Why not fascists?

[Arathian]

I am new here. And yeah, I am most definitely not a leftist by any sense of the word, but nor I am even close to fascist. (I am a libertarian)

Yet this specific rule strikes me as weird. Why ban specifically fascists? In all honesty, their ideology is much closer to socialism than, say, mine. They want a welfare state, equality of living as opposed to equality of opportunity etc etc. Sure, they are highly authoritarian and nationalist but.... that is your only difference. If that is your big problem, why not also ban stalinists? (which I have seen plenty of here) or corporatists/neoconservatives too?

I am not trying to flame anyone, I am truly curious. Sorry if I broke some rule...

[Catmatic Leftist]

I am new here. And yeah, I am most definitely not a leftist by any sense of the word, but nor I am even close to fascist. (I am a libertarian)

Yet this specific rule strikes me as weird. Why ban specifically fascists? In all honesty, their ideology is much closer to socialism than, say, mine. They want a welfare state, equality of living as opposed to equality of opportunity etc etc. Sure, they are highly authoritarian and nationalist but.... that is your only difference. If that is your big problem, why not also ban stalinists? (which I have seen plenty of here) or corporatists/neoconservatives too?

I am not trying to flame anyone, I am truly curious. Sorry if I broke some rule...

http://very-bored.com/pics2/cuteanimals/cute-animals-13.JPG

[Che a chara]

Ahh the old "I'm not a fascist but..." routine :rolleyes:

[Arathian]

Ahh the old "I'm not a fascist but..." routine :rolleyes:

but what? :mellow:

I simply don't understand a rule and I would like it explained. That's all, honest

[OHumanista]

No, just no dude.:rolleyes:
Not this bullshit again, I won't even bother answering that as I have no patience at the moment. Maybe one of the more "zen" comrades will come here explain it to you slowly and with lots of patience.

[Hivemind]

I'd assume that fascists' end goal is incompatible with the left-wing's goal. Stalinists may be "authoritarian" but I'd assume that they'd still work towards the end goal of communism - which is to have a classless and stateless society/planet. Fascists don't want that, so that's why I'd assume that they're not comparable to, say Stalinists.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Probably because fascists are nationalist, militaristic, totalitarian, focus on severe economic and social restrictions and are generally fanatical and can't be reasoned with.

Capitalists can at least be (for the most part) reasoned with and intelligent debate can take place.

[OHumanista]

but what? :mellow:

I simply don't understand a rule and I would like it explained. That's all, honest

Let us just say that question emerges far too often...:rolleyes:

[Arathian]

I'd assume that fascists' end goal is incompatible with the left-wing's goal. Stalinists may be "authoritarian" but I'd assume that they'd still work towards the end goal of communism - which is to have a classless and stateless society/planet. Fascists don't want that, so that's why I'd assume that they're not comparable to, say Stalinists.

Logical for Stalinists, but what about neoconservatives or corporativists?

[Arathian]

Let us just say that question emerges far too often...:rolleyes:

oh....


is there a search function in the forum?

[Catmatic Leftist]

Y'all get trolled so easily.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yet this specific rule strikes me as weird. Why ban specifically fascists? In all honesty, their ideology is much closer to socialism than, say, mine. They want a welfare state, equality of living as opposed to equality of opportunity etc etc. Sure, they are highly authoritarian and nationalist but.... that is your only difference. If that is your big problem, why not also ban stalinists? (which I have seen plenty of here) or corporatists/neoconservatives too?

I am not trying to flame anyone, I am truly curious. Sorry if I broke some rule...

(I'm assuming you want to ignite a discussion about how fascism was close to socialism rather than actually know why they are banned, so I will answer that instead).

You clearly need a lesson in socialism 101. Socialists do not want a welfare state. The welfare state is the product of capitalism and liberal mentality "give them reform, or they will give us revolution". It's repressive tolerance, give them a little bit whilst keeping the core of the system (private property, wage labour, commodity production, profit maximisation) intact.

Fascists do not want equality of living! Big business flourished under fascist rule, both in Italy and Germany. Early Italian fascism even advocated laissez-faire economics, Mussolini: "The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy".

There are a multitude of differences between fascism and socialism. Nationalism vs. Internationalism; classwar vs. class collaboration; private property vs. collective property; In every way fascism is the opposite of socialism.

[Arathian]

Y'all get trolled so easily.

but I really am not a troll :(



Probably because fascists are nationalist, militaristic, totalitarian, focus on severe economic and social restrictions and are generally fanatical and can't be reasoned with.

Capitalists can at least be (for the most part) reasoned with and intelligent debate can take place.


nationalist, militaristic, totalitarian

Then again...stalinists, corporativists etc etc all have the exact same traits.


generally fanatical and can't be reasoned with.
:)


Capitalists can at least be (for the most part) reasoned with and intelligent debate can take place.

why, thank you!

[ColonelCossack]

Trust me, you are closer to fascism than we are. I'm not saying you're a fascist; i'm just saying that we are more un-fascist than you.

[Kamos]

User registers and, skipping an introduction or anything, immediately skips to asking "Why not fascists"?

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/demotivational-posters-seems-legit31.jpg

[Arathian]

(I'm assuming you want to ignite a discussion about how fascism was close to socialism rather than actually know why they are banned, so I will answer that instead).

You clearly need a lesson in socialism 101. Socialists do not want a welfare state. The welfare state is the product of capitalism and liberal mentality "give them reform, or they will give us revolution". It's repressive tolerance, give them a little bit whilst keeping the core of the system (private property, wage labour, commodity production, profit maximisation) intact.

Fascists do not want equality of living! Big business flourished under fascist rule, both in Italy and Germany. Early Italian fascism even advocated laissez-faire economics, Mussolini: "The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy".

There are a multitude of differences between fascism and socialism. Nationalism vs. Internationalism; classwar vs. class collaboration; private property vs. collective property; In every way fascism is the opposite of socialism.

no...my discussion was not aimed at that, but sinse you mention it, when I said "socialists" I am refering to these guys en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Democratic_socialists and not to the second stage of communism, ie, socialism. I just refer to you guys are communists :D I am sure you won't disagree with that description.

And, well, democratic socialists are pretty close economically to fascists...

[ВАЛТЕР]

Yeah this guy is here to troll...No sense in having a discussion with him, since he is not here to learn but provoke and confront.

[Arathian]

Yeah this guy is here to troll...No sense in having a discussion with him, since he is not here to learn but provoke and confront.

seriously?

[Che a chara]

oh....


is there a search function in the forum?

D'oh. so full of shit fash. Or maybe you really weren't aware that forums have search functions -- Just a bonehead being a bonehead so.

[The Man]

Guys, stop saying that every new person is a troll, and give him an educated answer.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Guys, stop saying that every new person is a troll, and give him an educated answer.

We gave him answers, and now he is questioning them sarcastically. I don't know what he wants anymore.

[Arathian]

We gave him answers, and now he is questioning them sarcastically. I don't know what he wants anymore.

which, quite honestly, don't make any kind of sense...

see my answers to them.

[pax et aequalitas]

1. Because this forum is mostly meant for revolutionary leftists to discuss among themselves. The OI section is just a bit of an extra. Since us arguing with fascists is well... just tiring really, it was decided to leave them out.
2. The server is hosted in Germany IIRC and nazi/fascist stuff can be complicated due to some laws they got there.

[Tim Cornelis]

no...my discussion was not aimed at that, but sinse you mention it, when I said "socialists" I am refering to these guys en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Democratic_socialists and not to the second stage of communism, ie, socialism.

Democratic socialism is a minority current on the revolutionary left, because most subscribe to anarchism or Marxism. But even democratic socialism advocates the abolition of capitalism. Democratic socialists advocate grassroots democracy and economic democracy. Fascists want to strengthen the internal dictatorship - if you will - of capitalist corporations by backing it by the state. The opposite of workplace democracy.

Also second stage of communism (higher phase communism) is called (pure) communism, first stage of communism or lower-phase communism is called socialism (in Leninist terminology that is).

[Arathian]

But even democratic socialism advocates the abolition of capitalism.

Could you clarify on this please? AFAIK, they just want a watered-down capitalism which means that the means of production shouldn't be owned by the workers according to them.

[Arathian]

1. Because this forum is mostly meant for revolutionary leftists to discuss among themselves. The OI section is just a bit of an extra. Since us arguing with fascists is well... just tiring really, it was decided to leave them out.

And why isn't with capitalists? :confused:


2. The server is hosted in Germany IIRC and nazi/fascist stuff can be complicated due to some laws they got there.

Now THAT makes sense. Thanks!

[pax et aequalitas]

And why isn't with capitalists? :confused:



Now THAT makes sense. Thanks!

Capitalists usually at least allow for a discussion with proper arguments from both sides. Sadly, this is not the case with most of the fascists.

[RedZezz]

Could you clarify on this please? AFAIK, they just want a watered-down capitalism which means that the means of production shouldn't be owned by the workers according to them.


According to the Democratic Socialists of America:



Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.


http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html


You can take what you want from them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

hang the fascists. i dont care what you think about this. fuck them. they are bastards. they are anti-worker, anti-communist, imperialist, nationalist, racist, and capitalist.


b17tir-Yre4

[Tim Cornelis]

hang the fascists. i dont care what you think about this. fuck them. they are bastards. they are anti-worker, anti-communist, imperialist, nationalist, racist, and capitalist.

They are misguided and often young who will come around and turn normal or even socialist, that is unless you hang them.


Could you clarify on this please? AFAIK, they just want a watered-down capitalism which means that the means of production shouldn't be owned by the workers according to them.

If they want a watered-down capitalism they aren't socialists are they?

[Arathian]

If they want a watered-down capitalism they aren't socialists are they?
well, essentially the democratic socialist in my understanding is watered down capitalism with another name.

I think we just define it differently. Mind telling me your definition of DEMOCRATIC socialism?

Any kind of system that keeps democracy but removes capitalism in its essence?

[Hivemind]

Maybe you're confusing democratic socialism with social democracy, the former which seeks to transition to a socialistic society democratically, while the latter seeks to exist within the framework of capitalism.

[Arathian]

Maybe you're confusing democratic socialism with social democracy, the former which seeks to transition to a socialistic society democratically, while the latter seeks to exist within the framework of capitalism.

ah, indeed. That is it.

So, the end goal is different. Makes sense.

[Book O'Dead]

I am new here. And yeah, I am most definitely not a leftist by any sense of the word, but nor I am even close to fascist. (I am a libertarian)

Yet this specific rule strikes me as weird. Why ban specifically fascists?


Fascists are the lowest life form to crawl out of Satan's asshole ever.

Not only should they be banned but they should also be hunted down, beaten with aluminum baseball bats, hung by their feet, skinned, drawn and quartered, sodomized, castrated, tortured, made fun of and insulted.

Also, fascists are very stupid.

[Misanthrope]

Fascists = anti-worker

Leftists = pro-worker

/thread

[ComradeMan]

well, essentially the democratic socialist in my understanding is watered down capitalism with another name.

I think we just define it differently. Mind telling me your definition of DEMOCRATIC socialism?

Any kind of system that keeps democracy but removes capitalism in its essence?

You're confusing Social Democrat with Democratic Socialist. It's not the same.

[Yugo45]

Communism - Far left ideology - stateless, classless, democratic, equal-for-all society.

Fascism - Far right ideology - nationalist, totaliratarian, discriminating society.

Where's the difference :confused: :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

Communism - Far left ideology - stateless, classless, democratic, equal-for-all society.

Fascism - Far right ideology - nationalist, totaliratarian, discriminating society.

Where's the difference :confused: :confused:

Both are fantasies it seems in the real world.

[Le Socialiste]

Both are fantasies it seems in the real world.

Interesting...tell me more about this "real world".

[Arathian]

Interesting...tell me more about this "real world".

the real world the North Koreans live in.

[VirgJans12]

Both are fantasies it seems in the real world.

Fascism has existed and still does today. The attempts at communism failed so far, however I think it's far from a fantasy.

(edited)

[Tim Cornelis]

the real world the North Koreans live in.

Yet another reason to oppose capitalism, i.e. the monopolisation of productive resources by a priveleged minority, commodity production, extortion by a ruling class--whether public or private--and wage labour.

[Arathian]

Yet another reason to oppose capitalism, i.e. the monopolisation of productive resources by a priveleged minority, commodity production, extortion by a ruling class--whether public or private--and wage labour.

oh, come on. North Korea is as far away from capitalist as you can get.

[The Man]

oh, come on. North Korea is as far away from capitalist as you can get.

Not true. North Korea isn't Communist (not even Socialist)

[Arathian]

Not true. North Korea isn't Communist (not even Socialist)

They don't allow personal property, printing or exporting money. The state regulates even the lowest economic activity.

I don't know what it is, but it is most bloody definitely not capitalist.

[Commissar Rykov]

Not true. North Korea isn't Communist (not even Socialist)
Indeed, Juche is an odd syncretic movement that draws from a variety of authoritarian states, monarchist intentions, and rabid racialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

oh, come on. North Korea is as far away from capitalist as you can get.

Firstly, there is a central board of directors who plan for the entire firm for everyone what to do. It's centralised top-down and undemocratic control of the firm. The workers have no say in the matters. North Korea operates identically to the internal functioning of a capitalist corporation. Except it's more brutal because it also has monopoly on violence.

Secondly, capitalism is a system where the means of production are monopolised by a privileged minority, as a consequence there is wage labour, it's a system of commodity production.

In private capitalism the means of production are monopolised by a private minority. In state capitalism the means of production are monopolised by a state minority. But the underlying functioning of the system is nearly identical.

[kapitalyst]

I, too, have wondered the same thing as Arathian but haven't bothered to mention it. Why are fascists immediately perma-banned? I could understand bannnig neo-Nazis, skinheads, KKK, etc... no one wants to hear their crap. But fascism isn't necessarily racist. It sounds like the only reason being offered is that you strongly disagree with them... that seems silly, imho. I'd actually like to debate fascists, lol. If it was up to me, I'd consider them on a case-to-case basis. Just ban the ones who are racist or cause serious disruption.

Also... fascism is not the opposite of communism/socialism. Fascism, really, is an incredibly vague term. But typically they're economically moderate, and highly authoritarian.

[Nox]

equality of living as opposed to equality of opportunity

HAHAHAHAHA you think a Libertarian Capitalist society would give people equality of oppurtunity, holy fuck give me a chance to catch my breath, I'm dying of laughter!



Sure, they are highly authoritarian and nationalist but.... that is your only difference. If that is your big problem, why not also ban stalinists? ...

Because:

a.) Stalinists aren't nationalist

b.) Socially, Stalinists are to the far left, whereas Fascists are to the far right. It's their social views that get them banned.

[Arathian]

Firstly, there is a central board of directors who plan for the entire firm for everyone what to do. It's centralised top-down and undemocratic control of the firm. The workers have no say in the matters. North Korea operates identically to the internal functioning of a capitalist corporation. Except it's more brutal because it also has monopoly on violence.

Secondly, capitalism is a system where the means of production are monopolised by a privileged minority, as a consequence there is wage labour, it's a system of commodity production.

In private capitalism the means of production are monopolised by a private minority. In state capitalism the means of production are monopolised by a state minority. But the underlying functioning of the system is nearly identical.

You forgot one tiny detail:

in the capitalist system, you are FREE to CHOOSE where to work and you can LEAVE at any time.

In North Korea, if you try to leave, you are sent to the gulags.

I won't even commend on your perception of the structure, because this will sent us to places :/

[Kamos]

in the capitalist system, you are FREE to CHOOSE where to work

http://img.4cham.net/b/macros/cleverruse.jpg

[ВАЛТЕР]

You forgot one tiny detail:

in the capitalist system, you are FREE to CHOOSE where to work and you can LEAVE at any time.


This isn't a condition of a capitalist system. This is a condition of a democracy.

With democracy being the heart of communism, you would be free to live anywhere you wish in a communist society as well.

Edit: Even though in the capitalist system the thing they call "democracy" is laughable.

[Nox]

in the capitalist system, you are FREE to CHOOSE where to work and you can LEAVE at any time.

:/


You left out the tiny detail that if you leave your job in a Capitalist society, you will lose everything and eventually starve to death.

The funny thing is that I'm not even exaggurating at all.

[Arathian]

You left out the tiny detail that if you leave your job in a Capitalist society, you will lose everything and eventually starve to death.

The funny thing is that I'm not even exaggurating at all.

well, I have left 2 jobs the past 2 months. I am not starving yet... (and yes, left, not fired)



This isn't a condition of a capitalist system. This is a condition of a democracy.

With democracy being the heart of communism, you would be free to live anywhere you wish in a communist society as well.

Edit: Even though in the capitalist system the thing they call "democracy" is laughable.

as far as know, you don't get sent in the gulags for leaving in job in any capitalist country, even in the most authoritarian ones like China, Russia or Singapore.

edit: you were sent in the gulags in Nazi Germany and USSR though.

[Nox]

well, I have left 2 jobs the past 2 months. I am not starving yet... (and yes, left, not fired)






That's because either:

a.) You've had money to fall back on

or

b.) Your country has a welfare system, which Capitalists/Libertarians want to get rid of.

[Arathian]

That's because either:

a.) You've had money to fall back on

or

b.) Your country has a welfare system, which Capitalists/Libertarians want to get rid of.

a) of course, because I PLAN my actions before I take them. Sounds logical, doesn't it?

b) I live in Greece. No welfare money for me, or anyone else close to me.

[ВАЛТЕР]

as far as know, you don't get sent in the gulags for leaving in job in any capitalist country, even in the most authoritarian ones like China, Russia or Singapore.

edit: you were sent in the gulags in Nazi Germany and USSR though.


The USSR was a state-capitalist society,and Nazi Germany was fascist.

You didn't get sent to Gulags in the USSR for wanting to work in another career field anyways. In Nazi Germany, I doubt they did that either but I don't know for sure.

[Nox]

a) of course, because I PLAN my actions before I take them. Sounds logical, doesn't it?



The reason you can have enough money to be able to save up for things is because your wage levels are protected.

Trust me, if we were living in a Libertarian-Capitalist society, and the corporations got their way (which they would seeing as they are effectively the state), you would barely be paid enough to cover your bills and feed yourself.

You would be a slave to the companies, of course you are 'free' to leave whenever you want, but if you can't find another job (the vast majority will pay the same shit wages) then you will be unemployed, and die.

Because that's what happens in a Libertarian-Capitalist system, the unemployed have no income whatsoever. And they aren't unemployed because they are lazy, they are unemployed because unemployment is an inherent side effect of the Capitalist system.

[Commissar Rykov]

The USSR was a state-capitalist society,and Nazi Germany was fascist.

You didn't get sent to Gulags in the USSR for wanting to work in another career field anyways. In Nazi Germany, I doubt they did that either but I don't know for sure.
He is just pulling shit out of his ass to defend his position. Intellectual Bankruptcy at its finest.

[Arathian]

The USSR was a state-capitalist society,and Nazi Germany was fascist.

yeah...no. They were a (failed) dictatorship of the proletariat.


You didn't get sent to Gulags in the USSR for wanting to work in another career field anyways. In Nazi Germany, I doubt they did that either but I don't know for sure.

True to some extend. If you had the ability to rise to do a certain job, you were promoted to it. But if you didn't show any particular talent, you were presented with a low end job and if you didn't accept, you then were sent to said gulags.

[Ocean Seal]

Its because the servers are in Germany. And also what they advocate is intolerably fucked up most of the time and absurdly fucked up almost all the time.

[Nox]

yeah...no. They were a (failed) dictatorship of the proletariat.

You're right, they were a failed DOTP.

The USSR was DOTP until the Bolsheviks closed the elections, then it became a state capitalist state.

So you're both right.

[ВАЛТЕР]

yeah...no. They were a (failed) dictatorship of the proletariat.



True to some extend. If you had the ability to rise to do a certain job, you were promoted to it. But if you didn't show any particular talent, you were presented with a low end job and if you didn't accept, you then were sent to said gulags.


You don't know what you are talking about, and I don't feel like educating you.

As a Greek, you of all people should know how capitalism has brought about serious problems in this world.

[Arathian]

You're right, they were a failed DOTP.

The USSR was DOTP until the Bolsheviks closed the elections, then it became a state capitalist state.

So you're both right.

Stop associating the USSR with Communism.

fun fact: the elections continued until the dissolving of the USSR, it was just that you could only elect the communist party ;)

or, to put it simply in the words of others


"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

~Joseph Stalin

[Tim Cornelis]

yeah...no. They were a (failed) dictatorship of the proletariat.

Exactly, and they "degenerated" into state capitalism.

I find your definition of capitalism flawed. "You can choose your job freely" is the standard to which you test whether a society is capitalist? Not property? Social relations? Mode of production?

A North Korean citizen can choose to became a doctor if he wishes, instead of a peasant. So by your standard North Korea is capitalist.

[Nox]

As a Greek, you of all people should know how capitalism has brought about serious problems in this world.

Yeah, it's fucking stupid.

Capitalism has fucked up his/her country so he/she wants even more Capitalism...

[Nox]

fun fact: the elections continued until the dissolving of the USSR, it was just that you could only elect the communist party ;)

or, to put it simply in the words of others


"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

~Joseph Stalin

If you actually knew anything about the history of the USSR or the Russian Revolution, you'd know the exact event I was talking about.

At least try and learn about Communism, or fuck off. What's the point of being here if you are ignorant of everything we tell you?

[Arathian]

Exactly, and they "degenerated" into state capitalism.

I find your definition of capitalism flawed. "You can choose your job freely" is the standard to which you test whether a society is capitalist? Not property? Social relations? Mode of production?

A North Korean citizen can choose to became a doctor if he wishes, instead of a peasant. So by your standard North Korea is capitalist.

It is part of the definition, yes, although I tend to be kind of strict when defining capitalism.

For example, I don't define what we have in Greece as capitalism because it violates completely an important part of what I consider capitalism (that is, the freedom of contract)

[Arathian]

If you actually knew anything about the history of the USSR or the Russian Revolution, you'd know the exact event I was talking about.

At least try and learn about Communism, or fuck off. What's the point of being here if you are ignorant of everything we tell you?

I am perfectly knowledgeable of what you are referring to. I am also feeling a lot of hypocrisy when you claim that this is not "communism" as North Korea isn't either but then say that Greece is capitalist.

[Nox]

I am perfectly knowledgeable of what you are referring to. I am also feeling a lot of hypocrisy when you claim that this is not "communism" as North Korea isn't either but then say that Greece is capitalist.

Greece is Capitalistic enough for it to be called capitalist.

Maybe if it had a welfare system I'd be tempted to call it Liberal.

North Korea has very few, if any, features of a Communist society. Please name one.

[Arathian]

Greece is Capitalistic enough for it to be called capitalist.

Maybe if it had a welfare system I'd be tempted to call it Liberal.

North Korea has very few, if any, features of a Communist society. Please name one.

only one? Deal!

No private property.

[Nox]

only one? Deal!

No private property.

The means of production are owned by the state, not the workers in North Korea, so it isnt Socialist/Communist.

Try again.

[Arathian]

The means of production are owned by the state, not the workers in North Korea, so it isnt Socialist/Communist.

Try again.

Yes it is, I suggest you look at who should own everything during the dictatorship of the proletariat.

edit, quote from wikipedia: "He (Marx) stated that in a proletarian-run society, the state should control the "proceeds of labour" (i.e. all the food and products produced), and take from them that which was "an economic necessity", namely enough to replace "the means of production used up", an "additional portion for expansion of production" and "insurance funds" to be used in emergencies such as natural disasters. Furthermore, he believed that the state should then take enough to cover administrative costs, funds for the running of public services, and funds for those who were physically incapable of working."

[Nox]

Yes it is, I suggest you look at who should own everything during the dictatorship of the proletariat.

edit, quote from wikipedia: "He (Marx) stated that in a proletarian-run society, the state should control the "proceeds of labour" (i.e. all the food and products produced), and take from them that which was "an economic necessity", namely enough to replace "the means of production used up", an "additional portion for expansion of production" and "insurance funds" to be used in emergencies such as natural disasters. Furthermore, he believed that the state should then take enough to cover administrative costs, funds for the running of public services, and funds for those who were physically incapable of working."


That is assuming that all Communists are Marxists, which they're not.

But mostly, that's assuming that North Korea is a Workers' State, which it isn't.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes it is, I suggest you look at who should own everything during the dictatorship of the proletariat.

edit, quote from wikipedia: "He (Marx) stated that in a proletarian-run society, the state should control the "proceeds of labour" (i.e. all the food and products produced), and take from them that which was "an economic necessity", namely enough to replace "the means of production used up", an "additional portion for expansion of production" and "insurance funds" to be used in emergencies such as natural disasters. Furthermore, he believed that the state should then take enough to cover administrative costs, funds for the running of public services, and funds for those who were physically incapable of working."

I doubt that wikipedia is accurate but if it's not:

And how did Marx envision the workers state? A network of communes democratically controlled by the workers, similar to the Paris Commune. So ultimately the workers are in control of distribution and production through the state they directly control. This is not the case in North Korea.

P.S.

I knew I shouldn't have brought up state capitalism, it's too "advanced" for a "beginner".

[Nox]

Sorry Arathian, but you're the typical example of a Libertarian who knows fuck all about Communism but still criticises it with either incorrect statements or strawman arguments while failing to notice the huge flaws in your own ideology.

[Arathian]

I doubt that wikipedia is accurate but if it's not:

And how did Marx envision the workers state? A network of communes democratically controlled by the workers, similar to the Paris Commune. So ultimately the workers are in control of distribution and production through the state they directly control. This is not the case in North Korea.

P.S.

I knew I shouldn't have brought up state capitalism, it's too "advanced" for a "beginner".

I am familiar with what state capitalism is. It is, and correct me if I am wrong, when the government and big business are so interwoven that are, essentially, one.

As for your first assertion, that is a fair point, and it is the reason I DON'T consider north Korea communist.

But he didn't ask for that, he asked for a single characteristic :)

[Nox]

But he didn't ask for that, he asked for a single characteristic :)
...and you still can't give me a single one.

[Arathian]

Sorry Arathian, but you're the typical example of a Libertarian who knows fuck all about Communism but still criticises it with either incorrect statements or strawman arguments while failing to notice the huge flaws in your own ideology.

Well, why do you think I am here? I am here to learn more!

I constantly read literature and try to interact with as many ideologies as possible. I find it fulfilling for my mind.

I have read from Ayn Rand to Marx to fascist literature. My next goal is anarchist literature which I haven't touched yet.

[Nox]

I have read from Ayn Rand to Marx to fascist literature. My next goal is anarchist literature which I haven't touched yet.

That's bullshit, it's so obvious that you've never read any of Marx's works, or any book on Communism for that matter.

[Belleraphone]

Can you guys be a little more polite to the OP? He has a different opinion and is questioning a rule, you don't have to insult and belittle him. I actually think it's a legitiment question, I've been allowed to post my views on the SF forums before and they didn't stop me, we should return the courtesy.

[Arathian]

That's bullshit, it's so obvious that you've never read any of Marx's works, or any book on Communism for that matter.

If you think so :mellow:

[Nox]

If you think so :mellow:

If you'd read any of Marx's works, you wouldn't be pro-Capitalist.

Also, if you'd ever read any of Marx's works, you'd actually know what Communism is.

[Tim Cornelis]

I am familiar with what state capitalism is. It is, and correct me if I am wrong, when the government and big business are so interwoven that are, essentially, one.

Correct and wrong, that's corporatism. State capitalism is often used as synonym for corporatism, but when anarchists or Marxist speak of state capitalism we use it in the context of: the capitalist mode of production concentrated in the hands of the state. The term was popularised somewhere around the 1920s.

The capitalist mode of production is:

1) Monopolisation of the means of production
2) Commodity production
3) Wage labour

The capitalist mode of production as Marx described in his critique of political economy exclusively referred to private capitalism, but the development of state capitalism was after Marx' death. The three primary characteristics of the capitalist mode of production continues in North Korea except exclusive ownership of the productive resources is in the hands of the state rather than private individuals. But the mode of production is the same, that's why we call it state capitalism.

[Arathian]

If you'd read any of Marx's works, you wouldn't be pro-Capitalist.

Also, if you'd ever read any of Marx's works, you'd actually know what Communism is.

I am fairly familiar with Marx's vision of communism.

Thing is, while I do believe it is a good dream, my biggest problem with it is that it can never happen and I am not willing to sacrifice another 100.000.000 lives trying, even if it had a fair chance of succeeding.

[WorkingClassGirl]

Why fascists shouldn't be here:
1.If you want to debate with comrades to recognize sth. it is not helpful to let fascists, liberals, royalists etc. debate. Because you have to get the shit out of their heads before you can learn sth. from them. It is not useful. Example: This debate.
2. German laws
3. Fascists are annoying.

Difference of Leninism and fascism:
Nazis critizise the people in the name of the state/nation(unions/commies/capitalists are egoists, migrants are not trustworthy, handicapped cant work, etc.) and they criticize the state in the name of the people (democratic parties divide the nation, cant decide, are weak, the state is not imperialistic enough etc.).
Consequence: Holocaust/Shoa, war, no unemployment and a Duce/Führer etc.

Whereas leninists critizise the state in the name of the "rights" of the working class, and they critizise the capitalists in the name of the material interest of the working class(they think it is unfair that wage is not the value of the stuff you make). At least the ones I know.
Consequence: The state owns the means of production and tries to accumulate capital....and loses against the imperialism.

The reactions to my post will show you that "communists" have to discuss enough with each other.

[Nox]

Thing is, while I do believe it is a good dream, my biggest problem with it is that it can never happen and I am not willing to sacrifice another 100.000.000 lives trying, even if it had a fair chance of succeeding.

Oh dear.

Just when I started to think you knew a thing or two about history...

[Sasha]

In answer to the o.p:

1. No platform
2. The owner of this board is german and as such liable for prosecution under the very stringent german anti-fascist publications and propaganda laws.

Thread closed.

[Arathian]

Correct and wrong, that's corporatism. State capitalism is often used as synonym for corporatism, but when anarchists or Marxist speak of state capitalism we use it in the context of: the capitalist mode of production concentrated in the hands of the state. The term was popularised somewhere around the 1920s.

Quite interesting indeed, and sounds fairly logical too.


The capitalist mode of production is:

1) Monopolisation of the means of production
2) Commodity production
3) Wage labour


but here you needs some capitalist economics 101. Monopoly structures are considered a FAILURE of capitalism, not the norm. The whole economic debate between capitalists is how to enforce competition and prevent monopolies from forming. From there do most of the other arguments stem.

I know that Marx believes that, in the end, all the capital will go to a single individual but capitalism is going on 300 years now and nothing of that sorts has happened yet.

In any case, I am off for tonight. Running really late here. Thanks for the convo all.

[Arathian]

Oh dear.

Just when I started to think you knew a thing or two about history...

if the thing that killed these millions was communist or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant was that it stemmed from communist roots and would not otherwise exist.



In answer to the o.p:

1. No platform
2. The owner of this board is german and as such liable for prosecution under the very stringent german anti-fascist publications and propaganda laws.

Thread closed.

oh come on mr mod, don't lock it. We were having a good conversation here.

[Tim Cornelis]

but here you needs some capitalist economics 101. Monopoly structures are considered a FAILURE of capitalism, not the norm. The whole economic debate between capitalists is how to enforce competition and prevent monopolies from forming. From there do most of the other arguments stem.

Monopolisation is not a synonym for monopoly, it is "domination (of a market or commodity) to the exclusion of others". The monopolisation of the means of production thus means they are the exclusive property of someone, and in the case of private capitalism a privileged (because they have the financial means and intelligence) minority.

EDIT: you can also look up more on the Marxist analysis of capitalism here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/01.htm, it's very easy to understand (though not completely accurate).

[kapitalyst]

I love how some people are claiming the USSR was so "free"... as if you could live and work where you chose, lol. They didn't even have the decency to let you choose your bunk in the gulags, or when you got "purged". :rolleyes:

And how anyone -- anyone -- can call themselves a Stalinist and pretend to be sane is beyond me. You may as well be a "Hitlerist". Stalin was every bit, if not more, evil and brutal. There's nothing more noble about murdering people for ideological reasons than racism. Murder = murder...

In the lovely regime of Stalin, do you know what happened if you were an aircraft pilot and your plane malfunctioned or broke down? You'd be given a mock trial and executed as a "saboteur". You know what happened if you uttered the slightest anti-government remark? You were shot as a "spy". You know what happened if you were in combat and you moved backward -- maybe to dodge a shell or enemy fire? You were shot as a "coward" -- the policy was "not one step backwards". You know what happened if you and your buddies failed to accomplish a task/objective? The officer drew his pistol and shot every tenth man to show his displeasure and "provide strong discipline". I don't think Jews (especially Jewish doctors) fared much better. Nor did the women of Berlin... :rolleyes:

I see more reason to ban Stalinists than generic fascists...

[Tim Cornelis]

I love how some people are claiming the USSR was so "free"... as if you could live and work where you chose, lol. They didn't even have the decency to let you choose your bunk in the gulags, or when you got "purged". :rolleyes:

And how anyone -- anyone -- can call themselves a Stalinist and pretend to be sane is beyond me. You may as well be a "Hitlerist". Stalin was every bit, if not more, evil and brutal. There's nothing more noble about murdering people for ideological reasons than racism. Murder = murder...

In the lovely regime of Stalin, do you know what happened if you were an aircraft pilot and your plane malfunctioned or broke down? You'd be given a mock trial and executed as a "saboteur". You know what happened if you uttered the slightest anti-government remark? You were shot as a "spy". You know what happened if you were in combat and you moved backward -- maybe to dodge a shell or enemy fire? You were shot as a "coward" -- the policy was "not one step backwards". You know what happened if you and your buddies failed to accomplish a task/objective? The officer drew his pistol and shot every tenth man to show his displeasure and "provide strong discipline". I don't think Jews (especially Jewish doctors) fared much better. Nor did the women of Berlin... :rolleyes:

I see more reason to ban Stalinists than generic fascists...

Firstly, who(m?) exactly are you talking about?

Secondly, you should separate the people and their practice from the theory. If I argued the USSR was the ideal society your criticism would be valid. But "Stalinism" does not necessarily mean you agree with the actions of Stalin but rather with his theories of socialism. People who call themselves Stalinist do so because they agree with his theories.

For example, if someone calls himself an Objectivist it is no more a valid criticism that he must therefore advocate social security since Ayn Rand used it as arguing a Stalinist is evil because of Stalin's actions.

Let's say Murray Rothbard turns out to be a serial killer who killed communists, would it be a fair criticism to say that therefore everyone who calls himself an "anarcho-capitalist" endorses such crimes?

Of course, some Stalinists are apologists for atrocities perpetrated by Stalin.

---------------------------

if the thing that killed these millions was communist or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant was that it stemmed from communist roots and would not otherwise exist.

So even though those regimes were not communist it does reflect the failure of communism since it had communist aspirations and roots? Okay, but then the same would go for capitalist regimes:

US occupation of the Philippines between 1899 and 1902: 1,000,000 civilians killed.
Bengali famine induced by the British who cut all food supplies: 3,000,000 civilians killed.
Murders by right-wing governments: 40,000 civilians killed.
Indonesian anti-communist purge: between 500,000 and 1,000,000 civilians killed.
Allied bombings of civilians WW2: 1,000,000 civilians killed.
US atomic tests: 15,000 American civilians killed by cancer.
Vietnam war: 500,000 civilians killed due to American imperialism.
Congo Free State: 8,000,000 civilians killed.

[The Stalinator]

...alright. Not a lot of people seem to be answering OP's question clearly so I'll go ahead and say it.

Capitalists are usually willing to debate their knowledge with communists. They might not listen, but they try and back up their arguments.

The average fascist will simply run in and go "ASDLFJADSLFJDSA RACIAL PURITY ALSDFKLADSK YOU'RE ALL RACE TRAITORS ASDLFKDSAFLKD FUCKING HIPPIES ASDLFKLKSAD I HATE YOU ALL ASDFJASDKFLSAJF I WANT TO HANG YOU ADSFJSKDALFJ DIE TRAITOR SCUM DIE"

and that's why we don't let them into the OI.

[Veovis]

Fascism is the most reactionary version of capitalism. It's basically capitalism in "panic mode."

The left wants to work towards a classless society, while fascists want to cement class stratification into place.

The left wants a stateless system (whether an intermediate step is necessary depends on who you ask), while fascists want to shape society so that it glorifies the state. Mussolini said something like "Nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

[RichardAWilson]

Here we go:

Class Collaboration: Fascism is a form of "Third Way" which resembles a hybrid of liberal reform (I.e. Pensions and health insurance) and Corporatism (I.e. State domination of the labor unions, a decline in inflation-adjusted wages and incomes, consolidation of companies and ventures into fewer and fewer centralized upper-class hands - such as turning Jewish enterprises over to Germany's super-rich industrialists).

This is a big difference from Social-Democrats and Democratic Socialists who, while being reform-minded, are opposed to corporate monopolization, oppressing the trade unions and depressing wages and personal income.

Fascism is Opposed to Socialism: Who did Hitler have imprisoned before the Jews? Answer: Communists, Socialists and Unionists.

Nationalism: Even reform-minded Social-Democrats, such as those in Western-Europe, are internationalists. Social-Democrats are opposed to Militarism and Imperialism. Fascism, on the other hand, is based on extreme nationalism and hatred of "foreigners."

Cultural Intolerance, Hatred and Social Conservatism: Enough said on this one.

[RichardAWilson]

P.S. Quoting a Wiki Page shows you haven't read Marx's writings.

The Wiki you cited is inaccurate. If you had read Marx's writings, you'd know that it was inaccurate.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm hoping you are here to learn more. Nonetheless, before you can learn, you need to realize how very little you truly know.

Marx believed the Paris Commune to be an exemplification of Socialism.

The State serves to collect a portion of the proceeds for administrative purposes (I.e. the Police, Fire Protection, Education, Etc.).

However, the means of production and distribution (along with the rights to control those means) are vested in the hands of the workingman.

[Le Socialiste]

OP, I want to know what specific works/books you read that had to do with communism. I'm not saying you haven't, I'd just like to know.

[DinodudeEpic]

The question should not be 'Why not Fascists?'

Rather it should be 'Why ban only Fascists? And let reactionary monarchists run around free?'

While Fascism is an authoritarian ideology that wants national domination over the people (Like 'Stalinism'), it actually is more syncretic. (Nazis are not actually fascists, although they did take quite a bit of their features from fascists.)

A Fascist can be someone who is not racist. (Integralist movement, and Italian Fascism before Mussolini sucked up to Hitler.) It also can be racist like Falangist Spain and Italian Fascism during WW2. (Which actually took up many Carlist characteristics.) There's also Sorel and the National Syndicalists. Gaddafi, the Baath Party, and the SSNP are also pretty much fascist in their characteristics.

The true far-right wingers are reactionaries. Nazis, Theocrats, and Monarchists are good examples of far-right wing ideologies. (Ironically, they actually hate free markets, wanting to replace them with feudalistic systems.) What about monarchists today? Well, the Taliban are a good example. (The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) There's also the Saudi Arabian monarchy, which is actually pretty totalitarian. (The government controls EVERY aspect of your life, even the simplest and most basic of things.) Another recent example of reactionary monarchism is the Japanese Empire, which wasn't fascist but something more worse.

So, having only fascists being banned is pretty stupid. Reactionaries are then mostly immune due to not being fascists, unless they post racist comments.

(Note that I'm using the true meaning of the word Reactionary. Referring to the far-right wing.)

[Yugo45]

fun fact: the elections continued until the dissolving of the USSR, it was just that you could only elect the communist party ;)

or, to put it simply in the words of others


"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

~Joseph Stalin

So pretty much like in a capitalist society? Though, in America, for example, you can choose from a whooping selection of two parties, which both are pretty much the same, though one party prefers blue colour, and the other red.

DEMOCRACY WOO HOO! CAPITALISM YEAAAAAAAAH!!!

[∞]

http://very-bored.com/pics2/cuteanimals/cute-animals-13.JPG

You win.

[Agent Equality]

I love how some people are claiming the USSR was so "free"... as if you could live and work where you chose, lol. They didn't even have the decency to let you choose your bunk in the gulags, or when you got "purged". :rolleyes:

And how anyone -- anyone -- can call themselves a Stalinist and pretend to be sane is beyond me. You may as well be a "Hitlerist". Stalin was every bit, if not more, evil and brutal. There's nothing more noble about murdering people for ideological reasons than racism. Murder = murder...

In the lovely regime of Stalin, do you know what happened if you were an aircraft pilot and your plane malfunctioned or broke down? You'd be given a mock trial and executed as a "saboteur". You know what happened if you uttered the slightest anti-government remark? You were shot as a "spy". You know what happened if you were in combat and you moved backward -- maybe to dodge a shell or enemy fire? You were shot as a "coward" -- the policy was "not one step backwards". You know what happened if you and your buddies failed to accomplish a task/objective? The officer drew his pistol and shot every tenth man to show his displeasure and "provide strong discipline". I don't think Jews (especially Jewish doctors) fared much better. Nor did the women of Berlin... :rolleyes:

I see more reason to ban Stalinists than generic fascists...

Well you do know that a lot of people here would agree with you that stalinists as well as fascists should be banned right? While your last sentence is utterly ridiculous I can definately see your reasoning behind it and I would almost be inclined to agree. But fascists are every bit as bad as stalinists. I'd say ban both in equal measure. I am after all, an extreme advocate for equality :D

However, there are a few mods and far too many members that fall under the stalinist category (sadly :( ) thus it would be near impossible to ban them all or even any of them. Its sad really.

[GatesofLenin]

You forgot one tiny detail:

in the capitalist system, you are FREE to CHOOSE where to work and you can LEAVE at any time.
Wow, I didn't know that. First thing Monday morning, I'm off to go see Trump and tell him I work there now as his new chief technology officer. Thanks for the tip. :mellow::unsure:

[#FF0000]

I see more reason to ban Stalinists than generic fascists...

"Stalinists" don't see the USSR as some great thing. They recognize the place's problems but they have other reasons related more to theory for towing the Marxist-Leninist line.

[∞]

Revleft, Y U KNOW ALLOW MURDEROUS PSYCHOPATHS TO POST!?

[Nox]

if the thing that killed these millions was communist or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant was that it stemmed from communist roots and would not otherwise exist.What about the hundreds of millions if not billions throughout history and even today who die and continue dying in the capitalist system?If we go just by death toll, a Stalinist regime is way better than a Capitalist regime. Heck, even a Nazi regime is better than a Capitalist regime.

[hatzel]

So this thread is still going, then?

[Искра]

skinheads
:rolleyes:

Be a good boy and do you homework, before you write something stupid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead

Skinhead's are not Nazi's. There's even skinhead group on revleft.

[Drosophila]

Fascism is completely contrary to communism and any other far-left ideology.

[EvilRedGuy]

We already have tons of fascists here. Feel free to join them, they're as crazy as you.

Stalinists
Leninists
Those who believe in marriage and attacks molygamy(or whatever the fuck its called)
Those who advocate labour camps and killing pedophiles.
Etc.

And lets not forget.... "Gaddafi/Kim Jong/China/Putin/all those bastards" supporters.

[Thirsty Crow]

2. The server is hosted in Germany IIRC and nazi/fascist stuff can be complicated due to some laws they got there.
Basically, there are two reasons for the policy aimed at fascists. One of them is this one.

The other has nothing to do with them being impossible to reason with, as some users have argued. Instead, it's the basic political position of the revolutionary left which can be summed up as no platform for fascists.

This means that revolutionary leftists shouldn't afford them the possibility to put forward their positions, especially here at a discussion board run by and used by revolutionary socialists.


We already have tons of fascists here. Feel free to join them, they're as crazy as you.

Stalinists
Leninists
Those who believe in marriage and attacks molygamy(or whatever the fuck its called)
Those who advocate labour camps and killing pedophiles.
Etc.

And lets not forget.... "Gaddafi/Kim Jong/China/Putin/all those bastards" supporters.
You don't know what fascism is, do you?

[molotovcocktail]

He (Marx) stated that in a proletarian-run society, the state should control the "proceeds of labour" (i.e. all the food and products produced), and take from them that which was "an economic necessity", namely enough to replace "the means of production used up", an "additional portion for expansion of production" and "insurance funds" to be used in emergencies such as natural disasters. Furthermore, he believed that the state should then take enough to cover administrative costs, funds for the running of public services, and funds for those who were physically incapable of working."

You should not try to school Marxists about Marx. It is a bad idea.


Yes it is, I suggest you look at who should own everything during the dictatorship of the proletariat
I think you are mixing totalitarian communism and socialism in general.


yeah...no. They were a (failed) dictatorship of the proletariat.
Dictatorship of the proletariat are not communism, communism is a proletariat democracy. It is a seriously big difference.

[Anarchrusty]

If you'd read any of Marx's works, you wouldn't be pro-Capitalist.



If you'd read any of the holy books, you wouldn't be pro-atheism.



Stupid arguments are stupid.

[molotovcocktail]

Yet this specific rule strikes me as weird. Why ban specifically fascists? In all honesty, their ideology is much closer to socialism than, say, mine.
You are forgetting that social-fascism is not the only type of fascism, Pinochet was a fascist, and a capitalist. Chile had almost no regulations on the economy. In addition are most modern fascists economically rightists.
Most of the users on Revleft are anarchists, and anarchism are the opposite of fascism.

[Nox]

We already have tons of fascists here. Feel free to join them, they're as crazy as you.

Stalinists
Leninists
Those who believe in marriage and attacks molygamy(or whatever the fuck its called)
Those who advocate labour camps and killing pedophiles.
Etc.

And lets not forget.... "Gaddafi/Kim Jong/China/Putin/all those bastards" supporters.

...


If you'd read any of the holy books, you wouldn't be pro-atheism.



Stupid arguments are stupid.

I see what you're trying to do there, but sadly Marx's works cannot be grouped with Holy Books seeing as Holy Books are a load of nonsense whereas Marx's works uses logic to rip apart the idea of Capitalism being a good thing.

Also, this is from personal experience. Every single person I know who has read any Communist works has become a Communist. I certainly can't say the same for people who have read Holy Books, I read the Bible when I was younger and thought "what a load of shit".

[Joseph S.]

Probably because fascists are nationalist, militaristic, totalitarian, focus on severe economic and social restrictions and are generally fanatical and can't be reasoned with.

Capitalists can at least be (for the most part) reasoned with and intelligent debate can take place.
Now you'r just being ignorant.
Remember the book written by Sun Tzu caled the art of war???
Chapter 35: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT
from the same book
You must choose your battle wisely

[hatzel]

I see what you're trying to do there, but sadly Marx's works cannot be grouped with Holy Books seeing as Holy Books are a load of nonsense whereas Marx's works uses logic to rip apart the idea of Capitalism being a good thing.

So what? I've read Marx but for some reason I'm not a Marxist...matey isn't that convincing, it's not obligatory to agree with him...


Also, this is from personal experience. Every single person I know who has read any Communist works has become a Communist.Clearly you don't know the right people...or should I say the wrong people...or perhaps just enough people...but I can assure you that plenty have read commie literature without becoming commies...

[Nox]

So what? I've read Marx but for some reason I'm not a Marxist...matey isn't that convincing, it's not obligatory to agree with him...

Clearly you don't know the right people...or should I say the wrong people...or perhaps just enough people...but I can assure you that plenty have read commie literature without becoming commies...

My statement may have been very judgemental and over-the-top, but you have to agree that many people who read Communist works end up being Communists.

I have never, ever seen a non-communist in my entire life who has read any Communist works.

[Le Socialiste]

Congratulations OP, it only took you six pages to get the people on this site to round on each other. Seriously guys, debate this OT stuff elsewhere.

As for the OP, why should we give fascists a platform on here? They sure as hell don't deserve one...

Edit: And I'm still waiting to hear which books you've read that pertain to communist theory and practice.

[Kamos]

ATTN: Trolls, you succeeded.

[Catmatic Leftist]

ATTN: Trolls, you succeeded.

This guy is totally bloated from the 3-course feast we gave him.

[#FF0000]

You guys are really bad at this.

First of all, you only post animals at someone who is overtly fascist/racist. E.g. those 4chan nerds who were trying really, really hard to science, posting some ol' dumbness about skull sizes.

This is how you don't get trolled.

1) You answer questions calmly and don't get mad like dumb babies.
2) you don't go LOL TROLL and spam aminals unless they are out and out fascists or racists. AND EVEN THEN YOU DON'T GET MAD.

IT'S THE INTERNET.

IN 2011.

FASCISTS.

DON'T.

MATTER.

THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

CHILL.

[JFB.anon]

Probably because fascists are nationalist, militaristic, totalitarian, focus on severe economic... restrictions and are generally fanatical and can't be reasoned with.

Capitalists can at least be (for the most part) reasoned with and intelligent debate can take place.

Totalitarian is a pretty broad word, you could say trying to abolish racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism, etc. is totalitarian.

And militarism can be a good thing and a bad thing. (I used to like Neocons, though; I now despise them with a passion.)

And "economic freedom" is bullshit freedom, to be honest.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Are Nazis the same as Fascists ?

[Seth]

Totalitarian is a pretty broad word, you could say trying to abolish racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism, etc. is totalitarian.

And a lot of libertarians try to do just that.

For the OP, we probably shouldn't ban fascists, as fascism is just a form of third positionism. We actually don't ban fascists per se, we ban racists, both fascist and non-fascist. So when someone shows up and says "I'm a fascist, but I'm not racist" they get banned anyway. It's just that scuds of people on the left use "fascist" as a blanket term for non-libertarian far-right politics (and some libertarian politics as well).

[Seth]

Are Nazis the same as Fascists ?

National Socialists were/(are?*) a type of fascist.

*Neo-nazis are not always like the old nazis. As in there's no norm for their position on economics. The NSDAP was third position, and thus fascist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Are Nazis the same as Fascists ?

Nazism is a form of Fascism. So, if someone is a Nazi, they are also a fascist. However, if someone is a fascist, they aren't necessarily a Nazi.

[Yuppie Grinder]

This guy is obviously not a troll or a fascist. Trolls and fascists have no place on this website, but some curious guy who wants to ask some questions is perfectly fine even if he subscribes to a rightist political philosophy.