong. That is unforgivable.

Katherine,

It's a general dilemma--how to prevent idiots and worse from discrediting a legitimate cause.

The reason the cause almost exclusively attracts idiots is because the cause itself is illegitimate. If your cause is primarily attracting idiots, maybe you should reconsider your cause.

HA, all due respect (none whatsoever), but you're making an argument for Michael Totten to flee from your ranks.

I'm a confirmed lefty, and I think that while the Iraq war was a reckless, divisive and naive undertaking, the removal of Saddam Hussein is one of the few positive outcomes. I also join the right-wingers here in condeming the far-left fringe organisations which defend the likes of Kim Jong-Il and other murderous, torturing dictators.

In the light of that, I'd be interested to hear what the right-wingers on this forum think of the Bush administrations currrent support for the murderous, torturing dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Karimov's secret police regularly use torture and rape of women, men and children. There have been confirmed instances of his security forces of boiling political prisoners to death.

The Bush administration has just given 500 million dollars of aid to this regime. I for one would find it much easier to accept President Bush's use of Saddam's removal as moral justification for this war if he was not simultaneously supporting a regime that is doing exactly the same things that Saddam Hussein did.

In fact, the parallels are even deeper: the US is supporting Islam Karimov becuase he has provided a staging point for the US attacks on Afghanistan and aised the US in that war. Similar "common enemy" justification was used for supporting Osama Bin Laden and the mujahedin against the Soviet Union, and supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran. Don't these guys ever learn? Can't they see that if you get into bed with people like this it bites you in the ass a decade or two down the line?

So, I guess my question is: since it's morally repugnant for the far left to speak in support of the likes of Kim Jong-Il, is it not far more morally repugnant of the Bush administration to actively fund the likes of Islam Karimov?

I can name a political lefty who supports Castro.

Jimmy Carter, who recently went to see the dictator and had wonderful things to say about him. Even though at the same time that old dog Castro was locking up dissidents.

Further to my previous comments, here are some links to information about Islam Karimov and his regime, in case you are noty already familiar with them:

http://www.csce.gov/press_csce.cfm?press_id=305

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1086

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/08/uzbek081203-ltr.htm

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/karimovprof.htm

You have plenty of choice. You can organize your own rallies and explictly and loudly exclude ANSWER. The only problem is that nobody will show up. I don't believe for a minute that most of the people at these so-called "peace" protests disagree with the ANSWER brownshirts. The reason nobody organizes alternative protests is that ANSWER's message is central to the anti-war constituency. The truth hurts.

"i demand you waste your energy fighting each other, rather than uniting for a commmon cause--otherwise i will denounce you as nazis!"

and you call ANSWER fascists?!

In the light of that, I'd be interested to hear what the right-wingers on this forum think of the Bush administrations currrent support for the murderous, torturing dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov.

That I wished I lived in a world where we didn't have to make necessary distinctions between mad bastard dictators with a documented history of external aggression and mad bastard dictators without one. Until we do, we need to pick our fights, and we shouldn't subscribe to the 'if we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything fallacy' (see Saudia Arabia, Current Complaints About and Pakistan, Current Complaints About for further examples).

Do I like it? No. Am I planning to bring it up, just as soon as we have the luxury of worrying about tertiary targets? Yes. Am I sorry about classifying Uzbekistan as a tertiary target, with all that implies? Of course I am. Did I start this damned war in the first place? Judging everything, examining our own mistakes (which were considerable)... on the balance, no.

And as for this:

So, I guess my question is: since it's morally repugnant for the far left to speak in support of the likes of Kim Jong-Il, is it not far more morally repugnant of the Bush administration to actively fund the likes of Islam Karimov?

It's a fair question to ask, but the answer's no, for a very simple reason: the folks on the far Left - more accurately, ANSWER, which is far, far Left; I am explicitly not including the 'regular' far Left, here - are voluntarily supporting regimes like North Korea and calling for the unconditional support of the Iraqi insurgents. The US government in operating not out of choice, but necessity*. I hate that immensely, but I hate the alternative more.

Moe

*I am aware that this position assumes several assumptions that I have made, but that others have not. Those who have not remain, of course, free to disagree with me on this matter... but please do remember that while you (generic) may disagree with me, you (generic) may not say that I have not grappled with this problem as well as I might. We are not dupes; fools, perhaps (that remains to be seen), but not dupes.

I regret that I find it necessary to have to make such a comment, and it should not be construed as being either an implicit nor explicit criticism of Jonah's question (which, to reiterate, was a fair one to ask).

The reason nobody organizes alternative protests is that ANSWER's message is central to the anti-war constituency. The truth hurts.

Are you saying that ANSWER's message, i.e. that "The anti-war movement here and abroad must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance." is central to the entire anti-war constituency? If so, then you are quite wrong. I for one am deeply saddened and shocked by the continuing attacks and instability in Iraq, whether the targets are Iraqi civilians, US or UK forces or innocent humanitarian workers. If you doubt that I am representative, take a look at these extracts from this Guardian article:

But not all of Iraq's resistance will fit this romantic, maquis image. Some will be Ba'athist holdouts, Saddamites who once served as henchmen to a murderous dictator. No progressive should want to see these villains land a blow on British or American forces. Others, their numbers not yet established, will be Islamists, some from abroad, who are graduates of the al-Qaida school of morality. People who can murder UN or Red Cross workers do not deserve to be viewed as warriors in a heroic anti- imperialist struggle. No progressive should derive any satisfaction from their operations, even if their ultimate target is an occupation we opposed from the start.

Instead we have to look at the likely consequences of this resistance. Strikes such as Monday's against the Red Cross will only deter other non-governmental agencies from coming to Iraq, and the only people to suffer from that will be Iraqis - denied the medical care or food aid they so badly need. It's possible that success for the guerrillas will bring the end of the occupation and a moment of national liberation - but it could just as easily bring violent chaos, civil war, a return to Saddam-style dictatorship or a fundamentalist theocracy. Surely none of these is an outcome peace campaigners would wish on the Iraqis.

If you're going to start saying that "the truth hurts", then please at least start by ascertaining what the truth actually is rather than relying on your own pre-judgements about the motives of the anti-war constituency.

(In the light of that, I'd be interested to hear what the right-wingers on this forum think of the Bush administrations currrent support for the murderous, torturing dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Karimov's secret police regularly use torture and rape of women, men and children. There have been confirmed instances of his security forces of boiling political prisoners to death.

The Bush administration has just given 500 million dollars of aid to this regime. I for one would find it much easier to accept President Bush's use of Saddam's removal as moral justification for this war if he was not simultaneously supporting a regime that is doing exactly the same things that Saddam Hussein did.)

I supported the removal of Hussein for the following three reasons, in order of importance:

1. To remove the possibility of a dictator who was intent on developing weapons of mass destruction from supplying those weapons to Islamic terrorists who have shown they are willing to kill as many of our civilians as possible.

2. To increase respect for American power in the Middle East. That is, to counter the loss of face we earned when Reagan pulled out of Lebanon and Clinton pulled out of Somalia. In other words, to tell various totalitarian governments in the region that if they support terrorists, we won't make a distinction between their regimes and the terrorists. That was plank one of the Bush Doctrine, laid out on the evening of September 11, 2001.

3. To free the Iraqi people from the murderous rule of Hussein and try to plant a more representative government there, if not democracy.

The first point concerns immediate protection; the second, hopes to produce a mid-range effect; the third, is a more idealistic long-range plan for the entire Middle East.

The chief goal of American foreign policy is protection of American lives and interests. In order to do so, we should support dictators if they are our dictators. When they turn against us, we should crush them. Anyone who tells you differently is kidding himself.

Thank you, Moe, for your considered and measured response. There are a couple of points I would like to pick up on.

That I wished I lived in a world where we didn't have to make necessary distinctions between mad bastard dictators with a documented history of external aggression and mad bastard dictators without one. Until we do, we need to pick our fights, and we shouldn't subscribe to the 'if we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything fallacy' (see Saudia Arabia, Current Complaints About and Pakistan, Current Complaints About for further examples).

Understood. I agree with you that the US and UK cannot do everything and should not engage in any further forcible regime changes at least until the ration of countries warred upon to countries rebuilt gets a bit closer to 1. However, in the meantime, surely it's not unreasonable to suggest that we stop giving these mad bastard dictators financial support? My point wasn't that the US is doing nothing about this man, it's that the US is actually helping him.

Do I like it? No. Am I planning to bring it up, just as soon as we have the luxury of worrying about tertiary targets? Yes.

I am delighted to hear that you'll be bringing this up in the future when possible. When you do, I'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you.

It's a fair question to ask, but the answer's no, for a very simple reason: the folks on the far Left - more accurately, ANSWER, which is far, far Left; I am explicitly not including the 'regular' far Left, here - are voluntarily supporting regimes like North Korea and calling for the unconditional support of the Iraqi insurgents.

As I said in my earlier post, I join you in condemning their call for unconditional support of an "anti-colonial resistance" that is bombing humanitarian relief agencies. (By the way, Justin Blake, the phrase referred to is in paragraph 9 of page 1, although Michael slightly misquoted it).

I also thank you for recognising that these people do not represent the opinions of the vast majority of the anti-war movement or the left. These people damage our cause and allow conservative debating opponents to tar us all (knowingly or unknowingly) with the same brush as terrorist sympathisers when I can categorically tell you that we are not.

One of the reasons I personally opposed the war was becasue I feared that this kind of senseless slaughter would be an inevitable result. It absolutely does not give me any shred of satisfaction nor does it englist any scrap of support. There are some things so fundamental that all reasonable people debating this situation can agree upon regardless of political affiliation, and I think that this is one of them.

The US government in operating not out of choice, but necessity*.

And this is where we differ. I feel that now the wider coalition against terror has established bases in Afghanistan and the Taliban are defeated, then the US could close its bases in Uzbekistan and stop giving big wedges of money to Karimov. I respect the fact that you have wrestled with this as have I and hence I doubt either of us will convince the other. I just find it very difficult to countenance co-operation with the likes of Karimov, Kin Jong-Il, Saddam et al.

I hate that immensely, but I hate the alternative more.

I understand that you think it is necessary, but to reiterate, it was "necessary" to fund and train Osama Bin Laden and Saddam back in the day, and these things have a proven record of coming back to haunt us. I fervently hope that in ten, twenty years time we're not facing a massively armed, hostile and militant ex-ally in central Asia. Again.

I would just like to sign off by saying <simpsons>Gasp! Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!</simpsons> Heh!

Please. The only way to prove your dis-association with people who share one opinion with you--who do not even share it anymore!--is to follow them around making counter protests?

The KKK has actually killed people, so your analogy is not perfect.

Does the Catholic Church have to follow around the more repugnant anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights groups to prove they do not support murder?

The chief goal of American foreign policy is protection of American lives and interests. In order to do so, we should support dictators if they are our dictators. When they turn against us, we should crush them.

I sincerely hope that this viewpoint asking Americans to support those who torture, rape and suppress democracy is no more representative of the general rightist view than the ANSWER call to support terrorists striking against US forces and humanitarian aid workers is representative of the general leftist view.

Like I say, there are some things so fundamental that all reasonable people debating this situation can agree upon regardless of political affiliation.

Anyone who tells you differently is kidding himself.

The entire Bush administration told me differently. Do you consider them to be kidding themselves?

Jonah,

You agreed earlier that American foreign policy can't take a "unless everything is perfect, we won't do anything" approach.

Should we not have allied with the murderous, expansionist Soviet Union to take out the murderous, expansionist Nazi Germany?

I'm sure you're right that Karimov is a brutal, murdering dictator, as was Hussein when we supported him in the 1980s. But, unlike Hussein in 2003, he is neither anti-American nor waiting for an opportunity to restart a weapons of mass destruction program.

I hope that once we've established a prosperous, free and stable Iraq, its influence will help topple neighboring dictators like Karimov.

After all, the U.S. won the Cold War against the communists, at least partially, by rebuilding a free Germany as a counterexample to a brutal Soviet Union.

Hello Matt. Thank you for your comments.

Should we not have allied with the murderous, expansionist Soviet Union to take out the murderous, expansionist Nazi Germany?

As I understand it, Nazi Germany and the Soviet union were already at war when America gallantly decided to come to the rescue of their non-murderous, non-exansionistic European allies who Hitler had on the ropes. Nor did the US fund Stalin's purges and pogroms. The situations do not bear comparison.

I hope that once we've established a prosperous, free and stable Iraq, its influence will help topple neighboring dictators like Karimov.

On this, we are agreed. As I said earlier, the fact that Saddam is gone is undeniably good news. Our main focus now should be to expedite the creation of a propserous, free and stable Iraq able to maintain its own security and act, as you say, as a beacon to its totalitarian neighbours.

If this would be best facilitated by bringing in more foreign help, even if this required a handover of political and military control to a more multilateral force such as the UN then so be it. A minor loss of face for the Bush administration would be a price I would willingly pay for the cessation of terrorist suicide attacks on US forces and innocent civilians. That would be a most effective protection of American lives and interests.

mobius1 – You’re right – I did respond to your original comment too quickly, and it does read like a personal attack. Your original comment about your opposition to ANSWER was impressive - well written and carefully designed to appeal to your audience here (libertarian socialist?). Have you ever worked in marketing?

I was surprised by the contrast between what you said here and your comments on LGF. I was also disappointed – you appeared to be presenting a rational point of view, and genuine opposition to ANSWER. But this rational point of view was an illusion.

The central, rallying cry behind this anti-war march in Washington was ‘Bring our Troops Home’. Bringing our troops home would probably cause a civil war in Iraq, resulting in the establishment of a Baathist or Islamist regime. As Michael said, “If we don't run away, they are not going to win.”

Giving the UN more 'control' over Iraq wouldn't mean that our troops would come home. What could the UN accomplish without our troops?

ANSWER directly opposes UN involvement in Iraq - another reason why even leftist writers for Salon are disappointed by a movement that is dazed and confused.

You said: “They are opportunists who hijacked our movement, and trust me, there are those of us out here who are indeed fighting to get it back.”

How, exactly, are they ‘fighting’ to get it back? When someone suggests that you openly oppose ANSWER, you imply that this suggestion is fascist. I’m looking for a rational, coherent point of view here, but all I find is the old ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. ANSWER hates the American government. The ‘resistance fighters’ hate the American government. They and the anti-war movement share the same enemy, the Bush administration. If we wait for the anti-war crowd to oppose these thugs, we’ll be waiting for a long time.

Katherine: The KKK has actually killed people, so your analogy is not perfect.

So what? An imperfect analogy prevents you from getting my point? ANSWER's friends have killed millions of people. You are offended when I suggest you protest them? Why? Do you hate Republicans more than you hate Fascists and Communists? Get a grip, Katherine. I'm not a Republican, but I am far less a Communist or a Fascist.

Hey Jonah,

I don't think the fact that the Soviets were fighting the Nazis six months before we got into the war or that we were also allied with the British, free French, et. al., has any bearing on the fact that we were allied with the Soviets, as evidenced by the tremendous amount of material we sent to northern Russian ports, at enormous loss to our own merchant marine.

Roosevelt didn't intend for those tanks and guns to be used in Stalin's internal killings, anymore than Bush expects the money he's sending to Karimov to be used for anything other than keeping terrorist infiltrators from crossing over into Afghanistan from Uzbekistan. But I get your point that it's awful hard to control how the money is used once it's disbursed. I just wish the EU and the US were as eager to audit the billions sent to the Palestinian Authority.

One thing you have to realize is that I'm as eager for U.S. troops to be in Iraq/Afghanistan as an old man is to shovel six feet of snow off his driveway after a big snowstorm. I wish we could turn it over to the United Nations and get the hell out of there. But I'm deeply skeptical that such a course would work. Just as the invasion would never have occurred if U.N. approval had been mandatory, I think the U.N. will cut and run if they are in charge. Their utopian pacifism, combined with healthy doses of anti-Americanism, would make their resolve to stand up to continued bombing attacks extremely brittle. We could use foreign troops, especially Muslim ones, but things must remain under US command for the forseeable future.

Our best hope is to turn security and the hunting of the Baathists and Islamists increasingly over to a reconstituted Iraqi army, not the U.N. Once the sane Iraqis see themselves as in control of their own destiny, the terrorists will melt away, and we can go the hell home.

Mary said:

The central, rallying cry behind this anti-war march in Washington was ‘Bring our Troops Home’. Bringing our troops home would probably cause a civil war in Iraq, resulting in the establishment of a Baathist or Islamist regime. As Michael said, “If we don't run away, they are not going to win.”

Too right. Now that the coalition are in Iraq, it would be incredibly remiss of us to suddenly pull out and leave the Iraqis up a certain creek at the mercy of these bombers. If we did that, Iraq would become a greater threat to the security of the western democracies than it was under Saddam. Also, now that we've blown the place up, I think we have an obligation to rebuild it.

Giving the UN more 'control' over Iraq wouldn't mean that our troops would come home. What could the UN accomplish without our troops?

Giving the UN more control would have several benefits:

1) The UN has had a lot of experience of this nation building business, and the Pentagon seem to be making a right pig's ear of it.

2) This may be unfortunate and unfair to the US but as pragmatists we must recognise that it is the case: if the occupation and rebuilding effort was seen to be UN-led politically and militarily, it would be much more difficult for these bombers to forment popular resentment amongst the moderate Iraqi population. This is why these terrorist are going after the UN so hard: increased UN presence and involvement would be disastruous to them.

3) A UN mandate for and explicit control of the reconstruction effort would make it a lot easier for the administrations of nations such as Pakistan (and other Arabic nations with a high level of mistrust of the US on the street) to justify to their populations sending troops to Iraq to keep the peace. This would reduce the burden on the US military which is overstretched anyway.

4) Ceding control of Iraq would instantaneously cut the ground out from under the feet of critics who say that the war and subsequent occupotion are all about US control of Iraqi politics and resources.

There is a lot to be gained by giving control to the UN and all there is to lose is a little face for neo-con hawks who've frankly, cocked the whole thing up since the statue came down.

Jonah,

I think your points on the UN's strengths misses the point. I don't doubt that European and Pakistani peacekeepers are better at directing traffic and setting up water systems, etc. than American combat troops. I wish they were there yesterday.

But these peacekeepers are woefully bad at actually fighting. In 1995, at Sbrenicia in Bosnia, Bosnian Serb troops literally yanked the guns out of the hands of Dutch peacekeepers and told them to sit down and shut up while the Serbs murdered thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys. The Dutch government was so mortified by this that it resigned power.

I'd love for the U.N. experts to be helping us in Iraq. But without American combat troops protecting them and controlling the overall situation, UN peacekeepers would be slaughtered en masse by the Baathists and Islamists.

Jonah,

My overall point is that the UN can play a crucial role in rebuilding a country after the enemy has had the fight beaten out of them.

The UN is doing a fairly good job in Bosnia now, but it required the rearming of the Bosnian Muslims and the real threat (and occasional use) of American and British force. Not to mention harrying Milosevic out of power four years later.

Skinhead subculture - "aggro" and drinking
Paper presented in Nordisk Konferanse om barn og ungdoms egne initiativ for bedre oppvekst- milj”, 6.-8. november 1997, Oslo, Norge.
In a suburb of a small town in eastern Finland a visitor sees slogans written on the walls of the houses: "Multicultural Finland, an experiment doomed to fail", "Finnish Finland, the only possibility", "The equality between races, the most dangerous myth of the human kind", "Kill somali", "Niggers, punks, hippies and conchies welcome to our place. Skinheads". These slogans and white power symbols showed that visitor is approaching the unfriendly territory.

In this presentation I would like to analyse the meaning of seemingly mindless culture of skinheads. "Aggro" or violence and drinking seem to be necessary features of this culture. I try to answer the question: why skinheads are violent, why do they drink and which kind of relations exist between these activities in skinhead culture. My starting point is that although violence and drinking seem to be senseless, they are somehow intertwined with the meaning- structure of the whole culture. Skinheads are not the only people e.g. in Finland who are violent and who drink.

Skinheads as a social movement
Skinheads have been the most efficient social movement of youth in Finland during 1990's. Only the attacks of animal liberation front to fur farms has got as much attention in the publicity. Which are the factors that have made skinheads so forceful social movement. We can apply a description of the development of social movements introduced by german sociologist Rammstedt (1978, see also Hyv„rinen 1985). The main reason for the influence of skinheads and attention paid to their activities is that they have managed to locate and express some socially significant problems and explanations of the problems and that they have found appropriate manners to proclaim their views. The exceptional effectiveness of the skinheads is that they have not been satisfied with parliamentary ways of action but that they have used direct action to solve the problems. The direct action have included violent attacks against refugees and other people of colour (including a black american basket ball player), attacks against young anti-racists and other people who are opposing racism and extreme right wing nationalism.
An other viewpoint can be derived from Jaana L„hteenmaa's praiseworthy analysis of ideology and motives of skinheads based on the interviews (L„hteenmaa 1991). According to L„hteenmaa the ideology and action of skinheads is motivated by two phenomena which have had a strong impact to Finnish society: internationalization and the change of gender relations. Skinheads have found a "magical" - as L„hteenmaa writes referring to subculture theory of birmingham school - solution to insecurity which young Finnish males feel and which is a result of internationalization process. Somali people and other people of colour represent concretely this process.

Lähteenmaa also discusses the problem, how young boys become skinheads. She thinks that although disapproval of refugees is one of the central notions of skinhead ideology, it does not necessarily require a concrete experience of problems, which are interpreted to be brought about by refugees. Many of the skinheads in Joensuu have anyhow lived their childhood and adoles- cence during a period of time when big industrial enterprises in their home suburb were closed down and many of their parents became unemployed. Unemployment resulted in growing problems with living because economical depression and inappropriate or lacking professional training of the parents made it impossible for them to get a new job. These people and their sons did not respect too much the Finnish official immigration policy, which they interpreted to be the reason for accommodation of the refugees in a hotel. When experiencing at the same time dropping standard of living and reading in the newspapers the "luxurious" life of refugees in the hotel the arriving at a simple cause-effect interpretation was unavoidable. In Joensuu the skinhead subculture is thus based on concrete experiences of social unfairness. Skinheads articulate the interpretation shared by larger community which associates somali's and other refugees to the experiences of unemployment, lack of money and humiliation in welfare office.

Social background of skinheads in Joensuu
Skinheads in Joensuu are young men aged from 13 to 25 years. Only very few girls have participated in the skinhead violence although many of the boys have girlfriends. The social background of the skinheads have not been systematically studied but in any case they come from very varied family backgrounds. Some of the leading figures of the subculture are from upper middle class families and have either professional education or completed secondary education. Many of the boys in the core group are from working class or lower middle class families and have not completed secondary education or professional training.
The origin of the subculture can be found in a group of boys who lived in a same neighbour- hood and were in nearby secondary school or vocational school. These boys have some problems with the local authorities because of troubled behaviour. In the beginning of 1990's they begin to adopt features of skinhead subculture, including uniform clothing and other features of skinhead outlook. They also began to study and assume skinhead ideology, its values and doctrines. The skinhead violence against somali people began in 1992 and since then they have had quarrels with other foreigners and anti-racist young people and with casual passers- by. Some of the skinheads have been sentenced to prison because of assaults and doing damages.

The skinhead subculture in Joensuu comprises many subgroups. The core group of the subcul- ture consists of young men who posses a conscious neofacist ideology. The core group cannot - and most probably is unwilling - to control the activities of other skinheads. The other skinheads outside of the core group can be divided in two groups, the first of which comprises older boys who have either already finalized their secondary or vocational education or who are presently in the upper secondary or vocational school. The second group contains younger boys who are in the last grades of primary school. The total number of skinheads in Joensuu is estimated to be 150-200.

Skinhead ideology - a justification of violence
One of the starting points when analysing skinhead violence is to distinguish the violence, which is ideologically motivated and the violence which is more or less haphazard.
When trying the understand skinhead violence and culture from the point of view of skinheads' it is indispensable to study their ideology, which skinheads use to justify their actions.

Skinhead ideology is a collection of racist, fascist and nationalist notions. The roots of many of the notions of skinhead ideology can be found in ancient western and/or eastern philosophy. Skinhead ideology is quite clear, logical, simple and explicit, which explains why it appeals to young boys, who are seeking explanations for the problems they face in their lives. Above mentioned features of skinhead ideology make it also understandable why ideology attracts also many representatives of older generations, who have grown up in 1930's and 1940's in a extreme right wing and racist atmosphere.

One of the central notions in skinhead ideology is the idea of naturalness, from which e.g. following political notions has been derived:

a) a conception of naturalness of nation state and the natural territory of different people. One skinhead explains his relation to foreigners: "We don't hate foreigners. We just don't accept immigration of foreign population which differs ethnically and culturally in a great extend from us. The highest possible material and mental well-being can be only achieved in a country which is ethnically and culturally unified. The people belonging to other nations and races have a right to live and enjoy their lives in their own countries." Next notions by a skinhead have direct references to nature and biology: "From the biological viewpoint human races differ form each other: somebody stands cold some other is a child of sun. Ever