The Nazi's socialist?

[Deleted member 88]

Then why did the various fascist movements spring out of socialism? Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley et al. - scratch a fascist leader and you'll find a discontented socialist. The answer is simple. WW1 revealed that the "international working class" did not exist to launch the World Revolution, and as a result socialists, mulling over their failure hit on plan B - use nationalism to the advantage of socialism, by inventing the idea that Italy, Germany and so on were "proletarian nations" being oppressed and exploited by the victors of WW1. Now of course this is oversimplifying it and there was no conscious movement in this direction, but it still happened.

Eh there was other stuff going on. Lenin and the other Bolsheviks were infuriated when the Second International backed "their" national governments in the first world war. Many respected socialists of the previous generation argued in defense of the nation, which was in many ways a discrediting of the internationalist project, at least as far as the people in charge then were concerned. Prior to this, there had been a crisis of Marxism in the later 19th and early 20th century-the revolution hadn't happened yet, and at the same time, socialist parties and politicians became apart of the European political tapestry. In France, Germany, less so in Britain, and in the Nordic countries. Anywhere where there was a developed working class constituency(and relative political freedom), parliamentary politics was the order of the day, more than that a lot of people called themselves socialists-the term by 1910 or so had broadened to mean anything from state owned industry to things more radical. Did you support the working classes? The liberation of the peasantry? Did you oppose 16 hour work days? You were a socialist. Even if your politics were beyond that relatively liberal, moderate, or even conservative.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks thus argued that the first world war was the product of the capitalist system structurally breaking down, private property no longer contained within the nation state, and thus the war was an opportunity to spread the revolution, after all the Red Army was comprised largely of former Tsarist soldiers. The idea of all the soldiers in all the warring nations, taking their guns to their superiors and joining hands was the end objective. The war itself was now seen as an opportunity to spread communism.

Whereas a lot of "socialists" like Mussolini, never believed in the internationalist project. The word meant something very different to them. it meant something very different to Strasser, than it did to Trotsky.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

I mean, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, this is the exact same rationale the Soviet Union used for its purges. And Nazi Germany for becoming a totalitarian dictatorship. "Conspirators are plotting against the Revolution, we must make sure to strike first in 'self-defence!".

And you expose your stupidity yet again. To enact violence against someone with a proven history of violence who makes a credible threat is in every reasonable sense defensive not offensive. When a bunch of neo-nazi's gather at a rally and scream "jews will not replace us" and begin using rhetoric straight out of 1919 and 1920 German anti-Semitic groups you bet your ass violence is 100% justified. It's a bad idea but it is justified.
Second the rational for the totalitarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union and for Nazi Germany were not the same. As for the reasoning behind the purges there were a few key differences but all in all I would say yes they were motivated by the same reasoning, but it's not the reasoning you imply. The reasoning behind the purges was more to do with looking for a scapegoat to blame their problems on and to focus animosity away from the ruling parties than it was about self defense. In Hitler's case the purges were centered around "the jews will not replace us" and about purging "undesirable" elements from society. Nazism is Fascism with a racial bent. On the other hand in the Soviet Union there appeared to be a conflict between those who thought the bourgeoisie were somehow genetically flawed and those who did not.

I am sorry that you are such a degenerate that you cannot understand the difference between saying "X is justified" and "X is a bad idea". And further that you cannot understand that saying "If private property laws are revoked and you attempt to use violence against people in defense of something that does not exist we will defend ourselves." is the same as saying "round up all the capitalists" are clearly two different statements. The former I have advocated for the later I categorically reject.

First off, we all know that Hitler's National Socialism was not the same thing as the International Socialism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In fact, that the Nazis developed and espoused their form of Socialism in reaction against, and in rivalry with, the Soviet version (which Hitler saw as being controlled by Jews) just as much as they defined themselves against the Free-Market economic system of the Western democracies, which Hitler saw as being - you guessed it - controlled by Jews.

I agree with most everything stated there and will back it up with this

In Hitler’s version of National Socialism, socialism was “Aryan” and focused on the “commonwealth” of everyday Germans — a group of people he unites as one based entirely on their race. In an interview with Viereck, Hitler said:

“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”

In terms of his view on capitalism when Strasser asked Hitler directly if he would allow ThyssenKrupp to continue as it was Hitler replied “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”

Second, we know that from the viewpoint of the Western democracies, in particular the Anglosphere, those two totalitarian regimes looked pretty much alike. They had far more in common with each other than either had with the West. So much so that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union even made a temporary alliance.

I would go so far as to agree with both the words and sentiments here 90%. The primary distinction was that Germany was a fascist state where as Soviet Russia was not. Both however were unquestioningly totalitarian regimes.

So what's the big deal about whether or not Saruman's custom-bred Uruk-hai were "really" Orcs, or if only Sauron's should be called that - sorry, I mean about whether National Socialism counts as "Socialism" or whether only the Soviet one should be called that?

Now this might come as a bit of a shock but I will readily admit that not all people on the right are nazi's or neo-nazi's (racial fascists). I would even take that a step further and say that there are those on the right who are actively opposed to both racism and fascism (and follow me here because I am going to draw this back around to the question). As a consequentialist what I care about is the results of peoples actions. The results of the majority of people on the right is that they give cover to Nazi's and Neo-Nazi's to promote their propaganda. It's not merely the racial aspect which we on the left oppose but authoritarianism of which totalitarianism is one aspect.

In terms of socialism however the question which you posed is malformed. The question is not if Saruman's custom bread Uruk-hai were "really" Orcs, or if only Sauron's should be called that. The questions are: are the Orcs Elves? And are the Elves related to the Dwarves? The Orcs (Soviet Union/Nazi Germany) are Elves (totalitarian), no one with half a brain cell would deny that. But are Elves (totalitarianism) and Dwarves (socialism) related? If so to what degree?

What is happening is that all socialists get painted with the Authoritarian Socialist brush. The problem however is that not only are not all socialists Authoritarian Socialists, but Libertarian Socialists and Authoritarian Socialists cannot only not stand one another but are actively opposed to one another on a foundational level. Authoritarian's values hierarchy, adherence to strict order, and obedience. Libertarians value autonomy, independence, and freedom.

There is a very real argument among socialists as if authoritarian socialism can even rightly be called socialism. I granted North Korea as socialist with that note because it is currently an ongoing dispute. North Korea meets the most bare bones technical definition possible to qualify as socialism. The dispute centers around the question of ownership and personal property and is beyond what I think anyone here is interested in. For that reason as much as I hate it I own North Korea as socialist. The reason I reject the other two is not because they were totalitarian but because Germany in no way could be said to have been socialist (ie the workers did not own the means of production) and the same is true of the Soviet Union. In North Korea there is a facade of Personal Property. In Russia on the other hand it was "Meet the new system. It's like the old system but with different titles."

Sidenote: I haven't abandoned our previous line of conversation I have been busy IRL and am also doing more research to better defend that quote as valid. During what little reading I was able to do over the past several days I thought of the possible source of our contention. If it is what I suspect then there may be a much bigger problem at play. I think the problem centers around the hard date vs the soft date of the founding of the USSR (I almost universally use soft dates for foundings including for the US). If that is the case then I think I may have concede something I did not intend to in an attempt to move the conversation forward. In and of itself this is not a problem as I can and may move to using the hard date without a problem I can even grant that quote as not valid by the hard date.

Here is the problem I am running into and I am going to fully admit upfront that it is not fair to you. My experience with reactionaries in general and with reactionaries on this forum in particular tells me that reactionaries always act in bad faith. This isn't fair in that it's not actually universally true just mostly universally true. Thus my expectation is that anything short of Lenin saying word for word "The USSR was not socialist" will convince you. This creates a problem in that any and all possible arguments I can make at this point in time are inductive. The problem is such that if Lenin says something akin to "Socialism is" or "Marx defined socialism as... and we are Marxists so that is how we understand socialism" and then I point out that the USSR did not meet that standard you will then turn around and reply "Yes but he didn't say word for word the USSR is not socialist there" even though that is the inductive logical conclusion. If that is the case then I will not concede the soft date. If that is not the case then I will concede the soft date. So I will leave it up to you. Can I concede the soft date and have you accept inductive arguments?

The thing to understand about Communists, and other similar totalist ideologues, is that they see the world in very binary terms. Everything is either A or B. Anything that's not A must be B. The idea that there could be C, or even D and E, is alien to their thinking.

While not universally true I will actually grant this as generally true. I would also say the same is true of reactionaries however with the same caveat.

As a general demonstration of this point the idea that there could be a meaningful difference between liberals and leftists, or between socialist and communists, or between authoritarian socialists vs libertarian socialists. The reactionary position is liberal/leftist/socialist/communist are all the same and (generally speaking) things are either authoritarian socialist or they are not socialist. Not only is this a black and white fallacy but there is zero possibility for nuance.

Secondly, a defect of their minds is that they cannot distinguish between two things that they have put the same label on. If they call you an A, to them you automatically share all attributes not only of A-ness in abstract, but of every other actual instance of A.

The irony here is two fold. 1) I have argued exactly the opposite 2) you are doing exactly what you are accusing them of doing. The humor is not lost on me.

As for myself you are A insofar as you meet the attributes of A-ness. For example let's take fascism. You (and I both) are fascists in so far as we each independently meet the 14 points of fascism. For example if someone meets 1 of the 14 points they are 7% fascist. But even there it's not quite as binary as that as someone can hold to a point to varying degrees. So not only is it possible for someone to score 0% or 7% they can also score lower than 7% but higher than 0%. On the whole however it can be a bit much to calculate out everyone's level of fascism. I don't usually start suspecting "A-ness" until someone reaches 50% of "A-ness", and even after in my own head I believe they are "A" I refrain from calling them "A" until they have reached an 75% threshold. In the case of fascism that means they need to strongly meet 11 out of 14 points. Though I usually start probing around 9 points. I am explaining this in an over calculating way. In practice the way it works is that I analyze someones speech patters, actions, and principles until I can firmly say "X fits Y point in the 14 points".

I also distinguish between "doing an A-ness" and "being an A-ness". Someone for example can do something racist without being racist, just the same as someone can do something mean without being mean, or do something cruel without being cruel.

So if they admit that the Nazis were Socialists, that in their minds would stain all other forms of Socialism with the misdeeds of the Nazis.

The irony just keeps getting thicker. Considering that I have explicitly argued that Libertarian Socialism and Authoritarian Socialism are radically different forms of socialism and I keep being told by the reactionaries on this thread that Socialism by its nature is authoritarian... I think you have it inverted.

If the USSR was in fact a socialist country it would have no baring whatsoever on me as I am not an authoritarian socialist and hold a fundamentally different set of core values which lead to the execution of Libertarian and Authoritarian socialism being carried out in fundamentally different ways.

The difference between Authoritarians and Libertarians seems to be that Authoritarians believe in a great man perspective where as Libertarians seem to adhere to a zeitgeist perspective. To use an analogy it would be like saying that breaking a horse and gentle "breaking" are the same thing. Sure the effect is the same but the methods and the results are radically different. One method relies heavily on domination and beating the horse into submission as quickly as possible, while the other is about working together with the horse to build a relationship of trust over a long period of time. Having grown up around horses when both methods were in use, and having known different people that have used the two methods I can state from first hand knowledge that the two methods are nothing alike and neither are the results.

History nor the future are shaped by "great men" but rather they are shaped by everyone alive at the time, from the most insignificant pauper to presidents and kings. Both the pauper and the king are shaped by the zeitgeist and both shape the zeitgeist. But if they try to control the zeitgeist both will equally be crushed. Libertarians (socialists and non-socialist alike) operate on the nudge principle. Authoritarians operate on the domination principle.

There is a much more interesting conversation to be had there but that is the primary difference.

Kind of like the old "you're a vegetarian? But you know who else was a vegetarian? Hitler!"

I don't reject vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian. Not only would that be a genetic fallacy in the form of an ad homenim, but it wold also be a complete non-sequitur.

Since the Nazis were opposed to the Soviets, even went to war against them, anyone who opposes Communism is in their minds equal to Hitler.

Again no. Someone opposing communism does not mean someone is equal to Hitler anymore than someone opposing white nationalism is anti-white. Given how fervently I used to oppose communism and socialism (not the same thing) that would mean I think my past self is equal to Hitler.

Pointing out to them that "No, Hitler was actually one of yours, a Socialist dictator." makes them furious. Because the weapon they were trying to bludgeon their opponents with - the Holocaust - has been snatched out of their hand and turned back against themselves.

Were the Nazis Socialists?

We look into the burning (at least for some) question of whether members of the National German Socialist Workers' Party were accurately classified as "socialists".

www.snopes.com

No what it means is that you are a revisionist and are attempting to rewrite history.

The irony is that we do not need to use the Holocaust as a rhetorical weapon against them - not when there was the Holodomor, in which even more people died (8 million IIRC).

Do you remember how above you accused the left of committing a black and white fallacy? The irony is you do not see how after doing a fairly decent job in laying out the problem with black and white thinking you have now just painted socialism with a black and white brush. You've just done an "all socialism is authoritarian socialism".
1) ISM A general principle or philosophy
2) IST Someone who adheres to a general principle or philosophy
3) IAN ISM related to someone who subscribes to an ism who attempts to manifest that ism through actions.

Let's grant for the sake of the argument your premise that the USSR was socialist. So what? The USSR regardless of if it was socialism or not was unquestioningly authoritarian. What I advocate for is by it's very nature anti-authoritarian. And before the NPC objection rolls in (and I know one of you are itching to hit me with it). Is it authoritarian to oppose authoritarianism?

Add in all the other genocides, democides, mass deaths from starvation, etc that happened in Communist lands, and one gets a total that makes the atrocities of the Nazis look small by comparison.

Reactionaries always miss the point. Was it socialism that was responsible for all of the genocide, democide, mass deaths from starvations, etc or... was it authoritarianism?

And they know this. Hence their desperate attempt to blame it all on anyone other than their own side.

If that were true then I would have doubled down on North Korea and insisted that because it was not Libertarian Socialist it was not Socialist. Did I do that? No. Oops. I guess your wrong there. What you are saying is akin to "French revolution therefore enlightenment values of democracy and republicanism bad". Or "Failing to embody the enlightenment values laid out in the declaration of independence US bad".

"Oh but that never really happened that's just Western propaganda and anyway that wasn't real Communism that was Stalin and anyway those people had it coming to them for resisting the Revolution and anyway it was the West's fault because reasons and anyway What About that other bad thing that happened somewhere else?"

Apparently you haven't got the message. I fucking hate tankies. The fuck that was all western propaganda. Sure the west aggravated the situation that is an undeniable material fact. Ultimately however I tend to think that the aggravation of the west was a good thing as it destabilized the USSR several times and caused several needed reforms that gradually increased the general living conditions of the population. The west in particular western culture (primarily in the forms of music, fashion, and movies) ultimately destroyed the USSR and while Russia today is by no means a shining beacon of democracy or western liberalism its a fuck tone better than it was under its previous management. Just as for all the mass starvation and death caused by the USSR, Russia was a fuck ton better under Soviet Rule than it was under Tzarist rule. This is not to say that living under Soviet rule was by any means good.

As to it being all Stalin. Ya. Fuck no it wasn't. Spending time with Lenin's last testament it's clear that he was aware of the problems with Stalin. However while I do think things would have been better off under Trotsky given how bad Stalin was that is a rather low bar. Regardless Lenin was materially responsible for the Troika and all of the damage they caused both during and after his life. Lenin's belief in his own greatness and the hubris and arrogance that engendered is unforgivable, as are the results of that hubris and arrogance. Lenin and the USSR are a perfect example of what happens when someone places themselves in an echo chamber and is either unwilling or unable to seriously consider critical feedback, and to acknowledge their own errors. While I will not ignore or dismiss what very little good the Bolsheviks did manage I am skeptical that any amount of good could counterbalance all the bad they did.

One of us is capable of Nuance. One of us is not.

 

[ShieldWife]

And you expose your stupidity yet again. To enact violence against someone with a proven history of violence who makes a credible threat is in every reasonable sense defensive not offensive. When a bunch of neo-nazi's gather at a rally and scream "jews will not replace us" and begin using rhetoric straight out of 1919 and 1920 German anti-Semitic groups you bet your ass violence is 100% justified. It's a bad idea but it is justified.
Second the rational for the totalitarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union and for Nazi Germany were not the same. As for the reasoning behind the purges there were a few key differences but all in all I would say yes they were motivated by the same reasoning, but it's not the reasoning you imply. The reasoning behind the purges was more to do with looking for a scapegoat to blame their problems on and to focus animosity away from the ruling parties than it was about self defense. In Hitler's case the purges were centered around "the jews will not replace us" and about purging "undesirable" elements from society. Nazism is Fascism with a racial bent. On the other hand in the Soviet Union there appeared to be a conflict between those who thought the bourgeoisie were somehow genetically flawed and those who did not.

I am sorry that you are such a degenerate that you cannot understand the difference between saying "X is justified" and "X is a bad idea". And further that you cannot understand that saying "If private property laws are revoked and you attempt to use violence against people in defense of something that does not exist we will defend ourselves." is the same as saying "round up all the capitalists" are clearly two different statements. The former I have advocated for the later I categorically reject.

Funny thing, I think I’ve noticed a few people around using some of the same rhetoric to justify the same ideology that caused the most mass murder in the 20th century - communism/socialism/Marxism. You advocate violence, you advocate a murderous ideology, you support attacking those with dissenting opinions. If anybody should be forcibly silenced shouldn’t it be you?

But I don’t want you to be silenced. You have every right to advocate for your horrendous ideology - just like Nazis, Muslims, anarchists, pagans, fascists, dominionists, post-modernists, feminists, MRA’s, Republicans, Democrats, flat earthers, and anybody else with an opinion that some other people don’t like.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Funny thing, I think I’ve noticed a few people around using some of the same rhetoric to justify the same ideology that caused the most mass murder in the 20th century - communism/socialism/Marxism. You advocate violence, you advocate a murderous ideology, you support attacking those with dissenting opinions. If anybody should be forcibly silenced shouldn’t it be you?

But I don’t want you to be silenced. You have every right to advocate for your horrendous ideology - just like Nazis, Muslims, anarchists, pagans, fascists, dominionists, post-modernists, feminists, MRA’s, Republicans, Democrats, flat earthers, and anybody else with an opinion that some other people don’t like.

Not only are you a liar but your also a retard incapable of having a single unique thought and only capable parroting talking points which you haven't bother to fact check. This completely leaves aside your inability to engage with anything said to you.

Perhaps I should just open a text document and begin copy pasting because you're not really paying attention anyways.

So again Libertarian Socialism is NOT Authoritarian Socialism. Authoritarianism is responsible for most of the mass murder in the 20th century. Just like it was responsible for most of the mass murder throughout all the other centuries. The more centralized the control and the less care that is given to personal freedom governments are the higher the body count of that government.

In terms of advocating violence. If you believe that telling someone that if a credible threat is made against their life they ought to take it seriously and do what it takes to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Then ya, sure Karen. If that is what you think it means to advocate for violence then guilty. If your trying to be a slimy little bitch and imply that I advocate for offensive violence (ie using violence against those who have made no credible threat of violence against an individual) then your actually mentally retarded. Unlike you and your reactionary friends some of us don't dog whistle our positions. We state them outright.

I am also glad to know that you think worker co-ops are horrendous because that is what I am advocating for which you would know if you were paying attention. But I do understand that your reactionary brain cannot grasp that fact. I also advocate very strongly for the preservation of personal property. Which I guess somehow is horrendous as well. Additionally I advocate for a broad distribution of power and decentralization of power. But I guess that is horrendous as well. I also *gasp* advocate for personal responsibility. And worst of all. Absolutely worst of all I advocate against authoritarian institutions. Especially institutions which are intended to calcify and allow the dead to dictate to the living.

And again I also very much believe in the free market place of idea unlike you and your degenerate friends who say in one breath that you are free speech absolutists and then when pressed to it you are shown to be liars. I want you out there openly advocating for your positions not dog whistling them because I truly believe that can only help me. I want people to hear you say that you think cultures should not interfere with other cultures even if those other cultures promote rape. Even if those other cultures stone women for being raped. So long as you don't have to see it or hear about it you don't care. I want you to openly discuss your anti-science, anti-vax, anti-egalitarian, race realism, etc bullshit. I want you to talk about how you don't care how many people get fucked over by a rigged system so long as you get yours. I want you to talk about how you are for segregationist policies. Or how being anti-white nationalist (an ideology) is somehow the same as hating white people (a skin complexion). Or how hating whiteness (an exclusionary ideology responsible for apartheid, genocide, slavery, misogyny, exploitation and all sorts of other shit) is the same as hating white people (a skin complexion).

Do you know the difference between being white and being a white nationalist? You can stop being a white nationalist. Do you know the difference between whiteness and being white? You can stop believing in whiteness.

I don't hate skin colors. I do hate ideologies. I don't want to see individuals silenced. I do want people held accountable for the things they say. So long as it doesn't hurt other people or try to impose their will on others I don't want to stop people from doing what they want. I do want to see certain cultures eradicated.

Ah and lets not forget the current boogieman of reactionaries. The grand conspiracy that all the data which attests to the difference between gender and sex, and to the validity of transpeople is all an evil plot by those devilish liberal cultural marxists (read jews).

Your feelings don't care about the facts.

BTW

Fascism:
1) "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2) "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3) "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4) "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5) "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6) "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7) "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8) Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9) "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10) "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
11) "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12) "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
13) "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
14) "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Nazism is fascism with a racial bent.

 

[ShieldWife]

Not only are you a liar but your also a retard incapable of having a single unique thought and only capable parroting talking points which you haven't bother to fact check. This completely leaves aside your inability to engage with anything said to you.

You're getting increasingly rude. What views am I parroting exactly. You are the one advocating violence against people who say things you disagree with. You have said again and again that you are anti-authoritarian but if you want to use violence to determine who can have a march or rally and who can't, if you want to use violence to distribute possessions as you see fit - then you are the authoritarian.

Perhaps I should just open a text document and begin copy pasting because you're not really paying attention anyways.

Yes, I see that you do exactly that below with Eco's 14 traits of fascism.

In terms of advocating violence. If you believe that telling someone that if a credible threat is made against their life they ought to take it seriously and do what it takes to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Then ya, sure Karen. If that is what you think it means to advocate for violence then guilty. If your trying to be a slimy little bitch and imply that I advocate for offensive violence (ie using violence against those who have made no credible threat of violence against an individual) then your actually mentally retarded. Unlike you and your reactionary friends some of us don't dog whistle our positions. We state them outright.

If I were a Karen, I'd complain to a mod about your flames. I'm not so I just find them amusing. You are indeed advocating offensive violence against people with right wing views. That is what happened in Charlottesville, that is what your Antifa buddies love to do, that is exactly what you are saying that you're for. Violence is alright against people who you disagree with as long as you use the right words to describe your victims.

I am also glad to know that you think worker co-ops are horrendous because that is what I am advocating for which you would know if you were paying attention. But I do understand that your reactionary brain cannot grasp that fact. I also advocate very strongly for the preservation of personal property. Which I guess somehow is horrendous as well. Additionally I advocate for a broad distribution of power and decentralization of power. But I guess that is horrendous as well. I also *gasp* advocate for personal responsibility. And worst of all. Absolutely worst of all I advocate against authoritarian institutions. Especially institutions which are intended to calcify and allow the dead to dictate to the living.

Workers' co-ops are fine as long as they are voluntarily agreed upon. In a free society, any group of people can form a business and run it together as they please. Once you start using violence to decide who gets what, then we have a problem. I'm for decentralizing power, which is why I am a nationalist and believe in states' rights, local communities, and the autonomy of those nations and communities. How can you be against authoritarian institutions when you went on a long diatribe about using extremely powerful centralized institutions (education and media) to control how other people's children think?

And again I also very much believe in the free market place of idea unlike you and your degenerate friends who say in one breath that you are free speech absolutists and then when pressed to it you are shown to be liars.

How am I against a free marketplace of ideas? I am 100% in favor of free speech, even for people who don't return the favor like you. What have I lied about?

I want you out there openly advocating for your positions not dog whistling them because I truly believe that can only help me.

I'm all for people openly stating their positions. I wish you'd just admit for being a totalitarian wannabe tyrant, but you have essentially done so in an extremely inefficient manner.

I want people to hear you say that you think cultures should not interfere with other cultures even if those other cultures promote rape. Even if those other cultures stone women for being raped. So long as you don't have to see it or hear about it you don't care.

I care, but I thought that one of the rare things that leftists actually get right is that it can be a problem for a nation to go around the world trying to force their values on other people. The left fights tooth and nail covering up those sorts of attacks carried out by Muslims when they do it in Europe. Maybe you should show your concern for that issue by opposing the open border internationalists who are bringing that extremist culture to Europe as we speak.

I want you to openly discuss your anti-science, anti-vax, anti-egalitarian, race realism, etc bullshit.

I'm not anti-science or anti-vac. I am anti-egalitarian though and a race realist depending on how you define it.

I want you to talk about how you don't care how many people get fucked over by a rigged system so long as you get yours.

Where the hell are you pulling this stuff from?

I want you to talk about how you are for segregationist policies.

I'm for personal freedom, including voluntary association.

Or how being anti-white nationalist (an ideology) is somehow the same as hating white people (a skin complexion).

Being against white nationalism doesn't mean that you're anti-white. Most of the members of this forum are against white nationalism but aren't anti-white. Leftists though, are almost always anti-white racists. They think that whites are somehow uniquely evil and need to be opposed. They think that whites advocating for their racial interests is the most evil thing ever and other races advocating for their racial interests is great - you can't have it both ways.

Or how hating whiteness (an exclusionary ideology responsible for apartheid, genocide, slavery, misogyny, exploitation and all sorts of other shit) is the same as hating white people (a skin complexion).

Back to the leftism vocabulary. The idea of "whiteness" is bullshit. White people have their own unique genetic traits just like any other geographically clustered population. They have committed atrocities against other people, they have been the victims of atrocities. Almost always what determined who was the victim and who was the perpetrator was based on who had the strongest armies at the given time. You hate white people, you just want to use your, lets say dog whistle, to make it sound less odious.

Do you know the difference between being white and being a white nationalist? You can stop being a white nationalist.

Amazingly enough, you said something true.

Do you know the difference between whiteness and being white? You can stop believing in whiteness.

More leftist jargon.

I don't hate skin colors. I do hate ideologies.

That describes me more than you.

I don't want to see individuals silenced.

You have advocated using violence against people for saying things you disagree this. That is silencing people.

I do want people held accountable for the things they say.

Yeah, you don't want to silence people, you just want extremely negative consequences (like violence) when they say things you don't like. Sounds like free speech to me.

So long as it doesn't hurt other people or try to impose their will on others I don't want to stop people from doing what they want.

That is what I think, which is why I see everything you advocate as being so dangerous. You do want to stop people from doing what they want. You don't want to force your ideology on them. You do want to use violence to silence dissent. You do...

I do want to see certain cultures eradicated.

There we go. That's really vile as are the ways you say you plan on eradicating cultures.

Ah and lets not forget the current boogieman of reactionaries. The grand conspiracy that all the data which attests to the difference between gender and sex, and to the validity of transpeople is all an evil plot by those devilish liberal cultural marxists (read jews).

How is this a boogeyman? There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex exists and gender (as SJW's define it) does not, which is why the whole "transgender" thing is incoherent. Transsexuality isn't necessarily, at least the claim that someone can be biologically male with a female brain and/or mind (or vice versa) is concrete hypothesis that can investigated.

Transpeople get the same benefit I give to everybody - I leave them alone and mind my own business. How they identify, what clothes they wear, and what they do to their bodies is no concern of mine.

Cultural Marxists exist, regardless of what we decide to call them. They are a duplicitous bunch who like to hide their true intentions and so refuse to take up a label. We can call the movement social justice, intersectionality, or whatever - but it needs a name.

It's not a dog whistle for Jews. Most people who hate SJW's would agree with people like Paul Gottfried or Murray Rothbard, which I do.

Your feelings don't care about the facts.

My feeling actually do care about facts. I think what you meant to say is that facts don't care about my feelings, which would be true and nobody on the right claims otherwise. People who actually say that feelings are more important than facts are the post-modernists on the left.

Fascism:
1) "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2) "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3) "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4) "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5) "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6) "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7) "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8) Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9) "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10) "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
11) "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12) "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
13) "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
14) "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Here we go, copy and pasting Umberto Eco. I honestly don't care what he has to say on the topic. If anybody is going to define fascist, it should probably be a fascist rather than an anti-fascist.

Nazism is fascism with a racial bent.

Nazism - that is to say the National Socialist German Workers Party - is way more specific than just racist fascism. Of course, I bet we could go down a rabbit hole about how "racism" should even be defined.

 

[Navarro]

And you expose your stupidity yet again. To enact violence against someone with a proven history of violence who makes a credible threat is in every reasonable sense defensive not offensive. When a bunch of neo-nazi's gather at a rally and scream "jews will not replace us" and begin using rhetoric straight out of 1919 and 1920 German anti-Semitic groups you bet your ass violence is 100% justified.

It's a bad idea but it is justified.

So when a group of socialists are marching down the street, chanting "guillotines now!" and "eat the rich!" using rhetoric straight out of 1917 Russian socialist groups, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk et al. are justified in sending mercenaries to gun them down?

Second the rational for the totalitarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union and for Nazi Germany were not the same. As for the reasoning behind the purges there were a few key differences but all in all I would say yes they were motivated by the same reasoning, but it's not the reasoning you imply. The reasoning behind the purges was more to do with looking for a scapegoat to blame their problems on and to focus animosity away from the ruling parties than it was about self defense. In Hitler's case the purges were centered around "the jews will not replace us" and about purging "undesirable" elements from society.

No, it's the exact same thing. Looking for a scapegoat to blame the failings of the regime (and that of the pre-revolutionary society) on, plus loot and kill for redistribution to the regime's supporters. And yes, Soviet purges were "justified" by claims of "counter-revolutionary, reactionary" conspiracies against socialism. This went down as far as workers being executed for "sabotage" i.e. failing to meet impossible production quotas.

Nazism is Fascism with a racial bent. On the other hand in the Soviet Union there appeared to be a conflict between those who thought the bourgeoisie were somehow genetically flawed and those who did not.

Oh, so Soviet killings were based on a perceived racial difference! Even that supposed difference between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany evaporates.

I am sorry that you are such a degenerate that you cannot understand the difference between saying "X is justified" and "X is a bad idea". And further that you cannot understand that saying "If private property laws are revoked and you attempt to use violence against people in defense of something that does not exist we will defend ourselves." is the same as saying "round up all the capitalists" are clearly two different statements.

They are the same thing. Or do you think "the capitalists" will just roll over and accept the fruit of their hard labour being looted and squandered by workers who have no idea how to make the whole thing work? Look, we know how widely "private property" was defined in Soviet Russia, and how this was used as justification to loot from and murder small farmers, and so on everywhere else socialism took root. So stop trying to pretend it's just going after poor old Bill Gates who oppresses you by being more creative and smarter and a wiser investor and hence having an attractive product to sell and hence having more money than you.

... Because, you see, entrepreneurs and business owners are workers. The only truly non-workers are idle aristocrats, and in the past they often took up military or administrative roles.

What is happening is that all socialists get painted with the Authoritarian Socialist brush. The problem however is that not only are not all socialists Authoritarian Socialists, but Libertarian Socialists and Authoritarian Socialists cannot only not stand one another but are actively opposed to one another on a foundational level. Authoritarian's values hierarchy, adherence to strict order, and obedience. Libertarians value autonomy, independence, and freedom.

As I've demonstrated, no socialist society can work without forced labour simply because of the distortion removing wage differentials otherwise creates (and if you don't remove wage differentials and hence inequality, what's the point of socialism?).

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/62527/1/MPRA_paper_62527.pdf

According to Hayek and Jewkes, the first problem with democratic socialism is with allocating labor efficiently. In a market economy, labor is allocated through differential wages. Wages rise or fall to equilibrate supply and demand for labor. Every form of labor has some market-clearing wage where that rate produces a stable equilibrium. But under socialism, where wages are either equal or approximately equal, differential wage rates are unable to perform this allocational function. Strictly speaking, government ownership of the means of production does not require equality of wages, but it is hard to imagine why any socialist would desire government ownership of the means of production if workers remained such as socio-economically unequal as they were under capitalism. The purpose and intention of public ownership was primarily to promote equality, especially of wages, incomes, and living conditions. How then is the system supposed to efficiently choose who ought to fill which labor position? The only conceivable solution is some sort of rationing system, whereby the political system dictates by fiat who is to labor where. But a system of compulsory, involuntary employment is hardly compatible with the aspirations of democratic socialism.


...

Central economic planning in Great Britain logically required conscription and regimentation of all labor - corvée and serfdom - and the government did not shy away from this logical consequence for long. Unfortunately, conscription had been deemed essential in the recent war, but as Hayek noted, merely “six months later the same government found itself in peacetime forced to put the conscription of labor back on the statute book” (Hayek 2007 [1944]: 47).12 Jewkes argued that this involuntary servitude was not a consequence of any despotic intent or moral depravity or abuse of power, but was dictated “by the logic of events” (Jewkes 1968: 193) and by “the inexorable demands of the plan” (ibid.). Likewise, according to Hayek, “[t]here is no better illustration [than this regimentation of labor] of the manner in which the inherent logic of their policies drove an unwilling socialist government into the kind of coercion it disliked” (Hayek 2007 [1944]: 47). In contrast to Shleifer and Vishny, the problem here with democratic socialism is not that the politicians have abused their power or that had wrong intentions or incentives. Even if the politicians are perfectly incentivized and well-intentioned, thoroughgoing and successfully-implemented democratic socialism, say Hayek and Jewkes, will still turn out to become totalitarian.

...

So for a socialist government to be authentically socialist, it must assign everyone to his occupation without any freedom of employment. Otherwise, the government cannot by its own power ensure the plan will be implemented. Either a democratic socialist government will insist on this assignment procedure and become tyrannical despite being democratic, or else it will abandon the assignment procedure and permit freedom of employment, preserving democratic values at the cost of abandoning socialism. A compromise is possible, but because socialism and individual autonomy are at opposite poles and inversely proportional, the one must be sacrificed to the identical degree to which the other is not.

Therefore, "libertarian socialism" cannot be said to be possible to exist IRL. Therefore, as anything other than a fantasy, it is irrelevant. All socialism that actually exists in the real world will be authoritarian. Also, your system requires the Village Elders or w/e forcefully confiscating anything someone buys that's deemed not to be "personal property" - itself a term that, as I've demonstrated, in practical terms meant "as much as we can't be bothered to confiscate right now". Your system is authoritarian.

There is a very real argument among socialists as if authoritarian socialism can even rightly be called socialism.

Because authoritarian socialism is the only kind that can exist IRL, I guess that's it confirmed that no socialism that actually exists IRL will be "real socialism".

The reason I reject the other two is not because they were totalitarian but because Germany in no way could be said to have been socialist (ie the workers did not own the means of production)

They were planning on that after they won the war. They lost it, but they were already making strides in that direction.

and the same is true of the Soviet Union.

97% of the arable land in the Soviet Union was collectivised and owned by the workers ... oddly enough, it was the 3% that wasn't that provided 25% of the nation's food.

Thus my expectation is that anything short of Lenin saying word for word "The USSR was not socialist" will convince you. This creates a problem in that any and all possible arguments I can make at this point in time are inductive. The problem is such that if Lenin says something akin to "Socialism is" or "Marx defined socialism as... and we are Marxists so that is how we understand socialism" and then I point out that the USSR did not meet that standard you will then turn around and reply "Yes but he didn't say word for word the USSR is not socialist there" even though that is the inductive logical conclusion.

They were working towards what you define as socialism and what Marx defined as communism. This is abundantly clear from their writings and official statements. They were however smart enough to realise that they were not at it yet.

As for myself you are A insofar as you meet the attributes of A-ness. For example let's take fascism. You (and I both) are fascists in so far as we each independently meet the 14 points of fascism. For example if someone meets 1 of the 14 points they are 7% fascist. But even there it's not quite as binary as that as someone can hold to a point to varying degrees. So not only is it possible for someone to score 0% or 7% they can also score lower than 7% but higher than 0%. On the whole however it can be a bit much to calculate out everyone's level of fascism. I don't usually start suspecting "A-ness" until someone reaches 50% of "A-ness", and even after in my own head I believe they are "A" I refrain from calling them "A" until they have reached an 75% threshold. In the case of fascism that means they need to strongly meet 11 out of 14 points. Though I usually start probing around 9 points. I am explaining this in an over calculating way. In practice the way it works is that I analyze someones speech patters, actions, and principles until I can firmly say "X fits Y point in the 14 points".

Eco's fourteen points are a useless definition of fascism. Try something by an actual historian or political scientist, not a god-damned novelist.

The irony just keeps getting thicker. Considering that I have explicitly argued that Libertarian Socialism and Authoritarian Socialism are radically different forms of socialism and I keep being told by the reactionaries on this thread that Socialism by its nature is authoritarian... I think you have it inverted.

The issue is, as we've told you constantly, libertarian socialism is irrelevant in a real-world political sense. It's not that we don't recognise libertarian socialism as a thing - we just recognise it as irrelevant as anything more than a thought exercise.

The difference between Authoritarians and Libertarians seems to be that Authoritarians believe in a great man perspective where as Libertarians seem to adhere to a zeitgeist perspective. To use an analogy it would be like saying that breaking a horse and gentle "breaking" are the same thing. Sure the effect is the same but the methods and the results are radically different. One method relies heavily on domination and beating the horse into submission as quickly as possible, while the other is about working together with the horse to build a relationship of trust over a long period of time. Having grown up around horses when both methods were in use, and having known different people that have used the two methods I can state from first hand knowledge that the two methods are nothing alike and neither are the results.

History nor the future are shaped by "great men" but rather they are shaped by everyone alive at the time, from the most insignificant pauper to presidents and kings. Both the pauper and the king are shaped by the zeitgeist and both shape the zeitgeist. But if they try to control the zeitgeist both will equally be crushed. Libertarians (socialists and non-socialist alike) operate on the nudge principle. Authoritarians operate on the domination principle.

There is a much more interesting conversation to be had there but that is the primary difference.

Orthodox Marxist-Leninism doesn't believe in Great Men. In fact, I can't think of a single form of socialism that does.

Reactionaries always miss the point. Was it socialism that was responsible for all of the genocide, democide, mass deaths from starvations, etc or... was it authoritarianism?

It was socialism, since socialism is impossible without authoritarianism. Ergo, every socialist regime that actually exists will be authoritarian (and no, your precious Morales doesn't count. Unless sending in the police to beat locals peacefully protesting against the expansion of your drug plantations into their territory isn't authoritarian).

What you are saying is akin to "French revolution therefore enlightenment values of democracy and republicanism bad". Or "Failing to embody the enlightenment values laid out in the declaration of independence US bad".

If every attempt at an Enlightenment democracy turned out like Revolutionary France - or worse - it would be clear that Enlightenment Democracy was an ideal that could not exist in the real world. Thankfully, Revolutionary France seems to be an outlier.

Sure the west aggravated the situation that is an undeniable material fact.

We literally subsidized Soviet Russia with food, and military equipment during WW2. We "aggravated" them by having the temerity to broadcast our prosperity on radio and TV channels that could be accessed from Russia.

Just as for all the mass starvation and death caused by the USSR, Russia was a fuck ton better under Soviet Rule than it was under Tzarist rule. This is not to say that living under Soviet rule was by any means good.

The Tsar killed far less people - even the Soviets' official execution figures in one year vastly outnumber executions under the Romanovs through the entire 19th century. If you kill more people in one year than the previous government did in a century, you're objectively worse than them.

Russia would also have industrialised at about the same rate regardless of which political system was in charge:

Would Russia have industrialized without Stalin?

The question, "Was Stalin necessary?," posed in a recent paper, by economists Anton Cheremukhin of the Dallas Fed, Mikhail Golosov of Princeton, Sergei Guriev of…

foreignpolicy.com

The question, “Was Stalin necessary?,” posed in a recent paper, by economists Anton Cheremukhin of the Dallas Fed, Mikhail Golosov of Princeton, Sergei Guriev of the New Economic School in Moscow, and Aleh Tsyvinski of Yale, seems a bit tasteless at first. Obviously, nothing could make the 20th century’s greatest mass murderer “necessary.”

But considering Russia’s growth from a largely agrarian economic backwater into an industrialized power that was competing with the United States and putting humans into space in just a little over four decades, it’s worth considering whether the same result could have occurred had he never come along. The authors attempt to do this by developing a counterfactual model of how the Russian economy might have developed if it had continued on the same path it was on prior to 1918.

The authors point out that the Russian economy was not exactly stagnant in the late Tsarist period. Efforts to industrialize the country had begun with the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and accerated in the early 20th century with the reforms undertaken by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, which included the adoption of a gold standard, investments in railroads, and the encouragement of exports. GDP per capita grew at around 1.91 percent between 1885 and 1913.

Economic productivity was decimated by World War I and the revolution, and only returned to pre-revolutionary levels by around 1928, following the limited market reforms of Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

...

The authors run a counterfactual simulation of economic growth under “Tsarist” conditions, as well as comparing Russian performance to that of Japan — which had similar economic conditions prior to 1918:

The Tsarist economy, even in our conservative version assuming that it would not experience any decline in frictions, would have achieved a rather similar structure of the economy and the levels of production as Stalin’s economy. However, this structural transformation would be achieved at a significant cost in terms of economic welfare measured in consumption equivalents. The short-run (1928-1940) costs of Stalin’s policies are very significant for an economy in a peaceful period. Our comparison with Japan leads to astonishingly larger welfare costs of Stalin’s policies.

...

The paper is a good reminder that just because terror coincided with industrialization in Stalin’s Soviet Union, one was not a precondition for the other. Obviously, even had the Bolsheviks never come onto the scene, it’s hard to imagine that the Tsarist status quo would have continued indefinitely without disruption. The paper doesn’t get into how some sort of non-Tsarist, non-Stalinist system might have fared.

And of course, taking a step back from the economics, the obvious answer to the question of whether a 16.5 lifetime gain in consumption levels makes 20 million deaths “necessary” is ‘no.’

Socialism brought literally nothing good to Russia.

However while I do think things would have been better off under Trotsky given how bad Stalin was that is a rather low bar.

Ah, now we're in "If only The Right Brutal Totalitarian Thug had been in charge" territory.

I am also glad to know that you think worker co-ops are horrendous because that is what I am advocating for which you would know if you were paying attention.

If some folks want to run a business together, no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the tremendous level of forced expropriation you are in favour of in the name of "the workers".

I also advocate very strongly for the preservation of personal property. Which I guess somehow is horrendous as well.

Because "personal property" has always simply meant "property we socialists don't mean to take (right now)" in practical terms. Saying you'd preserve it is meaningless.

Additionally I advocate for a broad distribution of power and decentralization of power.

As she noted, at the same time as using the centralised institutions of the media and the educational system to spread your ideology.

I want people to hear you say that you think cultures should not interfere with other cultures even if those other cultures promote rape. Even if those other cultures stone women for being raped.

Given the history of attempts to forcefully spread Western cultural values in primitive societies, not interfering seems like a better proposition. I mean, do you not realise you're literally calling for the white man's burden here?

I want you to talk about how you don't care how many people get fucked over by a rigged system so long as you get yours.

The thing is, capitalism isn't perfect. We understand this quite well, but recognise that:

A. It's the best we've got. All other systems have failed.

B. We can moderate some of its excesses without throwing it out entirely.

C. Socialism has historically fucked over a lot more people (see A).

The simple fact, is some products, services and talents will always be in more demand than others. And people will always have differing levels of capability. The only equality that can be produced is equality under the law - which most countries have these days.

1) "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2) "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3) "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4) "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5) "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6) "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7) "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8) Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9) "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10) "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
11) "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12) "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
13) "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
14) "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Nazism is fascism with a racial bent.

Eco wasn't a historian or a political scientist. He was a novelist, literary critic and philosopher focussed on semiotics. Not to mention having a pro-communist political bias. His definition of fascism is so vague as to cover any political movement and quite a few non-political ones.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Sidenote: I haven't abandoned our previous line of conversation I have been busy IRL and am also doing more research to better defend that quote as valid.

Yeah, we all have real lives and taking a few days for research is perfectly acceptable, but I think you're researching the wrong thing.

Frankly all you're doing bringing the same, repeatedly discredited quote back again is hurting your own position. Even if we granted you a bye on the massive issues of it predating the Soviet Union, which is not the only objection, you're now raising the issue: why are you so reliant on this one quote which relies so heavily on personal interpretation? If your position is true and the leaders of various socialist nations stated their nation wasn't socialist, shouldn't you be able to find more than one single sentence in the nearly-a-century the USSR existed? And something better than a line that is from during a bloody revolution and also so reliant on "I interpret it this way?"

 

[Navarro]

Yeah, we all have real lives and taking a few days for research is perfectly acceptable, but I think you're researching the wrong thing.

Frankly all you're doing bringing the same, repeatedly discredited quote back again is hurting your own position. Even if we granted you a bye on the massive issues of it predating the Soviet Union, which is not the only objection, you're now raising the issue: why are you so reliant on this one quote which relies so heavily on personal interpretation? If your position is true and the leaders of various socialist nations stated their nation wasn't socialist, shouldn't you be able to find more than one single sentence in the nearly-a-century the USSR existed? And something better than a line that is from during a bloody revolution and also so reliant on "I interpret it this way?"

It's the one bit of "evidence" he has that the Soviet Union wasn't trying for Real Socialism.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

So when a group of socialists are marching down the street, chanting "guillotines now!" and "eat the rich!" using rhetoric straight out of 1917 Russian socialist groups, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk et al. are justified in sending mercenaries to gun them down?

While I don't have time to answer in full no let me address this. I am going to deal with the more absurd aspect first and then I will address the spirit. I tend towards yes. (you at the very least cannot claim I am inconsistent. It would be a really really bad idea optically but ya.

I personally have a major problem with that language and jump peoples ass for it. If I see that language it's usually a check in the tankie box. But not always. Those who say that and are not tankies are usually doing it ironically as a means of expressing frustration. While I understand I don't care. Setting aside that it's just bad optically, thoughts inform belief, belief informs action, action inform thought. I know where that thought leads.

Re-framing your thought experiment. Yes people would be justified to use violence against people marching in the streets saying those things. Not only that but depending, I would be right there opposing the people marching in the streets saying those things. What that opposition looks like will depend greatly on several key factors including how much of a threat I believe those people are and what I personally could do to bring about the most good. Those people tend to be Tankies. Those people tend to be Authoritarian. I am fully aware that if they grow to be a large enough threat they will line me up right next to you for "consorting with the enemy". They view Libertarian types as their enemy (rightly). Libertarian types think they are ethically repugnant. Everything they say and do is suspect. I thought that as an unashamed capitalist, and I think that now as an unashamed socialist.

Not only am I ethically opposed to those people because they are authoritarians, but setting that aside (and that is a pretty big thing to set aside) I would also oppose them for the optics of it even if it was strictly meant ironically. There is nothing wrong with expressing frustration, there are wrong ways to express frustration. Given that they are supposed to be "on my side" presenting themselves as death mobs, or as hating whites, or as blue haired raving screaming SJW's is unacceptable and does more damage than good.

You're getting increasingly rude. What views am I parroting exactly. You are the one advocating violence against people who say things you disagree with. You have said again and again that you are anti-authoritarian but if you want to use violence to determine who can have a march or rally and who can't, if you want to use violence to distribute possessions as you see fit - then you are the authoritarian.

Again I don't have much time at the moment. But yes I am getting increasingly rude. My level of rudeness is the inverse of the stupidity (willful ignorance) of the individual I am talking to. If you want me to be less rude perhaps you should consider being less stupid.

The fact that you continue to insinuate that there is no difference between defensive and offensive violence means you are quite stupid indeed. It's rather newspeak of you.

Yes, I see that you do exactly that below with Eco's 14 traits of fascism.

Yes among other things I do have a text document with umberto echo's 14 traits. I also have the BITE Model and a whole lot of other things which considering the spectrum of conversations I have should come as no surprise. Should I perhaps come up with my own unique list? Should everyone come up with their own unique lists such that each list is different and attempting to determine if someone is a fascist is highly dependent upon each individual? That would seem to me to be a good way to make the term fascist become useless.

I posted it because you have pinged rather hard several of the traits but the one you ping most often is newspeak.

 

[ShieldWife]

I'm theoretically willing to say that Nazis weren't socialists. Well, I'm not sure if I completely believe that, but for the sake of argument I can say that the Nazis were different enough from what most people mean by socialism that we can say that it's something different. That doesn't mean that there aren't still major similarities or that socialism isn't terrible in its own way or that some of the problems that result from socialism and some of the problems that resulted from Nazi Germany aren't related to those similarities.

The fact that you continue to insinuate that there is no difference between defensive and offensive violence means you are quite stupid indeed. It's rather newspeak of you.

I have done nothing of the sort. There is a big difference between offensive violence and defensive violence, at least if you mean self defense. You are advocating the former rather than the latter.

Yes among other things I do have a text document with umberto echo's 14 traits. I also have the BITE Model and a whole lot of other things which considering the spectrum of conversations I have should come as no surprise. Should I perhaps come up with my own unique list? Should everyone come up with their own unique lists such that each list is different and attempting to determine if someone is a fascist is highly dependent upon each individual? That would seem to me to be a good way to make the term fascist become useless.

Eco's list is basically just an attack on fascism, it's not even really a definition. It's like: here's how fascists are evil. A better source for a definition on fascism would be, for example, Mussolini.

Here, let's copy and paste from Mussolini asnd he what he has to say on the topic:

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism is the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

This isn't as good a definition of fascism as I'd like. It's kinda like the pro-fascist version of Eco's anti-fascist list. Though the definition of fascism probably isn't all that relevant to the current conversation. Though if we're talking about the definition of fascism, better to have it from a fascist than an anti-fascist.

I posted it because you have pinged rather hard several of the traits but the one you ping most often is newspeak.

LOL

You, my friend, are the king of newspeak.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Yeah, we all have real lives and taking a few days for research is perfectly acceptable, but I think you're researching the wrong thing.

Frankly all you're doing bringing the same, repeatedly discredited quote back again is hurting your own position. Even if we granted you a bye on the massive issues of it predating the Soviet Union, which is not the only objection, you're now raising the issue: why are you so reliant on this one quote which relies so heavily on personal interpretation? If your position is true and the leaders of various socialist nations stated their nation wasn't socialist, shouldn't you be able to find more than one single sentence in the nearly-a-century the USSR existed? And something better than a line that is from during a bloody revolution and also so reliant on "I interpret it this way?"

As I said I tend to use the soft date. I don't have a problem using the hard date and dropping the quote. My problem is in the difficulty I am having in believing that I am being dealt with in good faith. I have other quotes but I like being thorough. What makes this a problem is that 1) while I can read several languages I don't read Russian which is actually more relevant than people think. 2) It's my experience that reactionaries retreat to hyper-skepticism when it's convenient. If I abandon the quote prematurely I could be conceding more than I intended. Such that if Lenin says "A,B,C are Socialism" and then later says "XYZ is Socialism" I suspect that what I will end up with is people going "He said XYZ is socialism" and ignore that he changed the definition. I use this example because it didn't happen but I want to establish the principle. What I am attempting to discover is can I abandon the current quote with the expectation that the conversation will proceed in good faith, or do I stick with it because my discussion partners refuse to act in good faith.

It is actually easier for me to abandon the quote as I have to establish the validity of the timeline which means a lot of very heavy research. I'd rather abandon it. But won't if I cannot expect good faith.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

I have done nothing of the sort. There is a big difference between offensive violence and defensive violence, at least if you mean self defense. You are advocating the former rather than the latter.

If someone makes a credible threat of violence against you and you attack first rather than waiting for them to carry out their threat of violence is that offensive or defensive violence?

 

[ShieldWife]

If someone makes a credible threat of violence against you and you attack first rather than waiting for them to carry out their threat of violence is that offensive or defensive violence?

Maybe self defense would be justified, we'd have to look at the specific situation. But you're being dishonest here, you're not talking about a case where a person is making a credible threat against another, you were describing a situation where a political protest was attacked and broken up by thugs because they disagreed with the political message of said protest.

 

[Navarro]

Eco's list is basically just an attack on fascism, it's not even really a definition. It's like: here's how fascists are evil. A better source for a definition on fascism would be, for example, Mussolini.

Eco's list isn't even that - it's a list of traits which are so loosely and subjectively defined as to be applicable to any political movement. Even he in his essay describing it didn't even call it a definition of fascism, but a guide to "movements which may or may not become fascist in the future". Which is meaningless.

 

[Navarro]

If someone makes a credible threat of violence against you and you attack first rather than waiting for them to carry out their threat of violence is that offensive or defensive violence?

If "pre-emptive strike because I feel threatened" is a justifiable act of violence morally ... that considerably widens the field.

 

[Senor Hortler]

If someone makes a credible threat of violence against you and you attack first rather than waiting for them to carry out their threat of violence is that offensive or defensive violence?

Socialists always end up creating horrible oppressive violent and ultimately self destructive states. So can we put you against the wall? I know you'll probably say no and come out with some excuse as to why it's 'violence for me against thee' but it is an amusing insight into your worldview. You're just as repressive and twisted as every other socialist; you just lack the power to act right now.

 

[ShieldWife]

Eco's list isn't even that - it's a list of traits which are so loosely and subjectively defined as to be applicable to any political movement. Even he in his essay saying it didn't even call it a definition of fascism, but a guide to "movements which may or may not become fascist in the future".

Good point.

If "pre-emptive strike because I feel threatened" is a justifiable act of violence ... that considerably widens the field.

It's not even just feeling threatened by some individual or the actions they might commit, its a matter of feeling threatened over the politics someone is advocating. If you can commit physical real life violence against someone because you think that a political policy they advocate might be harmful, then that is a total rejection of freedom of speech at its very heart.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Maybe self defense would be justified, we'd have to look at the specific situation. But you're being dishonest here, you're not talking about a case where a person is making a credible threat against another, you were describing a situation where a political protest was attacked and broken up by thugs because they disagreed with the political message of said protest.

A protest organized by JQ neo-nazi's seeking to "unite the right" in an attempt to build a base for a serious political movement. A move that strangely looked exactly like what the Nazi's did in the 1920's. These same people pushing their pseudo-science race realism. These same people pushing a global jewish conspiracy. You are dishonestly attempting to portray the "disagreement" between the alt-right and the anti-fascists as a disagreement over the alt-rights political message. You are being very vague about what that political message was. So let me spell it out for you.
"One people, one nation, end immigration," Now, if this were just a Republican rally one could make the argument that this is a simple call to end immigration. It would be a stretch but one could make that argument. But they were not just Republicans. This was a rally put on by white nationalists. "One people," Does not mean the american people, it means white people. "one nation" again means a white nation, "end immigration" does not simply mean no more immigration, it's a first step in a larger political agenda to forcefully deport non-whites. Just like the Nazi Party. If it talks like a Nazi
"Jews will not replace us." Well, that is a very interesting thing to say. Not only was it a talking point ripped right out of Hitlers mouth, but it is nonsense. Given that I don't really see a mass conversion to Judaism, and that it is a laughable idea that the Jews in the US could reproduce at a rate fast enough to make any serious dent in the population statistics. But wait. That's right. These same white nationalists were pushing their utterly bogus white genocide Jewish conspiracy. "A secret cabal of rich powerful Jews are controlling the government from behind the curtain. They are using this power to import brown people into the country and to push race mixing on television corrupting the white youth. They push degenerate rap music, black music! Onto white children. They legalized gay marriage! They *gasp* put gay people on television. And what is the name of this grand Jewish conspiracy? Cultural Marxism! Cultural Marxism comes from the Frankfurt School a Jewish Marxist Collective of social theorists who planned to destroy the west! It's a Jewish Conspiracy! Hitler knew what they were up to and chased them out of Germany!" If it walks like a Nazi.
"Blood and Soil." What makes this interesting is that the phrase "Blut und Boden" was popularized in the 1930's by Richard Darre. Now what makes this particularly interesting is that it is a phrase that has been used by neo-nazi's in the US for a while but tends to be tied to the Aryan Brotherhood most often. It's a Nazi.
You think I am rude for calling you a stupid bitch? Then don't act like a stupid bitch. When a Nazi rally from 1920 plops itself down in the middle of Charlottesville in 2017 and people have a violent reaction because they have read the ending to that novel, they have seen the end of that movie, they have ridden that train to its end. You do not get to sit there and pretend that it was "just a political disagreement". Advocating for forced deportation (political violence), dog whistling Nazi propaganda, and pushing a white ethnostate, talking about implementing eugenics programs, is a credible threat of violence. Violence is always everywhere and at all times ethically justified against Nazi's. If one SHOULD use violence against Nazi's is another question, but it is always ethically justified. This is because Nazism is constructed around unchangeable innate characteristics and seeks to use violence against those who have no way of gaining said characteristics.

I cannot stop being an octaroon. They can stop being fascists and white supremacists.

You're getting increasingly rude. What views am I parroting exactly. You are the one advocating violence against people who say things you disagree with. You have said again and again that you are anti-authoritarian but if you want to use violence to determine who can have a march or rally and who can't, if you want to use violence to distribute possessions as you see fit - then you are the authoritarian.

Now that I have more time to actually reply.
Parroting talking points. Well you've parroted the white genocide bullshit. You have parroted the anti-white nationalist = anti-white bullshit. And that is two off the top of my head.

Being anti-authoritarian does not mean being a pacifist. I am by and large quite against the use of violence as a rule even when it is justified. In large part this is because I am aware of history and aware of how quickly even the most justified uses of violence can suddenly turn into unjustified and unjustifiable bloodbaths. As a note you seem to be unable to distinguish between "X is Justified" and "X should be done". The fact that an action is justified does not imply the moral imperative that X should be done, or that X is a good idea. Further you are ascribing a position to me which I did not put forward and which I do not hold. My only claim was that the violence on the part of the counter-protesters was justified ethically. I personally think that the use of violence in that case was a bad idea. Part of warfare is denying the enemy their objectives. While I cannot deny that the results of Charlottesville were positive in so far as it tore the mask off of the Nazi's and helped to drive much of the movement back underground. The results were subpar and ultimately a wash. It would have been far better to goad them into violent action and to soak up the casualties (both injuries and deaths) with a zero retaliation policy firmly in place. The effect would have either have been to destroy all credibility for white supremacy for the next two decades, or to drag the rest of the rats out of their hole. In the latter case they would have been emboldened and a second rally on the heals of the first would have been organized. At the second rally is when prejudicial violence should have been used against the alt-right but only after the alt-right began a physical conflict.

Finally to clarify something which you seem to be confused about. Authoritarianism is characterized by centralized power and limited political freedom. Your primary source of confusion seems to be around exactly what political freedom entails. Political freedom entails freedom from oppression and coercion. Advocating for fascism is advocating for oppression and coercion. no one has political freedom to oppress or coerces. That is not a right. Advocating for a white ethnostate is oppressive and coercive. No one has a right to advocate for an ethnostate. That is not a right. What is a right is the right to stop oppression and coercion. You are standing on your head and telling me I am upside down. This is a common fascist tactic. Opposing authoritarianism is authoritarian. Opposing fascism is fascist. Opposing racism is racist. Defending oneself against a credible threat of violence is offensive violence. To that I say I am not upside down, stop standing on your head.

Yes, I see that you do exactly that below with Eco's 14 traits of fascism.

I provided Umberto's 14 traits because you made the very stupid claim that the definition for socialism was specific and the definition for Nazism was vague. Nazism politically is defined as racial fascism. Thus I provided Umberto's 14 traits to counter your very stupid claim. I have a very specific meaning in mind when I call someone either a fascist or a Nazi.

If I were a Karen, I'd complain to a mod about your flames. I'm not so I just find them amusing. You are indeed advocating offensive violence against people with right wing views. That is what happened in Charlottesville, that is what your Antifa buddies love to do, that is exactly what you are saying that you're for. Violence is alright against people who you disagree with as long as you use the right words to describe your victims.

You just cannot stop lying. I already debunked your bullshit above but you have added to it so let me debunk that too.

There is a difference between saying "one should use violence" and "violence is justified". There is also a difference between saying "Violence is justified against people with right wing views" and saying "Violence is justified against individuals with certain right wing views.". I just think its really funny how reactionaries such as yourself will flipflop between "not everyone on the right is a white supremacist/nationalist/separatist/identitarian/ethnostater/whatever you are calling yourself this week, to "saying violence is justified against white supremacists is justified means your advocating for violence against everyone on the right".

The defining characteristic of a Karen is not talking to a manager, its not even their sex or gender. The defining characteristic of a Karen is that they are entitled little bitches who thinks they should get their way because.

Workers' co-ops are fine as long as they are voluntarily agreed upon. In a free society, any group of people can form a business and run it together as they please. Once you start using violence to decide who gets what, then we have a problem.

Ya for the most part I won't quibble about the details and will state I pretty much agree with this statement.

I'm for decentralizing power,

you are lying and I am about to demonstrate it.

which is why I am a nationalist and believe in states' rights,

bullshit. You are for states' rights because you want to use the law to oppress people and you don't want anyone challenging your bullshit. Your goal is not a libertarian society, but rather to mask your oppression behind warped and twisted libertarian principles. You want to mask racial enclaves behind "Free association" by restricting peoples ability to sell their property to non-whites. You want to be able to restrict individuals from disposing of inherited property as they see fit. You want to gerrymander voting districts to ensure that minorities are not represented in elections. You want your lies, indoctrination, and propaganda to go unchecked.

local communities,

Local communities are great. I am a strong advocate for building up and being involved with local communities, or to indoctrinate children into pseudo-scientific beliefs. Individuals and communities are responsible for holding each other accountable. This does not mean that local communities have a right to practice discrimination based on innate characteristics.

and the autonomy of those nations and communities.

Autonomy another of those libertarian principles you pervert. You mask your racism behind "autonomy" redefining it so that autonomy only applies to things you like and things you want to do. You want to violate your children's autonomy by manufacturing racist institutions which "protect" them from darkies and queers. In reality you wish to create the appearance of autonomy without the ability for autonomy.

How can you be against authoritarian institutions when you went on a long diatribe about using extremely powerful centralized institutions (education and media) to control how other people's children think?

Because just like there is a difference between saying X is justified and X should be done, there is a difference between saying "X is my ideal vision of how the world should work" and "These are the current conditions which I must operate within". Getting from here to there is a process which is restricted by the material conditions at the time. In principle I do not oppose public education though I strongly oppose how currently operates. In an idealized world people would understand that a rising tide raises all boats and that a general education is necessary and useful to achieve that. At the moment however there are a lot of short sighted people. Additionally public education ought (moral imperative) to teach true things regardless of/and especially if their parents are opposed to it. A parent does not have a right to destroy an individuals mind with a distorted picture of the world and distorted truths about the world. Offspring are not property. The fact that a parents feelings get hurt by their offspring being taught that 1+1=2, that the world is not flat, that it is not 6,000 years old, that gender is a social construct, that sex is bimodal, that colors are not real, that race is not real, that democracy is a good thing, that history is messy, etc, is not something I care about. If the parents want to teach bullshit at home fine. I won't nor do I want to create laws to stop them. Children and youth however do have a right to be exposed to the information their parents are lying to them about and an opportunity to make up their own minds. If what they are taught is wrong then the parents ought to be able to explain why what they are being taught is wrong. You and I both know however that the bullshit reactionaries teach their offspring is bullshit and unless you are able to corrupt their critical reasoning skills they will know it. Remember one of the major changes that I advocate for public education is mandatory Critical Reasoning classes.

Getting rid of the public education system is beyond anyone at this point in time. There are however critical reforms which are necessary for transforming the current system from one which turns out cogs to one which fosters autonomy and independence of thought. The parents wishes matter not at all because, and say it with me, children are not property.

As to media being a centralized institution. Perhaps you forgot that you are talking with a socialist? Someone who advocates for worker ownership of the means of production and democracy in the workplace. YouTube and other social media cites are not centralized institution because that is where the majority of people go to consume their content. What makes them centralized is that they are controlled by a few elites at the top of [insert social media company name here], be that a CEO or the Board of Directors. The near monopoly of new services at this point is all but destroyed. Even the major television and production companies are scrambling not to go under now that user generated content can compete more freely than ever before. But that is not your objection really is it? Your objection is centered around the fact that liberals and leftists are capable of creating content people want to consume en mass, where as reactionary content and those who create it shrinks in favor every year.

The $$$ corporations make off of "woke" movies and shows not only turn outrageous profits showing that people actually want to consume "woke" content, but also creates monetary incentive for companies to keep producing "woke" content. Your problem isn't with the pandering and blatant cash grabs. Your problem is with darkies, queers, and non-traditional (helpless) women being portrayed in media. Your problem is with non-white actors being given leading roles. Your problem is with race mixing being portrayed as normal. Your problem is with queers being portrayed as normal. Your problem is with women being portrayed as autonomous individuals rather than having their identity be submerged in that of a man.

The deep seated irony here is that if you knew anything about the history of the movie and television industry or even the news industry you would know that these changes came about in spite of authoritarian structures intended to prevent just what has happened. The the left and then leftists didn't take over the corporations from the top and impose their will. They took it over by subversion and creating art that sold. The Motion Picture Production Code, The Comic Book Authority, The FCC all were created and enforced by reactionaries to control what content could and could not be produced. All highly conservative institutions at best and more often than not outright reactionary. We won media in spite of insanely wealthy corporations and the might and power of the US government attempting to suppress the left. With obscene and insane restrictions placed on us. We won. With being targeted. We won. With being blacklisted and locked out of media. We won. Sure it took longer. But by suppressing us you only made us stronger.

The saddest part is no matter how many times you attempt to suppress content you don't like you just won't learn. Jazz, Doo-wop , rock, more or less all of nigger culture, all of queer culture, all of leftist culture. Every fucking time. It's like you have never heard of the Streisand Effect. And every single time the niggers, or the kikes, or the queers, or the socialists, or the commies whoever the boogieman of the day is always win. And then you try to appropriate it, and then the cycle starts all over again. Each time we push that window just a little bit further. Each time you try to tame it, change it, make it acceptable to reactionary sensibilities. And we reject your taming of our art and make new art, each time your children are drawn to the new, the living art and move away from the sterilized art.

Art is the one thing fascists and authoritarians hate, because art by its nature is subversive.

A note: "Control other peoples children". Again. Children. Are. Not. Property. You are a temporary custodian who's role is to provide children with the tools to reason such that they are autonomous independent agents, not psychological clones of yourself who in order to hold a correct view must disregard facts. This is you standing on your head again. Only a perverted mind could possibly see teaching children facts and critical reasoning skills as "controlling other people".

How am I against a free marketplace of ideas? I am 100% in favor of free speech, even for people who don't return the favor like you. What have I lied about?

Because as I have explained with education repeatedly you are for the free market place of idea's right up until your idea's don't hold water. Then you seek to protect your children from the facts. You are 100% in favor of free speech but not the responsibility that comes along with that. You don't want free speech you want freedom from the consequences of your speech. You don't give a flying fuck about free speech you want to consume media that validates your emotions. You have lied about being 100% in favor of free speech. What you are 100% in favor of is an echo chamber. And before you do something really stupid and accuse me of living in an echo chamber I will remind you that I started out on the "right", and further that I was a staunch capitalist. I was a full blown Objectivist which is about as not left as someone can get without being a race realist. And I am not talking about your "I read atlas shrugged once" Objectivist. I was deep into philosophy even then.

It is my position that anyone is free to say anything they want whenever they want. They are also free to face the consequences. You want to spread whatever lies you want and face no consequences.

I'm all for people openly stating their positions. I wish you'd just admit for being a totalitarian wannabe tyrant, but you have essentially done so in an extremely inefficient manner.

Again stop standing on your head and telling me I am upside down. Opposing oppression is not oppression. Opposing coercion is not coercion. Opposing authoritarianism is not authoritarian. Opposing totalitarianism does not make someone a totalitarian. I know you really want that to be the case but that is just not how it works. Seeking to destroy bad/false ideas on the battle field of ideas does not make one a tyrant. Preventing you from creating echo chambers where you can indoctrinate children freely does not make one a tyrant. I know you feel oppressed because your not allowed to oppress. I know you feel coerced because you are not allowed to coerce. But baby doll the facts don't care about your feeling. And the fact is that you are a fascist racist.

I care, but I thought that one of the rare things that leftists actually get right is that it can be a problem for a nation to go around the world trying to force their values on other people. The left fights tooth and nail covering up those sorts of attacks carried out by Muslims when they do it in Europe. Maybe you should show your concern for that issue by opposing the open border internationalists who are bringing that extremist culture to Europe as we speak.

The left is not nor has it ever been isolationist. The left recognizes that isolationist policies is what caused nearly every major conflict in history. The left is opposed to military and economic imperialism. This is not the same thing as being in favor of isolationism. Further the left does not "cover up" attacks carried out by Muslims when they do it in Europe. There is nuance involved that I am not going to waste my time explaining to someone who puts feelings over facts. If you are interested I suggest you do research into stochastic effects and how further marginalizing marginalized communities prevents or retards integration.

I'm not anti-science or anti-vac. I am anti-egalitarian though and a race realist depending on how you define it.

One of the things I dislike about English. The you there was the general (you) not the specific (you). A race realist is not someone who believes that haplogroups exist or that there are variations within haplogroups. A race realist is someone who believes in race (which is different than haplogroups) and further believes that there are innate and intrinsic differences beyond standard variations between the races. Race realists believe and/or that A) Race, culture, and nationality are tied together. B) there is meaningful cognitive difference between races (ie IQ/Critical Reasoning), they may also believe that violence and race are tied together.

Where the hell are you pulling this stuff from?

Well lets see... For starters blacks have systematically been fucked over for the past 200+ years. Harmful laws and policies which target blacks continue to be written and enforced. You oppose any and all attempts to mitigate and or undo the damage done to these communities by these laws and policies. On the foreign front, the US has enacted malevolent imperialist polices, corporations have fucked over entire nations to make a buck exploiting both individuals are resources. And you oppose any attempt to mitigate and or undo the damage. So... ya. You have no problem with the rigged system or how many people it fucks over. This completely leaves aside the problems caused by inherited wealth.

I'm for personal freedom, including voluntary association.

Stop lying. You are not for voluntary association. You use voluntary association as a fig leaf to cover up your racist bullshit. Nobody is stopping you from voluntarily associating with anyone you want to. We both know that is not what you mean. What you mean is that you want the right to not have to look at or acknowledge the existence of queers and niggers. You want the right to make sure that your neighbors and your neighbors children cannot sell their property to queers and niggers. You want to create institutions which prevent free voluntary association but to be able to mask it as being pro freedom. You want to create institutions which prevent your children from associating with queers and niggers. You want to create institutions which prevent your children from even the possibility of being exposed to queers and niggers just in case doing so might cause your children to think queers and niggers are people too and they are people just like themselves and the people they know. You want to create coercive institutions intended to penalize harshly anyone who steps outside your arbitrary accepted bounds.

Being against white nationalism doesn't mean that you're anti-white. Most of the members of this forum are against white nationalism but aren't anti-white. Leftists though, are almost always anti-white racists. They think that whites are somehow uniquely evil and need to be opposed. They think that whites advocating for their racial interests is the most evil thing ever and other races advocating for their racial interests is great - you can't have it both ways.

Fuck I hate tumbler. I would absolutely love to blame you for this perception (and it is a perception not a reality). I might even blame you if not for my own personal experience and first hand knowledge of how this perception came to be. I have already linked the mayocide video several times and I strongly suggest you check it out. As someone who once held the belief that the left was mostly made up of anti-white racists I understand exactly where that perception comes from. Most (though not all of it) comes from Black Nationalists and Tankies. Black Nationalists are not left or leftist but are associated with the left because most blacks are on the left. Tankies... there are not words strong enough for what I think of them. Irrational Authoritarian Psychopaths the lot of them is the most mild thing I can think of to say about them. They are "left" by the two axis American standard (which is fucked because the farthest right in American politics is Authoritarian racists {Nazi's} and the farthest left is Authoritarian Socialists {Tankies}). Both of which are minorities of minorities with voices disproportionate to their size. The fact that leftists will Ironically say things that takies and black nationalists say seriously is a major fucking failing on the left. One which we are attempting to correct.
Timestamp 22:48-25:23 is the nuanced view of the left. He recently started his black nationalist arc. He says more or less what I have said above and have said in previous posts only he is applying it to black nationalists not white nationalists.

Back to the leftism vocabulary. The idea of "whiteness" is bullshit. White people have their own unique genetic traits just like any other geographically clustered population. They have committed atrocities against other people, they have been the victims of atrocities. Almost always what determined who was the victim and who was the perpetrator was based on who had the strongest armies at the given time. You hate white people, you just want to use your, lets say dog whistle, to make it sound less odious.

See this is what I meant when I referred to your use of newspeak. Newspeak in 1984 (the origin of the term) was about essentializing and then oversimplifying nuanced ideas. Reactionaries define newspeak as nuance, thus attempting to make the term newspeak a victim of newspeak.

Yes haplogroup R1B does indeed have it's own unique genetic traits. The culture of haplogroup R1B is not however a genetic trait. I do not hate people who belong to haplogroup R1B. I hate people with exclusionary ideologies based around intrinsic traits. Regardless of their skin color or of their haplogroup I hate exclusionary ideologies based around intrinsic traits. My focus tends to be (but is not exclusively) centered around the largest and most immediate source of that ideology locally.

You attempt to use newspeak to conflate two distinct terms in order to justify your position that I hate white people. Even though above I said exactly what I have been saying only this time only refraining from using terms which you find offensive.

Amazingly enough, you said something true.

I have said many true things. That you refuse to recognize that what I have said is true does not make it any less true.

More leftist jargon.

More attempt at newspeak.

That describes me more than you.

You don't hate brown people you just don't want to see them on TV or to live next to them. You don't think brown people are subhuman you just think there are innate genetic differences which make them inferior cognitively. You don't hate brown people you just don't want the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars removing lead from their environment even though it would be a fraction of what the government has spent removing lead from white areas. You don't hate brown people you just want them to leave the US and if they don't leave you want them to be deported back to africa mexico.

You have advocated using violence against people for saying things you disagree this. That is silencing people.

Yes! Yes! I very much disagree with people who think I ought to be deported or gassed for being an octaroon. I very much and very strongly disagree with people who advocate for state violence against me and people I care about. This isn't "just" a disagreement however and you are lying if you attempt to paint it that way. Hitler didn't start by gassing the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and queers, and others he didn't like. He started by fermenting hate based on intrinsic characteristics. Further and I don't know how many times I have to say it before it sinks in, there is a difference between saying something is justified and saying something should be done. I advocate for the right to self defense. When a mob begin reenacting a seen out of a 1920's Nazi rally. Fuck yes that is self defense.

Yeah, you don't want to silence people, you just want extremely negative consequences (like violence) when they say things you don't like. Sounds like free speech to me.

Firstly free speech laws does not cover threats of harm or of incitement to violence. I would call reenacting a 1920's Nazi rally incitement to violence.

That is what I think, which is why I see everything you advocate as being so dangerous. You do want to stop people from doing what they want. You don't want to force your ideology on them. You do want to use violence to silence dissent. You do...

again with the standing on your head. I advocate using violence in self defense. They are allowed to believe racist bigoted shit all they want, they are free to face the social and financial consequences of their actions. And because you cannot figure it out let me spell it out for you. There is a very real and meaningful difference between dissent and between attempting to bring about an ethnostate by inciting hatred of groups based on intrinsic characteristics.

There we go. That's really vile as are the ways you say you plan on eradicating cultures.

please explain to me what is vile about wanting to see bigoted cultures eradicated? Please explain why wanting to see misogynist cultures eradicated is vile?

How is this a boogeyman? There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex exists and gender (as SJW's define it) does not, which is why the whole "transgender" thing is incoherent. Transsexuality isn't necessarily, at least the claim that someone can be biologically male with a female brain and/or mind (or vice versa) is concrete hypothesis that can investigated.

Well there you go either stupid or lying again. The distinction between sex and gender goes back to the early 1900's and has been widely accepted since the 60's. Gender as the SJW's define it has been defined that way for 60 years by sociology which studies phenomena of culture and society. Sex has been recognized as bimodal for the same amount of time. Bimodal means that it is not binary. Fun fact. Sex in Sea Horses was one of the primary motivating factors in defining biological sex the way it is currently defined. It also lead to female Sea Horses becoming male Sea Horses and vice versa. Who knew it was Sea Horses that broke our model of sex.

As to gender not existing. I guess punk doesn't exist, or cowboys, or goth, or nerd, or american, or English, or European, or African, or Christian, or Muslim, or, or, or. Hell according to you culture doesn't exist by your logic. There is a difference between saying something is a social construct and saying it doesn't exist. Social constructs exist in so far as any human construct (including sex) can be said to exist. Science is a social construct.

Now setting aside that you just went full truscum on me. Chimerism is a thing. Not only can it be investigated but we have investigated it. Turns out. Yup. We also have no idea how rare it is, only that however rare we thought it was before it's much less rare than we thought. Not exactly common but not as rare as we thought either.

Being transgender is about identity. Just like being cisgender is about identity. You either identify with the gender you are assigned at birth or you do not. If you do not then you are trans. That's how it works. Dysphoria may or may not be involved. The level of dysphoria may vary. What is needed to relieve the dysphoria may vary.

Transpeople get the same benefit I give to everybody - I leave them alone and mind my own business. How they identify, what clothes they wear, and what they do to their bodies is no concern of mine.

Something tells me you are not being entirely truthful here. I cannot exactly say you are lying yet but chances are that you are lying. Given the kinds of positions you have advocated for and that you have hidden your motives behind libertarian principles something tells me you are lying and that your "i leave them alone and mind my own business" is more of the same.

Cultural Marxists exist, regardless of what we decide to call them. They are a duplicitous bunch who like to hide their true intentions and so refuse to take up a label. We can call the movement social justice, intersectionality, or whatever - but it needs a name.

Oh sweetheart. Cultural Marxist is a (1920's) Nazi spook. Marxism is a Jewish plot muhhahahahah. Subversive? Ya. Duplicitous? no. The Frankfurt school was quite open with what it was doing as have been the majority of socialists (law of large numbers and all) when they are allowed to be.

It's not a dog whistle for Jews. Most people who hate SJW's would agree with people like Paul Gottfried or Murray Rothbard, which I do.

Having read everything written by Murray Rothbard I am well aware of what he believed as well as what he wrote about socialism, considering his anti-socialist views informed my own previous view. I hate SJW's (or at least the character) as do a majority on the left. It's why we have been and are actively cleaning them out of our community. We knew they were a problem, we had no idea how big a problem they were. What I do find amusing though is that the anti-sjw's have become the new sjw's. Stare into an abyss and all that.

My feeling actually do care about facts. I think what you meant to say is that facts don't care about my feelings, which would be true and nobody on the right claims otherwise. People who actually say that feelings are more important than facts are the post-modernists on the left.

No darling I said what I meant. Your feelings don't care about the facts. See one of the facts you don't care about is what post-modernism means or entails. It's a buzzword to you meaning that it contains no content. I will give you a hint though. Modernism is characterized by logical positivism. Thus the post in post-modernism is post-logical positivism. You use newspeak because attempting to figure out what post-modernism entails is too much for you. Instead you would rather take second and third hand accounts of what it is and just run with that narrative. I get it. Thinking is hard, especially for reactionaries.

Here we go, copy and pasting Umberto Eco. I honestly don't care what he has to say on the topic. If anybody is going to define fascist, it should probably be a fascist rather than an anti-fascist.

And how exactly do you think he came up with his 14 points cupcake? There is no possible way he read fascist literature from various fascist regimes centering primarily on Italian Fascism and then distilled their general principles out of it. Having actually read fascist literature I have found it a pretty good summary.

Nazism - that is to say the National Socialist German Workers Party - is way more specific than just racist fascism. Of course, I bet we could go down a rabbit hole about how "racism" should even be defined.

Nazism (the driving philosophy of the party) is racial fascism. You are correct though in stating that the German Nazi party is more specific than that. But you reactionaries are never very good at telling the difference between principles and polices. Nazism is principles, Nazi Party Platform is policy (ie the translation of philosophy in practices). Just like The American Nazi Party and all the other Nazi Parties that existed outside of Germany are policy expressions of the philosophy of Nazism. But I get that is difficult for your reactionary mind to comprehend.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Socialists always end up creating horrible oppressive violent and ultimately self destructive states. So can we put you against the wall? I know you'll probably say no and come out with some excuse as to why it's 'violence for me against thee' but it is an amusing insight into your worldview. You're just as repressive and twisted as every other socialist; you just lack the power to act right now.

Authoritarians always end up creating horrible oppressive violent and ultimately self destructive states. You do understand the difference between an authoritarian and a libertarian? I know you very badly want it to be true that Authoritarianism is inherent to socialism. But given that you cannot define authoritarianism i understand that you don't understand how it's possible to have two radically different and competing schools of socialism. It's also understandable how you don't possibly see how authoritarians would be willing to take steps that libertarians are not. Or how the fact that authoritarians are willing to employ liberal uses of violence might mean that it is easier for them to establish states than those who are not willing to apply such liberal uses.

 

[Scottty]

@DirtbagLeft so basically, you are rejecting what we actually say, and putting things of your own imagination there instead? Where we want to discuss policies, and the logical and repeatedly observed outcomes of attempts to put certain ideologies into practice, you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "racism!" at us?

I cannot stop being an octaroon.

I don't care if you're an octaroon. It's people on the Left who are preoccupied with things like that.

They can stop being fascists and white supremacists.

But can they? It looks from here as if you'll go on calling everyone who disagrees with you names like that, regardless of what they actually think or believe.