You are, in fact, fascists

[Farrellesque]

Having had plenty of discussions with people on the far-left side of the political spectrum, it has become clear to me that a lot of you would fall under the category of "fascists". First the (a) definition such as it stands;

:"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Not much doubt that pretty much all communist nations in history falls under this category. However, the point that I would like to make is this; The supression of free speech is one of the fundemental tenents of fascism and of course this relates to the "forcible suppression of opposition" from the definition above.

Let's face it. Most of you are not interested in freedom of speech or expression. You will often advocate the use of violence to suppress one of the most important concepts in a democratic society.

I imagine you will say that freedom of speech does not cover "hate speech".
Several problem with that argument. First of all, what constitutes hate speech is highly subjective. It becomes a reliable tool in your favor, you call something hate speech and thus claim that you have the right to suppress that hate speech. If I said, "muslim immigrants commit disproportionately large amounts of crime in my country", would that be hate speech? I consider those facts, no more, no less. There is certainly a tendency in far-left circle to label any criticism of minorities as hate speech. This does nothing to help a constructive debate.

Anyone agree/disagree with the things that I have pointed out here?

(if the thread gets locked and I get banned, it will be the highest point of irony ever :D )

[MrDoom]

Noone really cares about freedom of speech when it comes to things that are important to them, no matter where they are in the political spectrum. The entire "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" nonsense breaks down at some critical point.

Communists do not pretend to be for 'free speech' of fascists, capitalists, reactionaries, and primitivists. The Enemies of the Proletariat deserve no outlets. The ones that forcefully resist get thrown into a camp.

[Ander]

Unfortunately for you Farrellesque, you are wrong.

First of all, you conveniently skipped over one of the more prominent pillars of fascism when you said:


that exalts nation and often race above the individual

Considering that leftists don't believe in countries or borders, I don't see how we could possibly exalt nations above the individual. I'm not even going to address racism because it is quite clear we reject any form of discriminatory bullshit.


that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader

You may believe this if you are in fact a heavily brainwashed moron who thinks that all communists bow down to Stalin and the various "communist personality cults" of the world. We don't want centralization, we don't want autocracy, and we don't want dictators. We get enough of that shit as it is already.

The only dictatorship we want is one ruled by the people.


severe economic and social regimentation

We don't want economic freedom for rich capitalists to oppress others, we want true economic liberation! We want the workers and the poor to make their own decisions, to live their own lives without having to serve their rich masters.

We may not want free markets or free trade, but we want free people.

Social regimentation? Are you kidding me? We want to abolish the already rigid social structure. We want to tear down the barriers of boredom and conformity and we want true liberty.


forcible suppression of opposition

Unfortunately, a significant amount of people on these boards take an attitude that we must "suppress the mouth of the enemy" or whatever, which I think is wrong.

The enemy can have its turn to speak because if it didn't, that would not be freedom. I don't give a shit if Nazi's have their radio broadcasts and their propaganda. The funny bit is that if you look at the rallies both sides have, there always seem to be way more of us than there are of them.

However, in a post-revolutionary society I would not be surprised to hear that the community deals with these hate-spewing fucks in whatever way they think is right.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:29 pm
Having had plenty of discussions with people on the far-left side of the political spectrum, it has become clear to me that a lot of you would fall under the category of "fascists". First the (a) definition such as it stands;

:"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Not much doubt that pretty much all communist nations in history falls under this category. However, the point that I would like to make is this; The supression of free speech is one of the fundemental tenents of fascism and of course this relates to the "forcible suppression of opposition" from the definition above.

Let's face it. Most of you are not interested in freedom of speech or expression. You will often advocate the use of violence to suppress one of the most important concepts in a democratic society.

I imagine you will say that freedom of speech does not cover "hate speech".
Several problem with that argument. First of all, what constitutes hate speech is highly subjective. It becomes a reliable tool in your favor, you call something hate speech and thus claim that you have the right to suppress that hate speech. If I said, "muslim immigrants commit disproportionately large amounts of crime in my country", would that be hate speech? I consider those facts, no more, no less. There is certainly a tendency in far-left circle to label any criticism of minorities as hate speech. This does nothing to help a constructive debate.

Anyone agree/disagree with the things that I have pointed out here?

(if the thread gets locked and I get banned, it will be the highest point of irony ever :D )
What the fuck? Why do people still confuse state capitalisme with communism!? Even socialism does not equal communism.
No wonder some people start to get pissed whenever someone like you post stuff like this on the boards. There are 10.000 members and each year hundreds of people start threads that mix things up. Intended or not it's just frustrating. Read a book!

[manic expression]

First of all, I hold that freedom of speech doesn't exist, since "rights" do not exist outside of society's definition. Society defines what is a "right" and what isn't, so we can redefine them just as easily.

On "fascim" being exclusively about lack of "freedom", you're simply clueless. Capitalist systems suppress opposition routinely, and history has shown that this is an inherent part of bourgeois rule. When the workers gain momentum and try to make changes, they are met with sever repression from the ruling class, that is just the way it works. "Freedom of speech" is just something that capitalists pretend to honor, while throwing people in prison for speaking against them.

Since the state is a product of class conflict, a bourgeois state will repress its opposition while a worker state will repress its own opposition.

Your post drips of pure naivete. You assert than any repression equals "fascism", which is patently laughable. Fascism is the solidification of stratified society by reactionary forces. When leftists take power, the opposition inevitably tries to overthrow their achievements and reinstitute bourgeois rule and capitalism. Therefore, it is oftentimes a necessity to repress these counterrevolutionary forces. The only common theme there is a method (of repression), which is shared by ALL SYSTEMS.

Your post is also awash with liberal idealism. In the REAL WORLD, when the workers take power, there is an unending amount of challenges to the revolution. Trying to be tolerant and open minded gets you nowhere but failure fast. It's fun for the bourgeoisie and their lap dogs to tell themselves that they're tolerant when their rule is unopposed, but open up a history book and read a few things about what happens to revolutionary movements when they get too strong.

Oh, and this is an internet site which is for leftists. Every political forum that wants to maintain a certain view will restrict people who are not in agreement. Get over yourself.

(if you actually believe the crap you just spewed, it will be the highest point of stupidity ever :D )

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Outrageous Equating of Nazism with Communism (http://rwor.org/a/011/outrageous-equating-nazism-communism.htm)


The Outrageous Equating of Communism with Nazism
Revolution #011, August 14, 2005, posted at revcom.us

The following article was written by a member of the Set the Record Straight project.

One of the lies about communism that has been repeated over and over again is the equating of the Soviet Union under Stalin with Hitler’s Germany. The comparison rules socialism utterly out of order, paints it as a nightmare, rules it off the agenda.and is a total lie!

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—Opposite Societies
Nazism or German fascism was a form of capitalist rule marked by extreme repression and open terror against the masses and the abandonment of bourgeois parliamentary and electoral mechanisms. Ideologically, Nazism based itself on the defense of private-capitalist property, the idea of German/Aryan racial superiority, hatred of Jews (anti- Semitism), and anti-communism.

The German economy as it was reorganized under the Nazis remained capitalist through and through: it was based on exploitation and capitalist expansion, and the leading industrial-financial capitalist groups retained their economic control and holdings.

When the Soviet Union was socialist, from 1917 to 1956, its economy was based on socialist public ownership. Relations of exploitation had been overthrown and no longer dominated (although they were not completely eliminated). The economy was structured to meet the needs of the people.

When the Nazis came to power in Germany, they went about “restructuring” and “purifying” German society: imprisoning and murdering communists, gypsies, homosexuals, “half-breeds,” drug addicts, and other sections of society that the Nazis deemed to be biological and moral “pollutants.” Ultimately, the Nazi program led to the mass murder of millions of Jews and other people.

By contrast, in the Soviet Union, a pillar of the Bolshevik program was putting an end to national oppression and establishing equality of national languages and national cultures. With respect to the Jewish people, the revolution in power immediately took strong measures to combat and uproot anti-Semitism. Before the Bolshevik Revolution, Jews were subject to constant pogroms—mob massacres by peasants who were told absurd lies about the Jews. This was overthrown in the socialist revolution, and the confinement of Jews to certain geographic areas and discrimination in employment were ended.

The Nazi party rallied German society around an ultra-nationalist program of preservation of German blood and soil and the vanquishing of a fabricated Judeo-communist “conspiracy” to control the world. The Nazi ideology of irrational hatred of certain peoples and racist superiority was rooted in the economic system of capitalism—a system of horrific human suffering even in “peaceful times.” The Nazi mind-set aggressively disdained critical, rational, and scientific thought (very much like the Christian fascists in the U.S. today). The model “Good German” was unthinking, obedient, and blindly followed authority.

Communism is founded on a scientific outlook that enables people to understand the world and society in their motion and development. Communism is founded on an internationalist world-view of achieving a classless world free of oppression and exploitation. And a defining feature of socialist society is that the masses of people are mobilized to consciously transform economic, political, and social relations and institutions in the direction of classless society and to revolutionize traditional ideas and values that reflect and reinforce class distinctions.

Collectivization of Agriculture
In the Soviet Union, the means of production, which had been seized by the revolution, were placed in the service of society (instead of serving exploitation). And, in the countryside, an unprecedented revolution took place. The formerly isolated, suppressed, and impoverished peasants were led by the Communist Party to rise up, cast off millennia of enslavement and mind-numbing tradition, and overthrow cruel and vicious exploitation and oppression. This process was especially dramatic for women, who made huge strides towards equality after being treated like animals.

Were harsh measures carried out by the proletarian state in the Soviet Union against some sectors of the population? Yes, but the dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing in common with the Nazi program, the Nazi outlook, or Nazi methods. For example, many anti-Communist ideologues and historians allege that the collectivization carried out in the Soviet countryside in the late 1920s and early 1930s was a savage campaign of expropriation and murder. In fact this collectivization was a drive to develop a new system of agricultural production based on collective ownership, and it ignited a genuine upheaval against centuries- old authority, tradition, and oppression in the countryside.

The kulaks, the rich peasants who employed hired laborers, were a focus and target of this struggle. But this had nothing to do with their ethnicity. It had to do with their class position, that is, with the economic power and influence the kulaks exerted in the countryside. It had to do with the fact that they were working to undermine efforts to carry forward collectivization and strengthen the new socialist economy—the kulaks had hoarded grain, profiteered in rural markets, destroyed livestock, and organized sections of peasants against the regime. In this period when many peasants were starving, the kulaks were stripped of their private economic holdings, which were turned into the social property of the collectives. Many of the kulaks were punished, including being forced to leave certain areas. And sometimes this was done unfairly. But the kulaks were not made the object of genocide.

The Soviet approach to collectivization and the way the class struggle was waged in the countryside were not without problems. And Mao had big criticisms of the approach taken. There were serious excesses, including the fact that force was used in situations where persuasion should have been relied on. But this was within the context of a real struggle between revolution in the interests of the masses and counterrevolution.

World War 2
The German ruling class, under Nazi leadership, went to war with the Western powers as part of a struggle among the imperial powers for global supremacy. France, England, and the U.S. were all seeking to preserve and extend capitalist empire. The Nazis attacked the socialist Soviet Union in order to crush a socialist (anti-capitalist) revolution that was an inspiration to the world’s oppressed and to gain control over a huge, strategically situated land mass, rich in resources.

In the studies that equate communism and Nazism it is also conveniently forgotten that the turning point of World War 2 was the defeat of the Nazi army by the Soviet Union under Stalin. During World War 2, more than 20 million Soviet citizens sacrificed their lives (with millions of communists among them). And Stalin led the Soviet people to defend their revolution against the Nazi-imperialist onslaught.

Setting the Record Straight—And Looking to the Future
Reactionaries who promote wild distortions to equate the socialist Soviet Union (until capitalism was restored after the death of Stalin) with Nazi Germany do so with an agenda that capitalism represents the end of history, and that exploitation and oppression are the highest that humanity can aspire to. Progressive people who uncritically repeat the equation of Nazism and communism should, instead, find out the true story, and ponder how they are objectively joining with open reactionaries in defending this system and ruling “out of order” any real and radical alternative to capitalism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:29 pm
Having had plenty of discussions with people on the far-left side of the political spectrum, it has become clear to me that a lot of you would fall under the category of "fascists".
Sorry, your conclusion is wrong. Try again.


First the (a) definition such as it stands;

:"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual And here we stumble upon the first in the litany of flaws in your reasoning, as another member has kindly pointed out this is bollocks as leftisim is an internationalist movement and thus does not really exalt nation above anything. As for "race"...*hawk, spit*.
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government No. It stands for a STATELESS, CLASSLESS SOCIETY. Now I don't know about you but I would say that a centralised, autocratic government does not really fulfil the prerequisites of a stateless society.
headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" Dictatorial leader? Unless you got confused by the term dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an idea espoused by a large section of the leftist movement but does not posit an actual, single dictator but instead refers to a society which acts in the interest of the proletariat and has a democratic government made up of proletarians.
Severe economic and social regimentation? Well it is true that leftists advocate a planned economy, if that is what you are eluding to? Otherwise I'm to a loss as to what "economic regimentation" is. As for social regimentation I'm afraid that is simply a slur used by the more dishonest propaganda pedallers of the ruling class.
Forcible suppression of opposition? Every system does this to an extent, it's the way that system remains. When all the class enemies are gone however there is no reason to 'suppress' criticisms.


Not much doubt that pretty much all communist nations in history falls under this category. "Communist Nation" is an oxymoron, like dry water. However, the point that I would like to make is this;
The supression of free speech is one of the fundemental tenents of fascism and of course this relates to the "forcible suppression of opposition" from the definition above. Name one system that doesn't supress "free speech" - it is impossible to have total free speech so to say that "suppressing" it is the sole domain of fascism is ridiculous. Then again you were probably aware of this but hoped that we were all too stupid.


Let's face it. Most of you are not interested in freedom of speech or expression. You will often advocate the use of violence to suppress one of the most important concepts in a democratic society. We advocate using it a lot less than most right-wingers do.


I imagine you will say that freedom of speech does not cover "hate speech".
Several problem with that argument. First of all, what constitutes hate speech is highly subjective. Hate speech: "Advocating harm to or spreading slander about a group or individual". Not that subjective really.
It becomes a reliable tool in your favor, you call something hate speech and thus claim that you have the right to suppress that hate speech. If I said, "muslim immigrants commit disproportionately large amounts of crime in my country", would that be hate speech? Not really. It's an unimaginably stupid thing to say and is itself riddled with subjective language; for example 'disproportionately' - could you please define what this is in relation to crimes?
I consider those facts, I consider you a brain dead berk.
no more, no less. There is certainly a tendency in far-left circle to label any criticism of minorities as hate speech. This does nothing to help a constructive debate. You do realise that "criticising" minorities is a bloody stupid thing to do, right? A minority group acts independently just like any other group made up of individuals, most minority groups - as people like you tend to define them anyway - do not even have a universally similar memetic make up and thus are not even pre-disposed to acting in a similar fashion.


Anyone agree/disagree with the things that I have pointed out here? I disagree and furthermore I think you're a **** that is doing the world a great disservice every time you draw breath.


(if the thread gets locked and I get banned, it will be the highest point of irony ever :D ) Not really, you haven't made much of a meaningful contribution to the board and are just a troll.

[apathy maybe]

Nice troll. It isn't like we haven't heard it before though. Try and be original next time OK?

I'm actually amazed people bothered to respond, but hey.

Anyway, DINOSAUR GAME! [imagine a picture of a dinosaur playing vollyball]

[Publius]

Noone really cares about freedom of speech when it comes to things that are important to them, no matter where they are in the political spectrum. The entire "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" nonsense breaks down at some critical point.

Communists do not pretend to be for 'free speech' of fascists, capitalists, reactionaries, and primitivists. The Enemies of the Proletariat deserve no outlets. The ones that forcefully resist get thrown into a camp.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say shit like this?

And you wonder why you're marginalized...

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:12 pm


Noone really cares about freedom of speech when it comes to things that are important to them, no matter where they are in the political spectrum. The entire "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" nonsense breaks down at some critical point.

Communists do not pretend to be for 'free speech' of fascists, capitalists, reactionaries, and primitivists. The Enemies of the Proletariat deserve no outlets. The ones that forcefully resist get thrown into a camp.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say shit like this?

And you wonder why you're marginalized...
What's ridiculous about opposing what we oppose and not being afraid to be frank about it?

I guess someone forgot to tell you, but the fact is that EVERY system suppresses its opponents (even John Stuart Mill's philosophy does). Furthermore, we know that the path of socialism is full of obstacles and enemies, and so we know what we need to do to overcome them. Liberal idealism is fun when you're in a bourgeois democracy, but when you're trying to change the world, you need to recognize reality.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:29 am
:"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Not mentioning the fact that the Fascist system is a completely different economic system than Communism, and that Fascist want to preserve traditional society, the class system, free markets, and especially the state, your are completely and utterly wrong, and have shown pure ignorance of how the Communist government works, in that it is theoretical impossible for there to be a dictator in a Communist system, it goes against for example Soviet civics, not mentioning the fact that there is democracy on every level, people elect the representatives into the vanguard, and the vanguard elects a chairman, which contrary to popular belief isn't like a president, or a traditional state "leader."

So it is clear to me, that you are, in fact, a Dumbass.

Ps: I appreciate your links as always LeftHenry!

[Omega]

I call them like I see them and I do not think that the vast majority of people here would fit under the definition of fascists.

From what I have seen up to this point, there is a variety and a range of opinions here that makes it difficult to put everyone all in one group.

It seems that the only collectively agreed upon theme is that capitalism must go. Other than that there are differences of opinion (some differences larger than others but still differences) in agreement on political and economic policy.

After reading what has been written in response to my posts and to other posts the only collective term that I can think of as a description of the ideology here is “Leftist”.

[Publius]

What's ridiculous about opposing what we oppose and not being afraid to be frank about it?

What you said is patently absurd.



Noone really cares about freedom of speech when it comes to things that are important to them, no matter where they are in the political spectrum. The entire "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" nonsense breaks down at some critical point.

At what point does mine break down?



Communists do not pretend to be for 'free speech' of fascists, capitalists, reactionaries, and primitivists. The Enemies of the Proletariat deserve no outlets. The ones that forcefully resist get thrown into a camp.

Again, and you wonder why none takes you seriously. It's because anyone who goes around talking about 'limiting free speech' and throwing people into 'camps' is RIGHTFULLY regarded as a fucking lunatic who, in a society where speech rights were actually curtailed, would be at the head of the list to have his revoked.

Trust me, if it's going come down to restricting freedoms and sending people to camps, it won't be your side that'll be doing it, trust me.

If this is the best you can do, I'd hate to see the worst.



I guess someone forgot to tell you, but the fact is that EVERY system suppresses its opponents (even John Stuart Mill's philosophy does).

Yeah, but they do a better job of masking it.



Furthermore, we know that the path of socialism is full of obstacles and enemies, and so we know what we need to do to overcome them. Liberal idealism is fun when you're in a bourgeois democracy, but when you're trying to change the world, you need to recognize reality.

When you're trying to change the world, you need a cold shower.

And you can quote me on that.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:45 pm


Collectivization of Agriculture
In the Soviet Union, the means of production, which had been seized by the revolution, were placed in the service of society (instead of serving exploitation). And, in the countryside, an unprecedented revolution took place. The formerly isolated, suppressed, and impoverished peasants were led by the Communist Party to rise up, cast off millennia of enslavement and mind-numbing tradition, and overthrow cruel and vicious exploitation and oppression. This process was especially dramatic for women, who made huge strides towards equality after being treated like animals.

Were harsh measures carried out by the proletarian state in the Soviet Union against some sectors of the population? Yes, but the dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing in common with the Nazi program, the Nazi outlook, or Nazi methods. For example, many anti-Communist ideologues and historians allege that the collectivization carried out in the Soviet countryside in the late 1920s and early 1930s was a savage campaign of expropriation and murder. In fact this collectivization was a drive to develop a new system of agricultural production based on collective ownership, and it ignited a genuine upheaval against centuries- old authority, tradition, and oppression in the countryside.

The kulaks, the rich peasants who employed hired laborers, were a focus and target of this struggle. But this had nothing to do with their ethnicity. It had to do with their class position, that is, with the economic power and influence the kulaks exerted in the countryside. It had to do with the fact that they were working to undermine efforts to carry forward collectivization and strengthen the new socialist economy—the kulaks had hoarded grain, profiteered in rural markets, destroyed livestock, and organized sections of peasants against the regime. In this period when many peasants were starving, the kulaks were stripped of their private economic holdings, which were turned into the social property of the collectives. Many of the kulaks were punished, including being forced to leave certain areas. And sometimes this was done unfairly. But the kulaks were not made the object of genocide.

The Soviet approach to collectivization and the way the class struggle was waged in the countryside were not without problems. And Mao had big criticisms of the approach taken. There were serious excesses, including the fact that force was used in situations where persuasion should have been relied on. But this was within the context of a real struggle between revolution in the interests of the masses and counterrevolution.


I think that this is being recognized in the above article but the extent is being glossed over and polished up a bit.

http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/backlist/030416.htm

[manic expression]

What you said is patently absurd.

Explain how, making assertions without backing them up won't help you.


Yeah, but they do a better job of masking it.

No, they don't, they only rely upon the thick ignorance of people like yourself.


When you're trying to change the world, you need a cold shower.

And you can quote me on that.

When you're trying to make a point, you need to use reason.

[MrDoom]

Noone really cares about freedom of speech when it comes to things that are important to them, no matter where they are in the political spectrum. The entire "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it" nonsense breaks down at some critical point.

At what point does mine break down?

At the point where you percieve safety or taboo broken.




Communists do not pretend to be for 'free speech' of fascists, capitalists, reactionaries, and primitivists. The Enemies of the Proletariat deserve no outlets. The ones that forcefully resist get thrown into a camp.

Again, and you wonder why none takes you seriously.

Where are you getting that?


It's because anyone who goes around talking about 'limiting free speech' and throwing people into 'camps' is RIGHTFULLY regarded as a fucking lunatic who, in a society where speech rights were actually curtailed, would be at the head of the list to have his revoked.

I call it honesty. Those who threaten the social order deserve to be locked far away from all civilization. That's how any society with a method of policing or psychiatric restraint operates.


Trust me, if it's going come down to restricting freedoms and sending people to camps, it won't be your side that'll be doing it, trust me.

All societies restrict freedoms and restrain disruptive elements.




I guess someone forgot to tell you, but the fact is that EVERY system suppresses its opponents (even John Stuart Mill's philosophy does).

Yeah, but they do a better job of masking it.

See? We're that honest.

[Farrellesque]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 23, 2007 05:36 pm


On "fascim" being exclusively about lack of "freedom", you're simply clueless. Capitalist systems suppress opposition routinely, and history has shown that this is an inherent part of bourgeois rule. When the workers gain momentum and try to make changes, they are met with sever repression from the ruling class, that is just the way it works. "Freedom of speech" is just something that capitalists pretend to honor, while throwing people in prison for speaking against them.

Since the state is a product of class conflict, a bourgeois state will repress its opposition while a worker state will repress its own opposition.

Your post drips of pure naivete. You assert than any repression equals "fascism", which is patently laughable. Fascism is the solidification of stratified society by reactionary forces. When leftists take power, the opposition inevitably tries to overthrow their achievements and reinstitute bourgeois rule and capitalism. Therefore, it is oftentimes a necessity to repress these counterrevolutionary forces. The only common theme there is a method (of repression), which is shared by ALL SYSTEMS.

Your post is also awash with liberal idealism. In the REAL WORLD, when the workers take power, there is an unending amount of challenges to the revolution. Trying to be tolerant and open minded gets you nowhere but failure fast. It's fun for the bourgeoisie and their lap dogs to tell themselves that they're tolerant when their rule is unopposed, but open up a history book and read a few things about what happens to revolutionary movements when they get too strong.

Oh, and this is an internet site which is for leftists. Every political forum that wants to maintain a certain view will restrict people who are not in agreement. Get over yourself.

(if you actually believe the crap you just spewed, it will be the highest point of stupidity ever :D )
(My responses are underlined)


On "fascim" being exclusively about lack of "freedom", you're simply clueless. Capitalist systems suppress opposition routinely, and history has shown that this is an inherent part of bourgeois rule.


Where in my post did I claim that capitalist systems haven't suppressed opposition?


When the workers gain momentum and try to make changes, they are met with sever repression from the ruling class, that is just the way it works. "Freedom of speech" is just something that capitalists pretend to honor, while throwing people in prison for speaking against them.


When the workers gain momentum they create unions and receive better benefits for themselves. The workers being in control and ruling themselves, without any semblance of a hierarchy or leadership is completely unrealistic and without any pragmatism.

Oh, and the irony of a communist complaining about the rulers of a society throwing opposition in jail, is priceless. You might want to read up on Stalin during his reign, or even Mr. Kim Jung Il over in N. Korea.


Since the state is a product of class conflict, a bourgeois state will repress its opposition while a worker state will repress its own opposition.


What is your point? It just seems you're regurgitating something you read.


Your post drips of pure naivete.

That's funny, because your post drips of "I'm 17, just read a bit of Marx and now I know all about how the world works".


You assert than any repression equals "fascism", which is patently laughable.

That is my assertion, yes. You may have a different one.


Fascism is the solidification of stratified society by reactionary forces. When leftists take power, the opposition inevitably tries to overthrow their achievements and reinstitute bourgeois rule and capitalism. Therefore, it is oftentimes a necessity to repress these counterrevolutionary forces. The only common theme there is a method (of repression), which is shared by ALL SYSTEMS

OK, if you weren't regurgitating before, you definitely are now. BTW, it is complete bullshit to claim that only reactionary forces can be fascist.


Your post is also awash with liberal idealism. In the REAL WORLD, when the workers take power, there is an unending amount of challenges to the revolution. Trying to be tolerant and open minded gets you nowhere but failure fast. It's fun for the bourgeoisie and their lap dogs to tell themselves that they're tolerant when their rule is unopposed, but open up a history book and read a few things about what happens to revolutionary movements when they get too strong.


Oh snap. Irony overload.



...................



Ok, I'll be fine.


A communist tellling me that my idealism would not work in the real world. This is really too much.


Oh, and this is an internet site which is for leftists. Every political forum that wants to maintain a certain view will restrict people who are not in agreement. Get over yourself.

Well, here's the thing. I find it somewhat amusing that a lot of you hate the people at Stormfront, yet fail to see the similarities between your sites. Both sites have an "opposing views/ideologies" section, people are often (not all of you, some have been forthcoming and I thank you for that) extremely chauvinistic and unwilling to discuss with people of different viewpoints, presenting opposite viewpoints gets you labeled a troll, and are also often censored. Just a thought my red friend.

[MrDoom]

A communist tellling me that my idealism would not work in the real world. This is really too much.
Do you know what idealism and materialism are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Those explain the basics fairly well. Communism is materialist.

[RNK]

Guys, you've really got to learn to calm down. The belief that communism is just as oppressive as fascism is incredibly wide-spread among the masses, and it's something we need to address with more than snappy name-calling. We're not going to educate the masses by belittling them and telling them how naive and stupid they are. I understand being apathetically arrogant to hard-core liberals and conservatives who stubbornly stick to their beliefs, but this Farrellesque guy has only posted all of 4 times.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:51 pm
Oh, and the irony of a communist complaining about the rulers of a society throwing opposition in jail, is priceless. You might want to read up on Stalin during his reign, or even Mr. Kim Jung Il over in N. Korea.

How about you read up on Stalin yourself, ;) .

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

As for Kim Jong-Il, the actual Communist or Socialist status of both him, and the DPRK, is widely disputed, and due to the isolationism, and biased reports, it is rather difficult to make an accurate judge of the current situation, on either side of the argument.


That's funny, because your post drips of "I'm 17, just read a bit of Marx and now I know all about how the world works".

That's your funny, because your posts drips of the following;

"I'm a fucking dumbass, who doesn't know about Marxist theory, economics, or history, nor have I read one book by Marx, Lenin, or anyone else, but I'm gonna go and tell them that they are really Fascists because that's what my government tells me! Yay! Go me! I so cool, I'll put the ole' spin on those reds, yea, that sounds like a swell idea."

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:51 pm
(My responses are underlined)


On "fascim" being exclusively about lack of "freedom", you're simply clueless. Capitalist systems suppress opposition routinely, and history has shown that this is an inherent part of bourgeois rule.


Where in my post did I claim that capitalist systems haven't suppressed opposition?


When the workers gain momentum and try to make changes, they are met with sever repression from the ruling class, that is just the way it works. "Freedom of speech" is just something that capitalists pretend to honor, while throwing people in prison for speaking against them.


When the workers gain momentum they create unions and receive better benefits for themselves. The workers being in control and ruling themselves, without any semblance of a hierarchy or leadership is completely unrealistic and without any pragmatism.

Oh, and the irony of a communist complaining about the rulers of a society throwing opposition in jail, is priceless. You might want to read up on Stalin during his reign, or even Mr. Kim Jung Il over in N. Korea.


Since the state is a product of class conflict, a bourgeois state will repress its opposition while a worker state will repress its own opposition.


What is your point? It just seems you're regurgitating something you read.


Your post drips of pure naivete.

That's funny, because your post drips of "I'm 17, just read a bit of Marx and now I know all about how the world works".


You assert than any repression equals "fascism", which is patently laughable.

That is my assertion, yes. You may have a different one.


Fascism is the solidification of stratified society by reactionary forces. When leftists take power, the opposition inevitably tries to overthrow their achievements and reinstitute bourgeois rule and capitalism. Therefore, it is oftentimes a necessity to repress these counterrevolutionary forces. The only common theme there is a method (of repression), which is shared by ALL SYSTEMS

OK, if you weren't regurgitating before, you definitely are now. BTW, it is complete bullshit to claim that only reactionary forces can be fascist.


Your post is also awash with liberal idealism. In the REAL WORLD, when the workers take power, there is an unending amount of challenges to the revolution. Trying to be tolerant and open minded gets you nowhere but failure fast. It's fun for the bourgeoisie and their lap dogs to tell themselves that they're tolerant when their rule is unopposed, but open up a history book and read a few things about what happens to revolutionary movements when they get too strong.


Oh snap. Irony overload.



...................



Ok, I'll be fine.


A communist tellling me that my idealism would not work in the real world. This is really too much.


Oh, and this is an internet site which is for leftists. Every political forum that wants to maintain a certain view will restrict people who are not in agreement. Get over yourself.

Well, here's the thing. I find it somewhat amusing that a lot of you hate the people at Stormfront, yet fail to see the similarities between your sites. Both sites have an "opposing views/ideologies" section, people are often (not all of you, some have been forthcoming and I thank you for that) extremely chauvinistic and unwilling to discuss with people of different viewpoints, presenting opposite viewpoints gets you labeled a troll, and are also often censored. Just a thought my red friend.
That's the point: capitalism does suppress opposition, but you DIDN'T compare capitalism with fascism. By your logic, EVERY political system is fascist because EVERY political system represses its opposition. You failed to make that point and could only backtrack once you were called out by people who know what they're talking about.

No, unions are simply one manifestation of class conflict. They win some victories through this method, but they are small. The REAL victory of the workers is to take control of society and establish socialism. It is not unrealistic, it has happened before and it will happen again.

I stated a fact, that all systems repress its opposition. I was recognizing the FACT that the bourgeoisie will fight the workers at every step. That's not complaining, that's analyzing reality (try it sometime).

My point is that the state is a tool of repression, so any state will repress by definition. Therefore, singling out socialism as "repressive" is as insipid as it is myopic. I do read things, and you would do well to read my posts.

That point drips of "I don't have an argument, so I'll try to insult a person's age without knowing anything about them." Typical.

Yes, it is your assertion, and it is wrong.

Are you going to try to respond to my points or not? Whether or not I'm "regurgitating" is completely irrelevant, so either address my arguments or shut your mouth. By the way, reading stuff in order to learn is a good thing. Why is it "complete bullshit" to say that fascism is reactionary? FASCISM IS REACTIONARY BY DEFINITION. :rolleyes:

Your idealism doesn't work in the real world. Socialism DOES work in the real world, and this is an established fact.

So you're saying the only similarity between us and Stormfront is that a.) we have an opposing views forum and b.) we don't want to argue with non-leftists on a leftist website? First of all, neither of those things have ANYTHING to do with ideology, they have to do with how forums work. Secondly, why should we be expected to deal with every anti-leftist who comes here? That would largely defeat the purpose of having this forum. Most importantly, I'm discussing with people of different viewpoints RIGHT NOW.

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

Let's recap:

You think every political system is "fascist".

You ignored most of my arguments and failed to respond to my points. By the way, saying that someone is "regurgitating" isn't responding to an argument.

You think that fascism is not reactionary.

You think that socialism can't work, even though socialism has been established before (Paris, Russia, Cuba, Laos, Chile, Venezuela...).

You think that similarities on a forum equal similarities in ideology, and you think that every political forum should be open to anyone regardless of their contributions.

[RNK]

QUOTE
That's funny, because your post drips of "I'm 17, just read a bit of Marx and now I know all about how the world works".



That's your funny, because your posts drips of the following;

"I'm a fucking dumbass, who doesn't know about Marxist theory, economics, or history, nor have I read one book by Marx, Lenin, or anyone else, but I'm gonna go and tell them that they are really Fascists because that's what my government tells me! Yay! Go me! I so cool, I'll put the ole' spin on those reds, yea, that sounds like a swell idea."

Can we please refrain from "You're stupid!" "No I'm not, you are!" "No, you are!" arguements? It's humiliating and degrading to this forum.

[Publius]

Explain how, making assertions without backing them up won't help you.

I don't like your tone. It's impudent.

I don't need to explain myself to the jackass who wants to throw people in camps, and in fact proclaims such in a thread about how he is, in fact, a fascist. The irony does all the work for me, or at least it would if you weren't too dense to notice it.



No, they don't, they only rely upon the thick ignorance of people like yourself.

Yeah, that's me, ignorant as always of the tough suppression you're being dealt. Last train to Bergen-Belsen!

All this is very rich coming from a pinprick like you who seemingly has no moral qualms about herding human beings up like cattle and sending them to Kamchatka.



When you're trying to make a point, you need to use reason.

I can quote you on that.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:38 pm







At the point where you percieve safety or taboo broken.

I care nothing for taboo.

As to safety, I'm pretty liberal. Try me.



Where are you getting that?

That morally your ideas are non-starters.



I call it honesty.

Which I'm supposed to take as a virtue?


Those who threaten the social order deserve to be locked far away from all civilization.

No. That's not how societies should operate.


That's how any society with a method of policing or psychiatric restraint operates.

No. That's not how societies should operate. It may be, as a matter of course, how societies do operate, but it's an ideal.



All societies restrict freedoms and restrain disruptive elements.

Should they? If you do what the bourgeoisie do, how are you any better than them? Aspire to be better and you have a moral case; don't, and you don't.

It's that simple.



See? We're that honest.

Noble lie defeats ignoble truth every time.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:12 am


Explain how, making assertions without backing them up won't help you.

I don't like your tone. It's impudent.

I don't need to explain myself to the jackass who wants to throw people in camps, and in fact proclaims such in a thread about how he is, in fact, a fascist. The irony does all the work for me, or at least it would if you weren't too dense to notice it.



No, they don't, they only rely upon the thick ignorance of people like yourself.

Yeah, that's me, ignorant as always of the tough suppression you're being dealt. Last train to Bergen-Belsen!

All this is very rich coming from a pinprick like you who seemingly has no moral qualms about herding human beings up like cattle and sending them to Kamchatka.



When you're trying to make a point, you need to use reason.

I can quote you on that.
I don't care if you don't like my tone. Deal with it.

If you're going to make a point, back it up. If you don't back it up, you don't have an argument. If you're too dense to notice that, you're clueless. Oh, and try reading the responses here, since they've proven the original post completely incorrect. Were you too dense to notice that, too? I guess so.

You have displayed ignorance of a few things, and I wouldn't be surprised if you're ignorant of that, as well.

Have you even read my arguments? Try it. Every political system represses its enemies, and so I have no qualms about doing what is necessary to supress the bourgeoisie and defend revolutions (whereas you have no clue about what is done to defend the bourgeoisie).

You can quote me, but I doubt you can understand or apply it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:12 pm
Can we please refrain from "You're stupid!" "No I'm not, you are!" "No, you are!" arguements? It's humiliating and degrading to this forum.
I say anti-Humorists such as yourself should be sent to the gulags! :P

But seriously, me poking a bit of fun at this tool, by using his own jokes against him, doesn't "degrade," or "humiliate," anything, they are jokes, and what are jokes? Light and fun little humorous comments; calm down, ;) .

[manic expression]

That morally your ideas are non-starters.

You mean that they don't fit your idea of morality, which I'm perfectly fine with.


No. That's not how societies should operate.

They don't. Thanks for playing.

Oh, and how "should" a society operate? Allow its enemies to destroy it? Please.


Should they? If you do what the bourgeoisie do, how are you any better than them? Aspire to be better and you have a moral case; don't, and you don't.

It's that simple.

They do. It's that simple.

It is necessary to repress the bourgeoisie. It is not about morality or any other whimsical virtue that floats through your pathetic imagination, it is about material necessity.


Noble lie defeats ignoble truth every time.

The ignoble lie is overthrown for the noble truth. That's how revolutions work.

[Publius]

I don't care if you don't like my tone. Deal with it.

Die.



If you're going to make a point, back it up.

I did. Read. Again. Better this time, so that you comprehend.


If you don't back it up, you don't have an argument.

Not actually true, but let's not equivocate.



If you're too dense to notice that, you're clueless. Oh, and try reading the responses here, since they've proven the original post completely incorrect. Were you too dense to notice that, too? I guess so.

Of course the original post is wrong. He has no idea what fascism actually is. But I do.



You have displayed ignorance of a few things, and I wouldn't be surprised if you're ignorant of that, as well.

You're a fucking idiot who couldn't put together an ice cream cone let alone a coherent argument.

Look, I can talk shit too. Now do something.



Have you even read my arguments? Try it. Every political system represses its enemies, and so I have no qualms about doing what is necessary to supress the bourgeoisie and defend revolutions (whereas you have no clue about what is done to defend the bourgeoisie).

You have no qualms about doing exactly what is done to you, which means are as morally repugnant as the bourgeoisie.

And since you're no different morally, it makes no difference to me who's in power, you or them (this all follow quite necessarily) since I'm looking for moral governance. So since you're as bad as them, I see no reason to treat you better. You've dug your own grave via sloppy thinking and sloppier argumentation, and now you're just going have to lie in and spoon with the corpse of capitalism malfeasance.

I bid you good fucking, but I'm sure you're too flaccid for it to matte.r



You can quote me, but I doubt you can understand or apply it.

No, but I can laugh at it, which is better because it shows that I don't respect you.

And I don't.

Why don't you go swap moral anecdotes with Donald Trump and leave us sensible folk alone?

[Delirium]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g243/Daturainoxia/Random/post-12-1157833998.jpg

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Troll,

Incase you were misinformed you stupid **** piece of shit please read the following:

Whenever you bring up a "communist state" you show how truly ignorant you really are. There has never been a true communist society any where on earth. But, before you go on a big rant about how our vision of the future is a utopian dream, read some fucking Marx. I think the part about the Materialist Conception of History should cover it. Im pretty sure, however, that you wouldnt even begin to understand Marx because from reading your posts it sounds like your a complete fucking moron so yeah. Fuck your mother.

[Publius]

You mean that they don't fit your idea of morality, which I'm perfectly fine with.

Which isn't good as my sense of morality is probably better than yours.



They don't. Thanks for playing.

Oh, and how "should" a society operate? Allow its enemies to destroy it? Please.

That's just good Christianity, turn the other cheek and all that.

But seriously, turning into Popper again, free society's should all speech that's not inimical to free society. And there actually is no contradiction in this. A contradiction would be to allow speech that negates the ability to speak, that is, it would be contradictory for me to grant your ridiculous ideas about free speech play.



They do. It's that simple.

It is necessary to repress the bourgeoisie.

You haven't, of course, demonstrated this.

Which makes your grandstanding, and the grandstaning of that other twat, all the more laughable.


It is not about morality or any other whimsical virtue that floats through your pathetic imagination, it is about material necessity.

Morality is reality.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 23, 2007 08:35 pm
Incase you were misinformed you stupid **** piece of shit please read the following:
Leave the long insults to Jazzratt comrade.

[Publius]

Leave the long insults to Jazzratt comrade.

Man, I forgot how much fun these kind of threads were.

Keep it up 'comrades', Sovietchik Publius is in a truculent mood.

[MrDoom]

Where are you getting that?

That morally your ideas are non-starters.

You are correct. I do not factor 'morality' into any of my opinions or observations.



Those who threaten the social order deserve to be locked far away from all civilization.

No. That's not how societies should operate.


That's how any society with a method of policing or psychiatric restraint operates.

No. That's not how societies should operate. It may be, as a matter of course, how societies do operate, but it's an ideal.

So we should let rapists, serial killers, and the mentally ill run amok?




All societies restrict freedoms and restrain disruptive elements.

Should they?

If it further protects that society and its inhabitants in general, yes.


If you do what the bourgeoisie do, how are you any better than them?

Because the proletariat is the majority.


Aspire to be better and you have a moral case; don't, and you don't.

It's that simple.

I do not consider 'morality' in any case whatsoever.

[manic expression]

Die

No. Again, deal with it.


I did. Read. Again. Better this time, so that you comprehend.

You didn't. Try. Again.


Not actually true, but let's not equivocate.

Good argument.


Of course the original post is wrong. He has no idea what fascism actually is. But I do.

And that makes your statement mistaken.


You're a fucking idiot who couldn't put together an ice cream cone let alone a coherent argument.

Look, I can talk shit too. Now do something.

That sums up the whole of your arguments. Irrelevant and insipid.


You have no qualms about doing exactly what is done to you, which means are as morally repugnant as the bourgeoisie.

And since you're no different morally, it makes no difference to me who's in power, you or them (this all follow quite necessarily) since I'm looking for moral governance. So since you're as bad as them, I see no reason to treat you better. You've dug your own grave via sloppy thinking and sloppier argumentation, and now you're just going have to lie in and spoon with the corpse of capitalism malfeasance.

I bid you good fucking, but I'm sure you're too flaccid for it to matte.r

No, the only thing that is shared is a method for keeping power. Socialism isn't based on exploitation or deprivation, both of which are key facets of capitalism. Therefore, repression is a tool to defend exploitation and deprivation under capitalism, whereas it is a tool to resist it under socialism. Try this: two sides use the same weapons, but that does not mean the two sides' objectives are the same.

So no, there is quite the difference, only you were too oblivious to recognize this. The grave I have dug is for your delusional misconceptions, which I've already piled in the coffin and laid to rest (so you'll have to find something else to spoon).


No, but I can laugh at it, which is better because it shows that I don't respect you.

And I don't.

Why don't you go swap moral anecdotes with Donald Trump and leave us sensible folk alone?

You can laugh at it, but it really shows how ignorant and wrong you are.

And you are.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:41 am





That morally your ideas are non-starters.

You are correct. I do not factor 'morality' into any of my opinions or observations.

If, morally my ideas are non-starters, then contrawise, amorally, my ideas are starters.

Therefore, to you, my ideas are starters, that is to say, they are correct.

And that's only half-in-jest. Guess which half you ingest.



So we should let rapists, serial killers, and the mentally ill run amok?


I can't see it being moral issue.

Can you?

:lol:

I kid, I kid.



If it further protects that society and its inhabitants in general, yes.

Protects them from what? Those rapists who as morally-not as everyone else?



Because the proletariat is the majority.


Might makes right is still a morality, if only a very bad one.



I do not consider 'morality' in any case whatsoever.


If you had no conception of morality, that is, right and wrong, you would have no reason to even be a communist because there'd be no reason to support one class over another. You say number, but that's purely fictive. It could just as easily not be class, and it could be hair color, skin tone, or even ethnicity, and, since there's no morality, it would be exactly as efficacious as dividing people up by class. So really, you are exactly as justified in supporting the proles over the petty-betty's as you are supporting the whites over the blacks in a darwinian struggle.

This whole lack of morality thing is awful amoral don't you think?

:lol:

[manic expression]

Which isn't good as my sense of morality is probably better than yours.

It is good, sorry.


That's just good Christianity, turn the other cheek and all that.

But seriously, turning into Popper again, free society's should all speech that's not inimical to free society. And there actually is no contradiction in this. A contradiction would be to allow speech that negates the ability to speak, that is, it would be contradictory for me to grant your ridiculous ideas about free speech play.

The contradiction is yours, not mine. You can contradict yourself all you like, it has no bearing on my argument.


You haven't, of course, demonstrated this.

Which makes your grandstanding, and the grandstaning of that other twat, all the more laughable.

Every society suppresses its opponents, that is obvious. Furthermore, it is also obvious that the suppression of the bourgeoisie is necessary under socialism, and this is well demonstrated by the experiences in Russia and Cuba, contrasted with the experiences in societies which did not do the same.


Morality is reality.

No, reality is reality. Morality is a result of economic systems and other factors. You, again, have it completely backwards.

[Publius]

And that makes your statement mistaken.

This one? Or that one?



That sums up the whole of your arguments. Irrelevant and insipid.

You can't count either.



No, the only thing that is shared is a method for keeping power. Socialism isn't based on exploitation or deprivation, both of which are key facets of capitalism. Therefore, repression is a tool to defend exploitation and deprivation under capitalism, whereas it is a tool to resist it under socialism. Try this: two sides use the same weapons, but that does not mean the two sides' objectives are the same.

All of which makes absolutely no difference in the determination of whether the tools themselves are in fact moral. None at all. Anyone can make ridiculous arguments about how their oppression is for the common good. In fact, everyone does. The more you try to squirm out of this, the more you look like what you're trying to fight. It's like a Chinese finger trap on your limp dick.

No, son, you aren't better than the Nazis or Stalin you send people to camps 'for the right reason.' It's a *****, I know, but such is a morality. Maybe you should ditch it like your friend above, I mean, it sure bolstered has argument.

:lol:

[quote]
So no, there is quite the difference, only you were too oblivious to recognize this. The grave I have dug is for your delusional misconceptions, which I've already piled in the coffin and laid to rest (so you'll have to find something else to spoon).

You don't anything about my conceptions, preconceptions, misconceptions, or anything else for that matter.

[Publius]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 12:56 am




The contradiction is yours, not mine. You can contradict yourself all you like, it has no bearing on my argument.

The contradiction is mine...to pin on you, as I've correctly done.

Pull the other one.



Every society suppresses its opponents, that is obvious.

Which, again, doesn't make it right.


Furthermore, it is also obvious that the suppression of the bourgeoisie is necessary under socialism, and this is well demonstrated by the experiences in Russia and Cuba, contrasted with the experiences in societies which did not do the same.

Yes, stunning successes those.



No, reality is reality. Morality is a result of economic systems and other factors. You, again, have it completely backwards.

No, morality is the result of thought and since you seem to have backwardness on the brain, it's little wonder you have no conception of it.

[manic expression]

Protects them from what? Those rapists who as morally-not as everyone else?

Yes. Allowing those rapists to run free would cause harm to the community and disrupt it.


If you had no conception of morality, that is, right and wrong, you would have no reason to even be a communist because there'd be no reason to support one class over another. You say number, but that's purely fictive. It could just as easily not be class, and it could be hair color, skin tone, or even ethnicity, and, since there's no morality, it would be exactly as efficacious as dividing people up by class. So really, you are exactly as justified in supporting the proles over the petty-betty's as you are supporting the whites over the blacks in a darwinian struggle.

Again, you have no understanding.

People are communists because it's in their material interests. Socialism is materially beneficial for many people, and so they take to communism for that reason.

The reason class is important to communists is because that is what defines us. Race doesn't exist, and the other ways of dividing people is inconsequential. Why? Because class is what determines someone's life more than anything else, it is the basis of our society. Take away red hair and you still have capitalism; take away any of the classes and the equation is radically different.

[manic expression]

This one? Or that one?

Figure it out yourself. It shouldn't be too hard.


You can't count either.

Stunning stuff.


All of which makes absolutely no difference in the determination of whether the tools themselves are in fact moral. None at all. Anyone can make ridiculous arguments about how their oppression is for the common good. In fact, everyone does. The more you try to squirm out of this, the more you look like what you're trying to fight. It's like a Chinese finger trap on your limp dick.

No, son, you aren't better than the Nazis or Stalin you send people to camps 'for the right reason.' It's a *****, I know, but such is a morality. Maybe you should ditch it like your friend above, I mean, it sure bolstered has argument.

I never said the tools are moral or not, I said that every system uses them.

Before I go any further, please show how I tried to say that suppression is moral. Have fun.

Anyway, go back and read what I wrote, because it is painfully clear that you have no understanding of what I said. To give you a hint, I wrote about how suppression is a tool (a tool being amoral), and how the working classes must use this tool to stop exploitation and deprivation.


You don't anything about my conceptions, preconceptions, misconceptions, or anything else for that matter.

I do, and all of them are deluded.

[Publius]

Yes. Allowing those rapists to run free would cause harm to the community and disrupt it.

It would be awfully gratifying to the rapists though.

But we can't let morality get any play in this, can we?



Again, you have no understanding.

People are communists because it's in their material interests.

So then, contrawise, people aren't communists because it isn't in their material interests, therefore people who are not communists do not have it in their material interests to be communists.



Socialism is materially beneficial for many people, and so they take to communism for that reason.

The reason class is important to communists is because that is what defines us.

The reason it's important is because it's important.

Great tautology.


Race doesn't exist, and the other ways of dividing people is inconsequential.

Wow, you can state opinions as facts. You win!


Why? Because class is what determines someone's life more than anything else, it is the basis of our society.

Holy shit, you're good at this!


Take away red hair and you still have capitalism; take away any of the classes and the equation is radically different.

All of that's very nice and good, but it of course is built in the presupossition that class 'matters'. There can be no 'matters' without morality, and there can be no morality without moral reasoning.

You have no reason to support one class over another without morality. You don't even have any reason to support your own interests. You just have a terrible mess of muddled thinking and broken ideas.

Let me save you some trouble: until you can defend your ideas morally, you can't defend them at all.

Class is no more important than hair color unless you devise some means by which it's more important, beyond simply stating over and over again. You have to prove that class matters. Go ahead, do it. Prove that class is more important than hair color without already presupposing that it is. "Well, class influences your life." It may. But that doesn't matter until demonstrate why you should care. And you can't do that without morality.

Get it yet? You're lost

[Farrellesque]

Originally posted by manic expression+March 24, 2007 12:11 am--> (manic expression @ March 24, 2007 12:11 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 11:51 pm
(My responses are underlined)


On "fascim" being exclusively about lack of "freedom", you're simply clueless. Capitalist systems suppress opposition routinely, and history has shown that this is an inherent part of bourgeois rule.


Where in my post did I claim that capitalist systems haven't suppressed opposition?


When the workers gain momentum and try to make changes, they are met with sever repression from the ruling class, that is just the way it works. "Freedom of speech" is just something that capitalists pretend to honor, while throwing people in prison for speaking against them.


When the workers gain momentum they create unions and receive better benefits for themselves. The workers being in control and ruling themselves, without any semblance of a hierarchy or leadership is completely unrealistic and without any pragmatism.

Oh, and the irony of a communist complaining about the rulers of a society throwing opposition in jail, is priceless. You might want to read up on Stalin during his reign, or even Mr. Kim Jung Il over in N. Korea.


Since the state is a product of class conflict, a bourgeois state will repress its opposition while a worker state will repress its own opposition.


What is your point? It just seems you're regurgitating something you read.


Your post drips of pure naivete.

That's funny, because your post drips of "I'm 17, just read a bit of Marx and now I know all about how the world works".


You assert than any repression equals "fascism", which is patently laughable.

That is my assertion, yes. You may have a different one.


Fascism is the solidification of stratified society by reactionary forces. When leftists take power, the opposition inevitably tries to overthrow their achievements and reinstitute bourgeois rule and capitalism. Therefore, it is oftentimes a necessity to repress these counterrevolutionary forces. The only common theme there is a method (of repression), which is shared by ALL SYSTEMS

OK, if you weren't regurgitating before, you definitely are now. BTW, it is complete bullshit to claim that only reactionary forces can be fascist.


Your post is also awash with liberal idealism. In the REAL WORLD, when the workers take power, there is an unending amount of challenges to the revolution. Trying to be tolerant and open minded gets you nowhere but failure fast. It's fun for the bourgeoisie and their lap dogs to tell themselves that they're tolerant when their rule is unopposed, but open up a history book and read a few things about what happens to revolutionary movements when they get too strong.


Oh snap. Irony overload.



...................



Ok, I'll be fine.


A communist tellling me that my idealism would not work in the real world. This is really too much.


Oh, and this is an internet site which is for leftists. Every political forum that wants to maintain a certain view will restrict people who are not in agreement. Get over yourself.

Well, here's the thing. I find it somewhat amusing that a lot of you hate the people at Stormfront, yet fail to see the similarities between your sites. Both sites have an "opposing views/ideologies" section, people are often (not all of you, some have been forthcoming and I thank you for that) extremely chauvinistic and unwilling to discuss with people of different viewpoints, presenting opposite viewpoints gets you labeled a troll, and are also often censored. Just a thought my red friend.
That's the point: capitalism does suppress opposition, but you DIDN'T compare capitalism with fascism. By your logic, EVERY political system is fascist because EVERY political system represses its opposition. You failed to make that point and could only backtrack once you were called out by people who know what they're talking about.

No, unions are simply one manifestation of class conflict. They win some victories through this method, but they are small. The REAL victory of the workers is to take control of society and establish socialism. It is not unrealistic, it has happened before and it will happen again.

I stated a fact, that all systems repress its opposition. I was recognizing the FACT that the bourgeoisie will fight the workers at every step. That's not complaining, that's analyzing reality (try it sometime).

My point is that the state is a tool of repression, so any state will repress by definition. Therefore, singling out socialism as "repressive" is as insipid as it is myopic. I do read things, and you would do well to read my posts.

That point drips of "I don't have an argument, so I'll try to insult a person's age without knowing anything about them." Typical.

Yes, it is your assertion, and it is wrong.

Are you going to try to respond to my points or not? Whether or not I'm "regurgitating" is completely irrelevant, so either address my arguments or shut your mouth. By the way, reading stuff in order to learn is a good thing. Why is it "complete bullshit" to say that fascism is reactionary? FASCISM IS REACTIONARY BY DEFINITION. :rolleyes:

Your idealism doesn't work in the real world. Socialism DOES work in the real world, and this is an established fact.

So you're saying the only similarity between us and Stormfront is that a.) we have an opposing views forum and b.) we don't want to argue with non-leftists on a leftist website? First of all, neither of those things have ANYTHING to do with ideology, they have to do with how forums work. Secondly, why should we be expected to deal with every anti-leftist who comes here? That would largely defeat the purpose of having this forum. Most importantly, I'm discussing with people of different viewpoints RIGHT NOW.

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

Let's recap:

You think every political system is "fascist".

You ignored most of my arguments and failed to respond to my points. By the way, saying that someone is "regurgitating" isn't responding to an argument.

You think that fascism is not reactionary.

You think that socialism can't work, even though socialism has been established before (Paris, Russia, Cuba, Laos, Chile, Venezuela...).

You think that similarities on a forum equal similarities in ideology, and you think that every political forum should be open to anyone regardless of their contributions. [/b]
It is very late here, and I will reply to this tomorow.

- Farrellesque

[manic expression]

The contradiction is mine...to pin on you, as I've correctly done.

Pull the other one.

No, the contradiction is yours, and your arguments are incorrect.


Which, again, doesn't make it right.

"It" is morally neutral. It is the use that is important, something you've ignored time and again.


Yes, stunning successes those.

More successful than your points, I see.


No, morality is the result of thought and since you seem to have backwardness on the brain, it's little wonder you have no conception of it.

Morality is the result of thought, which is the result of what? Go ahead, give it a guess!

[Publius]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 01:08 am




Figure it out yourself. It shouldn't be too hard.


It's this one.



I never said the tools are moral or not, I said that every system uses them.

Before I go any further, please show how I tried to say that suppression is moral. Have fun.

It'd be mighty ridiculous of me to find evidence to prove a point I never asserted.

Show me where I claimed you tried to call it moral. I haven't. I've just called it immoral.



Anyway, go back and read what I wrote, because it is painfully clear that you have no understanding of what I said. To give you a hint, I wrote about how suppression is a tool (a tool being amoral), and how the working classes must use this tool to stop exploitation and deprivation.

And I called that immoral. Well, now that's summarized.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:10 am


Yes. Allowing those rapists to run free would cause harm to the community and disrupt it.

It would be awfully gratifying to the rapists though.

But we can't let morality get any play in this, can we?



Again, you have no understanding.

People are communists because it's in their material interests.

So then, contrawise, people aren't communists because it isn't in their material interests, therefore people who are not communists do not have it in their material interests to be communists.



Socialism is materially beneficial for many people, and so they take to communism for that reason.

The reason class is important to communists is because that is what defines us.

The reason it's important is because it's important.

Great tautology.


Race doesn't exist, and the other ways of dividing people is inconsequential.

Wow, you can state opinions as facts. You win!


Why? Because class is what determines someone's life more than anything else, it is the basis of our society.

Holy shit, you're good at this!


Take away red hair and you still have capitalism; take away any of the classes and the equation is radically different.

All of that's very nice and good, but it of course is built in the presupossition that class 'matters'. There can be no 'matters' without morality, and there can be no morality without moral reasoning.

You have no reason to support one class over another without morality. You don't even have any reason to support your own interests. You just have a terrible mess of muddled thinking and broken ideas.

Let me save you some trouble: until you can defend your ideas morally, you can't defend them at all.

Class is no more important than hair color unless you devise some means by which it's more important, beyond simply stating over and over again. You have to prove that class matters. Go ahead, do it. Prove that class is more important than hair color without already presupposing that it is. "Well, class influences your life." It may. But that doesn't matter until demonstrate why you should care. And you can't do that without morality.

Get it yet? You're lost
I don't care about who it gratifies, I care about the community.

People aren't communists for many reasons. Lack of material interest is but one of these reasons.

Did you read more than that before trying to think of your misled comment? I doubt it.

There is no presupposition, since society reflects class position and not hair color. As I said, class affects the whole of society, whereas hair color does not. Therefore, class is more important because it is the basis of how everything operates. There is little, if any, morality in there, and your presupposition that "there can be no 'matters' without morality" do nothing to change that.

Those very means are sitting right in front of you: the world we live in today. I guess you forgot about that one.

[Publius]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 01:12 am





No, the contradiction is yours, and your arguments are incorrect.

Well, to be fair, it's Popper's argument, and no it isn't incorrect.



"It" is morally neutral. It is the use that is important, something you've ignored time and again.

Locking up political opponents is not morally neutral.

Sorry.



More successful than your points, I see.

Well, their death toll IS longer, if only by a few dozen.



Morality is the result of thought, which is the result of what? Go ahead, give it a guess!

It's a new car!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Omega+March 23, 2007 11:32 pm--> (Omega @ March 23, 2007 11:32 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:45 pm


Collectivization of Agriculture
In the Soviet Union, the means of production, which had been seized by the revolution, were placed in the service of society (instead of serving exploitation). And, in the countryside, an unprecedented revolution took place. The formerly isolated, suppressed, and impoverished peasants were led by the Communist Party to rise up, cast off millennia of enslavement and mind-numbing tradition, and overthrow cruel and vicious exploitation and oppression. This process was especially dramatic for women, who made huge strides towards equality after being treated like animals.

Were harsh measures carried out by the proletarian state in the Soviet Union against some sectors of the population? Yes, but the dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing in common with the Nazi program, the Nazi outlook, or Nazi methods. For example, many anti-Communist ideologues and historians allege that the collectivization carried out in the Soviet countryside in the late 1920s and early 1930s was a savage campaign of expropriation and murder. In fact this collectivization was a drive to develop a new system of agricultural production based on collective ownership, and it ignited a genuine upheaval against centuries- old authority, tradition, and oppression in the countryside.

The kulaks, the rich peasants who employed hired laborers, were a focus and target of this struggle. But this had nothing to do with their ethnicity. It had to do with their class position, that is, with the economic power and influence the kulaks exerted in the countryside. It had to do with the fact that they were working to undermine efforts to carry forward collectivization and strengthen the new socialist economy—the kulaks had hoarded grain, profiteered in rural markets, destroyed livestock, and organized sections of peasants against the regime. In this period when many peasants were starving, the kulaks were stripped of their private economic holdings, which were turned into the social property of the collectives. Many of the kulaks were punished, including being forced to leave certain areas. And sometimes this was done unfairly. But the kulaks were not made the object of genocide.

The Soviet approach to collectivization and the way the class struggle was waged in the countryside were not without problems. And Mao had big criticisms of the approach taken. There were serious excesses, including the fact that force was used in situations where persuasion should have been relied on. But this was within the context of a real struggle between revolution in the interests of the masses and counterrevolution.


I think that this is being recognized in the above article but the extent is being glossed over and polished up a bit.

http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/backlist/030416.htm [/b]
Yes well this is the classic arguement. Of course it is very flawed. The Book linked here (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm) goes indepth into how fraudulant the sources that were the basis of the figures of the "Ukraine Genocide" were. To sum up all the research done in this book, the only statistics we have of this "genocide" are gustapo catered statistics distributed by a proven nazi collaborater, William Randolph Hearst. He completly and utterly exagerated these statistics in order to make the Nazis look like liberators of Ukraine. Ever stop to wonder why so many Soviet citizens picked up their shotguns, rifles, and even pitchforks, and voluntarily fought to protect the Soviet Union? Because the bullshit we here is cold war propaganda. Not only had Russia and Ukraine as well as China and most of Eastern europe suffered famine and plague year after year for centuries, but the only reason for this famine was that a small slave owning minority was resisting the majority through burning crops and witholding grain. [URL=http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/lies/lies.html]Here is another good book on the subject.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Publius+March 24, 2007 01:17 am--> (Publius @ March 24, 2007 01:17 am)
manic [email protected] 24, 2007 01:08 am




Figure it out yourself. It shouldn't be too hard.


It's this one.



I never said the tools are moral or not, I said that every system uses them.

Before I go any further, please show how I tried to say that suppression is moral. Have fun.

It'd be mighty ridiculous of me to find evidence to prove a point I never asserted.

Show me where I claimed you tried to call it moral. I haven't. I've just called it immoral.



Anyway, go back and read what I wrote, because it is painfully clear that you have no understanding of what I said. To give you a hint, I wrote about how suppression is a tool (a tool being amoral), and how the working classes must use this tool to stop exploitation and deprivation.

And I called that immoral. Well, now that's summarized. [/b]
No, it's not, so you're wrong again.

You implied that morality was part of my point. Please show how that is so.

You called it immoral? Good for you, but that's meaningless.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Publius+March 24, 2007 01:19 am--> (Publius @ March 24, 2007 01:19 am)
manic [email protected] 24, 2007 01:12 am





No, the contradiction is yours, and your arguments are incorrect.

Well, to be fair, it's Popper's argument, and no it isn't incorrect.



"It" is morally neutral. It is the use that is important, something you've ignored time and again.

Locking up political opponents is not morally neutral.

Sorry.



More successful than your points, I see.

Well, their death toll IS longer, if only by a few dozen.



Morality is the result of thought, which is the result of what? Go ahead, give it a guess!

It's a new car! [/b]
To be fair, you're wrong.

To YOU it might not be, but is this about your morality? No, so that point is completely irrelevant.

It was inevitable that you would use lies to try to support your argument.

No, you're wrong.

See this pattern that you've gotten yourself into? I'll let you continue it, it's apparent that you're completely incorrect.

[MrDoom]

So we should let rapists, serial killers, and the mentally ill run amok?


I can't see it being moral issue.

Nor do I. It is a matter of practicality and function.




If it further protects that society and its inhabitants in general, yes.

Protects them from what? Those rapists who as morally-not as everyone else?

From non-functionality.




Because the proletariat is the majority.


Might makes right is still a morality, if only a very bad one.

If you say so.

The 'quality' of a 'morality' has nothing to do with it. What is imortant is who is holding the gun; which 'morality' is in place, regardless of its 'value'.


This whole lack of morality thing is awful amoral don't you think?

:lol:

Were I a moralist, I should think so.

[Publius]

Yes, if I were on the receiving end of this beat down, I would try to ignore it too. Painful.



I don't care about who it gratifies, I care about the community.

Why care about anything at all?



People aren't communists for many reasons. Lack of material interest is but one of these reasons.

Read your definition again. It was quite explicit. I was just setting up the corollary.



Did you read more than that before trying to think of your misled comment? I doubt it.

Mu.



There is no presupposition, since society reflects class position and not hair color.

You're so very good at dancing around the obvious.

No shit society reflects class and not hair color. Why. Think for a second, use your head. One matters, one does not. Figure out why this is the case and you might be onto something.

WHY is society predicated on class? WHY do you care about class? Because it's WRONG to exploit people, RIGHT? And if it isn't wrong, then it doesn't fucking matter what we do.

It's inescapable because it's logic. Just concede before you make yourself look like an even bigger fool.


As I said, class affects the whole of society, whereas hair color does not.

You're fucking dense.


Therefore, class is more important because it is the basis of how everything operates.

Another tuatology.

"Class is more important because it's more important.", that is, you're doing exactly what you shouldn't: presupposing your point to prove your point.


There is little, if any, morality in there, and your presupposition that "there can be no 'matters' without morality" do nothing to change that.

For something to matter to someone, someone needs a reason. To have a reason over another, you need a means of differentiation. That's morality.

Do you know anything about this subject? It doesn't seem like it to me. You can't even define what you believe without using an insipid tautology. It's pitiful.



Those very means are sitting right in front of you: the world we live in today. I guess you forgot about that one.

Whatever.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:24 am






Nor do I. It is a matter of practicality and function.

Why is it more practical to lock rapists up then let them have their twisted fun?

Here we go again. I can tell (divination or logic?) that you will either use: a; morality or b; circular logic or tautology to defend your statement that it isn't 'morality' but 'practicality and function.'

Try it. Defend your statement. Elaborate on it. Go ahead... that's right, you can't do it because it's impossible.

You say it's practicality, but you can't say WHY, because that's morality. So you'll do one of two things (necessarily): use morality and then pretend you didn't, or simply restate it.

I bet you 5 dollars.



From non-functionality.

Why protect them from non-functionality and not from non-non-functionality?

Good luck.



If you say so.

Luckily, my opinion matters little.

But the fact remains, it IS a morality.



The 'quality' of a 'morality' has nothing to do with it. What is imortant is who is holding the gun; which 'morality' is in place, regardless of its 'value'.

So you don't believe in a morality, except for this morality.

Right.

'Scare quotes' do not change the meaning of a word. 'Morality' means morality.



Were I a moralist, I should think so.

So you do think so?

I'm the commander of the syllogism!

[Publius]

No, it's not, so you're wrong again.

You implied that morality was part of my point. Please show how that is so.

You called it immoral? Good for you, but that's meaningless.

:lol:

Aww, did someone get his feelings hurt?

Yes, I know your arguments look absurd, but chin up, you might learn something yet. Don't throw in the towel so soon.

[Publius]

To be fair, you're wrong.

To YOU it might not be, but is this about your morality? No, so that point is completely irrelevant.

It was inevitable that you would use lies to try to support your argument.

No, you're wrong.

See this pattern that you've gotten yourself into? I'll let you continue it, it's apparent that you're completely incorrect.

Ah, but you lack my cunning humor, rapier wit, AND you're not the master of the syllogism, and, as you can read above, I am.

You don't sound like you're having much fun.

Cheer up.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:29 pm
Having had plenty of discussions with people on the far-left side of the political spectrum, it has become clear to me that a lot of you would fall under the category of "fascists". First the (a) definition such as it stands;


They're not fascists, they're clowns. Angry teenagers who think, like all other angry teenagers, that life would be so easy if only everyone would just accept their brilliance.

Well then there's the burnouts who never went on to get jobs or get laid, or forgot to give up the drugs (*cough* Jazzratt *cough*).

Look at the responses you're getting. Pure hilarity. To the moron, freedom means only the freedom to do as they believe. Morons, religious fanatics, the angry teens and burnouts on this board think like this: If other people have not accepted my brilliance and are not living as I think they should, then I am being oppressed.

It takes a powerful level of stupidity or a serious vitamin deficiency to have that mindset. But there it is.

Well except for the kids. Dumbass teenagers who think they've found the answer in an ancient manifesto (the Bible or Marx, take your pick) that has somehow eluded the aged aren't exactly a new phenomenon. Once these dimwits knock someone up, once their parents aren't on the hook for their bills, once the student loans start coming due, and once they actually have some experience in the work place and they start seeing how stupid the kids their age are, their attitudes will change.

Either that or they become Jazzratt. Either way, the rest of us win.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:27 am
Yes, if I were on the receiving end of this beat down, I would try to ignore it too. Painful.



I don't care about who it gratifies, I care about the community.

Why care about anything at all?



People aren't communists for many reasons. Lack of material interest is but one of these reasons.

Read your definition again. It was quite explicit. I was just setting up the corollary.



Did you read more than that before trying to think of your misled comment? I doubt it.

Mu.



There is no presupposition, since society reflects class position and not hair color.

You're so very good at dancing around the obvious.

No shit society reflects class and not hair color. Why. Think for a second, use your head. One matters, one does not. Figure out why this is the case and you might be onto something.

WHY is society predicated on class? WHY do you care about class? Because it's WRONG to exploit people, RIGHT? And if it isn't wrong, then it doesn't fucking matter what we do.

It's inescapable because it's logic. Just concede before you make yourself look like an even bigger fool.


As I said, class affects the whole of society, whereas hair color does not.

You're fucking dense.


Therefore, class is more important because it is the basis of how everything operates.

Another tuatology.

"Class is more important because it's more important.", that is, you're doing exactly what you shouldn't: presupposing your point to prove your point.


There is little, if any, morality in there, and your presupposition that "there can be no 'matters' without morality" do nothing to change that.

For something to matter to someone, someone needs a reason. To have a reason over another, you need a means of differentiation. That's morality.

Do you know anything about this subject? It doesn't seem like it to me. You can't even define what you believe without using an insipid tautology. It's pitiful.



Those very means are sitting right in front of you: the world we live in today. I guess you forgot about that one.

Whatever.
You are ignoring it, which says a lot.

I've given many reasons as to why. Try reading them.

You should read the definition again, because you're mistaken.

Mu? Right.

You're clueless (I'm starting to think that you're trying to be a dumbass). My whole point was that class matters and hair color does not. You, like the idiot that you are, tried to question that. Back to the point, class matters because it is a significant factor in society (the most significant factor, as a matter of fact). So no, it doesn't boil down to morality, ass, but nice try.

You have consistently ignored what I've said and shown no understanding whatsoever. You've proven yourself to be wrong many times over.

I'm not the one trying to refute the statement that class matters, and I'm not the one injecting morality where it isn't. That would be you.

You really are completely aloof. I gave many reasons WHY class is important, so there is no presupposition there. Have fun believing there is.

The weather matters to me. Is there any morality in that statement? No, there isn't, so you lost, again.

"Whatever"? Nice one.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:41 am


No, it's not, so you're wrong again.

You implied that morality was part of my point. Please show how that is so.

You called it immoral? Good for you, but that's meaningless.

:lol:

Aww, did someone get his feelings hurt?

Yes, I know your arguments look absurd, but chin up, you might learn something yet. Don't throw in the towel so soon.
Did someone run out of ideas?

Yeah, you don't have a real argument here, you've made yourself look like a complete fool and you're completely wrong, but you can still take solace in your "morals". :lol:

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:43 am
Ah, but you lack my cunning humor, rapier wit, AND you're not the master of the syllogism, and, as you can read above, I am.

You don't sound like you're having much fun.

Cheer up.
Keep telling yourself that, I'm sure it makes you feel good at the end of the day, in spite of how much of a failure you are.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 02:22 am

You really are completely aloof. I gave many reasons WHY class is important, so there is no presupposition there. Have fun believing there is.


Class matters and class is important.

What you forgot to mention is that class frequently changes.

And if it doesn't, then maybe YOU need to look at what YOU'VE been doing wrong.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:20 am
[http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/backlist/030416.htm
Yes well this is the classic arguement. Of course it is very flawed. The Book linked here (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm) goes indepth into how fraudulant the sources that were the basis of the figures of the "Ukraine Genocide" were. To sum up all the research done in this book, the only statistics we have of this "genocide" are gustapo catered statistics distributed by a proven nazi collaborater, William Randolph Hearst. He completly and utterly exagerated these statistics in order to make the Nazis look like liberators of Ukraine. Ever stop to wonder why so many Soviet citizens picked up their shotguns, rifles, and even pitchforks, and voluntarily fought to protect the Soviet Union? Because the bullshit we here is cold war propaganda. Not only had Russia and Ukraine as well as China and most of Eastern europe suffered famine and plague year after year for centuries, but the only reason for this famine was that a small slave owning minority was resisting the majority through burning crops and witholding grain. Here is another good book on the subject.

WHY…YOU…YOU…Ukrainian genocide denier you! How dare you question this subject! You are a Commie arn´t you! COMMIE! COMMIE! Mat ko buska! How we suffer! Buska! Buska! How we Suuuuuuuffer!

Er…ah hem…excuse me. Being of Ukrainian descent myself…I just could not resist that.

But seriously…

Yes, I know how things can be inflated. I really can not say with certainty that the number was 7 million as was claimed. However I do not think that Miron Dolot, the author of the book I referenced, is making things up.

You mentioned that a lot of Soviets fought voluntarily against the Germans.
However, enough Ukrainians were dissatisfied with their “Communist Party Liberators” to form a volunteer SS division to fight for the Germans.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Galizien_ (1st_Ukrainian)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_G...(1st_Ukrainian) (http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/lies/lies.html)

Also, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a lot of negative publicity centered on a Ukrainian town that erected a memorial to the Ukrainians that fought in this division.

I am not going to go and play the suffering victim role though.

Anyway, you gave me some new information on the subject that I have not heard before. I need to check it out a bit before I speak on it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:42 am
Yes, I know how things can be inflated. I really can not say with certainty that the number was 7 million as was claimed. However I do not think that Miron Dolot, the author of the book I referenced, is making things up.
The trouble is he could be using the number in good faith and still be wrong. All the records of Stalin era crimes were destroyed and falsified during his reign so it is very difficult to know the truth now. The numbers are often inflated above credible levels as well which only adds to the confusion.

[Publius]

Alright, here's my final effort to impart a little sense to you. No more word play, just some simple logic. Read on.



Mu? Right.

Look it up.



You're clueless (I'm starting to think that you're trying to be a dumbass).

I'm making a lot of jokes that you seem to be missing, but that doesn't mean I'm not serious.



My whole point was that class matters and hair color does not. You, like the idiot that you are, tried to question that.

No, actually what I did was asked you WHY one matters and the other doesn't which you never demonstrated.

I fully agree that class matters and hair color doesn't. I just have a reason for it, and I don't think you do.

I'm trying to get your clarify your beliefs here, but you're being obstinate. Stop with all the shit for a second and just answer a question.

Why does class matter if there is no morality? Think about this question for a minute or so. Swim in it.

If you're inclined to say something like "because class influences our material reality or something", don't. Think about that for a second and realize it's just a restatement of the original point.

Go to this: why does anything matter if nothing matters (there's no morality)? The answers is obvious: it doesn't. Nothing matters because nothing matters. In order to establish communism you have to start with a coherent morality or else you're just jerking off. Think about it. If there's no morality we may as well beat our heads against rocks as free the working class, because they amount to the same thing: shit.

'Material reality' is just physics without morality. That's the point I'm trying to impart to you, and you just won't accept it. Without a mor

ality, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else does by definition.

Now I don't for a second believe you or anyone else has no moral system. If you didn't, you'd be nihilists not communists. See how much nihilists care for the class struggle. What I want you to do is disprove nihilism without invoking morality, since nihilism negates communism.

That's as good as I can state it. Now I hope you see that everything I'm saying is cogent and follows clearly, and that I do know what I'm talking about.



Back to the point, class matters because it is a significant factor in society (the most significant factor, as a matter of fact).

What do you not understand about tautologies?

"class is important because it's important" does not fly.

Why is class important? As I stated earlier, to answer this question you'll either repeat yourself or use morality, or possibly contradict yourself.



So no, it doesn't boil down to morality, ass, but nice try.

Yes, it boils down to the other possibility, a tautology.

"Class matters because it's important. Class is important because it matters."

Brilliant reasoning, Socrates.



You have consistently ignored what I've said and shown no understanding whatsoever. You've proven yourself to be wrong many times over.

I've fucked around a bit, that I admit. But you've done nothing of substance.



I'm not the one trying to refute the statement that class matters,

I'm not trying to refute and I never have been. Of course class matters. But why?


and I'm not the one injecting morality where it isn't. That would be you.

That would be me.



You really are completely aloof.

This is true.


I gave many reasons WHY class is important, so there is no presupposition there. Have fun believing there is.

Your reason was a tautology. That's completely obvious. If you can't admit that then we have nothing to discuss.

If you can't figure out why someone might have a problem with a statement like "class matters because it is a significant factor in society" then you have no place in any learned discussion.

Watch: "Hair color matters because its a significant factor in society."

See? It's bullshit 'reasoning'. It's called a tautology.



The weather matters to me. Is there any morality in that statement? No, there isn't, so you lost, again.

Human action's have morality, weather does not.

Please God tell me you're being dense on purpose and that you aren't this mistaken?



I assure you my ideas are sound. Try to understand them. Without a morality, it makes no sense to be a communist or to be anything at all other than a nihilist. That's my point.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:06 am
Alright, here's my final effort to impart a little sense to you. No more word play, just some simple logic. Read on.



Mu? Right.

Look it up.



You're clueless (I'm starting to think that you're trying to be a dumbass).

I'm making a lot of jokes that you seem to be missing, but that doesn't mean I'm not serious.



My whole point was that class matters and hair color does not. You, like the idiot that you are, tried to question that.

No, actually what I did was asked you WHY one matters and the other doesn't which you never demonstrated.

I fully agree that class matters and hair color doesn't. I just have a reason for it, and I don't think you do.

I'm trying to get your clarify your beliefs here, but you're being obstinate. Stop with all the shit for a second and just answer a question.

Why does class matter if there is no morality? Think about this question for a minute or so. Swim in it.

If you're inclined to say something like "because class influences our material reality or something", don't. Think about that for a second and realize it's just a restatement of the original point.

Go to this: why does anything matter if nothing matters (there's no morality)? The answers is obvious: it doesn't. Nothing matters because nothing matters. In order to establish communism you have to start with a coherent morality or else you're just jerking off. Think about it. If there's no morality we may as well beat our heads against rocks as free the working class, because they amount to the same thing: shit.

'Material reality' is just physics without morality. That's the point I'm trying to impart to you, and you just won't accept it. Without a mor

ality, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else does by definition.

Now I don't for a second believe you or anyone else has no moral system. If you didn't, you'd be nihilists not communists. See how much nihilists care for the class struggle. What I want you to do is disprove nihilism without invoking morality, since nihilism negates communism.

That's as good as I can state it. Now I hope you see that everything I'm saying is cogent and follows clearly, and that I do know what I'm talking about.



Back to the point, class matters because it is a significant factor in society (the most significant factor, as a matter of fact).

What do you not understand about tautologies?

"class is important because it's important" does not fly.

Why is class important? As I stated earlier, to answer this question you'll either repeat yourself or use morality, or possibly contradict yourself.



So no, it doesn't boil down to morality, ass, but nice try.

Yes, it boils down to the other possibility, a tautology.

"Class matters because it's important. Class is important because it matters."

Brilliant reasoning, Socrates.



You have consistently ignored what I've said and shown no understanding whatsoever. You've proven yourself to be wrong many times over.

I've fucked around a bit, that I admit. But you've done nothing of substance.



I'm not the one trying to refute the statement that class matters,

I'm not trying to refute and I never have been. Of course class matters. But why?


and I'm not the one injecting morality where it isn't. That would be you.

That would be me.



You really are completely aloof.

This is true.


I gave many reasons WHY class is important, so there is no presupposition there. Have fun believing there is.

Your reason was a tautology. That's completely obvious. If you can't admit that then we have nothing to discuss.

If you can't figure out why someone might have a problem with a statement like "class matters because it is a significant factor in society" then you have no place in any learned discussion.

Watch: "Hair color matters because its a significant factor in society."

See? It's bullshit 'reasoning'. It's called a tautology.



The weather matters to me. Is there any morality in that statement? No, there isn't, so you lost, again.

Human action's have morality, weather does not.

Please God tell me you're being dense on purpose and that you aren't this mistaken?



I assure you my ideas are sound. Try to understand them. Without a morality, it makes no sense to be a communist or to be anything at all other than a nihilist. That's my point.
Your "sense" is just a ball of delusional crap.

Mu.

You're TRYING to make a lot of jokes that I don't give a shit about. Oh, and the fact that you're serious is very unfortunate.

I gave reasons as to why class matters. Please re-read my points because you are refusing to understand my points.

Class matters because it is the basis of our society, class is what defines someone's life more than anything else. These are material and not moral statements.

Why does class matter without morality? Material interests. It is in the interest of the working classes to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism; morality never enters into the equation.

Things matter because of how they affect people and the impact it has on society. Class is very influential, while other things are not. Therefore, it is important.

What I'm trying to do is show that the material world is the basis. Morals are a result of material conditions, and so we need to look at the material world first and foremost. Have I explicitly said that I make no moral judgments of capitalism? No, that is not my point, and whether I do or not has nothing to do with this "discussion".

Communism is about material conditions, not morality. Why? Because society is about material conditions, not morality. Morals, values and ideas are ALL results of material circumstances. That is fundamentally true. Why? Read some history, morals and laws came from economic systems (why was there communal ownership around? Why did feudalism develop? How do tribal values differ from capitalist values? All of these things have to do with the material).

I've answered that question many times, but your thick delusion has stopped you from recognizing that (again, I wonder if you're actually trying to be this pathetic). Keep repeating "tautology", but you're utterly mistaken here (again).

No, you've fucked around completely and refused to make a substantial point.

I've answered "why" many times. Go back, read it, understand it, then come back; until then, you're dancing in ignorance.

Yeah, it would be you.

It is true.

No, it wasn't a tautology. Go back and read it again.

Are you actually claiming that class has morality? You're dumber than I thought.

I assure you your ideas are far from sound. Morality is not part of this equation, in spite of your constant mewlings. You, ultimately, don't have a point.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 03:38 am

Communism is about material conditions, not morality. Why? Because society is about material conditions, not morality. Morals, values and ideas are ALL results of material circumstances.
So in theory, if everyone were equally materially, society should do nothing to a rapist. He should be allowed to run free because the tie that binds society together - material condition - is taken care of, hence no action is required.

Same with a pedophile, or a bully. If your girlfriend cheated on you with your comrade, you would feel nothing.

Or, are you going to claim that if material conditions were all equal, rape would disappear?

[Ol' Dirty]

Actually, I'm not a communist-fascist. I, for one, am a socialist-liberal. I am also a christian atheist and avowed Anarchist with Stalinist leanings.

In all seriousness: you are a seriously confused dude, dude. International Communism and fascism are on different sides of the political spectrum, just like liberalism and conservativism.

[R_P_A_S]

hmm. you are an idiot

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:11 pm
hmm. you are an idiot
I agree. If you can not determine the difference between a REAL TRUE Communist and a Fascist, I really think you need to read up on your politics. Case Closed.

[Ander]

I love how this guy never replied to what I said. Ugh, why do I waste my time?

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:52 am
Actually, I'm not a communist-fascist.
O.K.

I, for one, am a socialist-liberal.
Can be.

I am also a christian atheist

How? Sounds like an oxymoron. Please Explain.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:29 pm
:"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

So how does the idea of abolishing hierachy, and allowing each community and individual complete autonomy, through a directly-democratic federation regarldess of race, or nationhood fit into this catagory?


Not much doubt that pretty much all communist nations in history falls under this category.

There has never been a communist nation. That is in itself a paradox, there have been lenninist experimentations in leading revolutions that have failed and created state-capitalist nations. But no matter how many times this is explained, it fails to sink into your think heads.

Many of us violently oppose lennin and his authorotarian programe, and instead support historical communist figures like Makhno, who ran an Anarchist society for 3 years in Ukraine, and engaged in war with the Bolsheviks to be defeated.


Let's face it. Most of you are not interested in freedom of speech or expression. You will often advocate the use of violence to suppress one of the most important concepts in a democratic society.

Well the idea that one opinion is equal to another in and of itself is absurd - which seems to be the basis for free speech. Some people are right, others are wrong. But I agree that those who are wrong should be allowed to air their thoughts as to be corrected - but not to influence or direct society. Of coruse, I am probably wrong about many things, and engage in debate to test what I consider right.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:19 pm
Dumbass teenagers who think they've found the answer in an ancient manifesto (the Bible or Marx, take your pick) that has somehow eluded the aged aren't exactly a new phenomenon.
I think its funny when capitalists pull this old thing, when capitalist theories and treatises preceded Marxism, maybe capitalism is obsolete? ;)

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:29 pm
Having had plenty of discussions with people on the far-left side of the political spectrum, it has become clear to me that a lot of you would fall under the category of "fascists". First the (a) definition such as it stands;

:"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Not much doubt that pretty much all communist nations in history falls under this category. However, the point that I would like to make is this; The supression of free speech is one of the fundemental tenents of fascism and of course this relates to the "forcible suppression of opposition" from the definition above.

Let's face it. Most of you are not interested in freedom of speech or expression. You will often advocate the use of violence to suppress one of the most important concepts in a democratic society.

I imagine you will say that freedom of speech does not cover "hate speech".
Several problem with that argument. First of all, what constitutes hate speech is highly subjective. It becomes a reliable tool in your favor, you call something hate speech and thus claim that you have the right to suppress that hate speech. If I said, "muslim immigrants commit disproportionately large amounts of crime in my country", would that be hate speech? I consider those facts, no more, no less. There is certainly a tendency in far-left circle to label any criticism of minorities as hate speech. This does nothing to help a constructive debate.

Anyone agree/disagree with the things that I have pointed out here?

(if the thread gets locked and I get banned, it will be the highest point of irony ever :D )
asshole idiots always say the same thing when they come here =\

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Omega+March 24, 2007 04:18 am--> (Omega @ March 24, 2007 04:18 am) O.K. [/b]

Can be.


How? Sounds like an oxymoron. Please Explain.


LovelyShadeOfRed
In all seriousness

Hint Hint.

[Omega]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+March 24, 2007 02:50 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ March 24, 2007 02:50 pm)


LovelyShadeOfRed
In all seriousness

Hint Hint.[/b]
Got it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

WHY…YOU…YOU…Ukrainian genocide denier you! How dare you question this subject! You are a Commie arn´t you! COMMIE! COMMIE! Mat ko buska! How we suffer! Buska! Buska! How we Suuuuuuuffer!

:lol: I am of Slovak descent, my great grandfather was a leading member of the Communist Party in his town, and my grandfather was also a member. My grandmother was the exact opposite. This reminds me of the type of shit she told my grandfather when they argued.


Yes, I know how things can be inflated. I really can not say with certainty that the number was 7 million as was claimed. However I do not think that Miron Dolot, the author of the book I referenced, is making things up.

I would read the books I suggested, 7 million is just insane. Even the most conservative American christian fascist "historians" say 2 million, this was what the Nazis said! And they were trying to make the Soviet Union look bad!

Like I said, famine was abundent before socialism came to Ukraine, you should recognize that. You should also recognize that the famine was caused by grain hoarding by kulaks, not by evil communism, the ideology of the satanic devil himself


You mentioned that a lot of Soviets fought voluntarily against the Germans.
However, enough Ukrainians were dissatisfied with their “Communist Party Liberators” to form a volunteer SS division to fight for the Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_G...(1st_Ukrainian) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Galizien_ (1st_Ukrainian))

yes that is true. The same happened in France and other countries that were invaded like Belgium however there were only around 20,000 soviet-nazi volunteers in the entire union, while there were about 40,000 in Ukraine alone, not counting all the other repuiblics in the Union. Also, Ukraine was for most of the war, had the smallest amount of partisans (Belarus had the most supposedly.)

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:09 pm

WHY…YOU…YOU…Ukrainian genocide denier you! How dare you question this subject! You are a Commie arn´t you! COMMIE! COMMIE! Mat ko buska! How we suffer! Buska! Buska! How we Suuuuuuuffer!

:lol: I am of Slovak descent, my great grandfather was a leading member of the Communist Party in his town, and my grandfather was also a member. My grandmother was the exact opposite. This reminds me of the type of shit she told my grandfather when they argued.


Actually, I just modified the Jewish reply to anyone questioning the "Holocaust".
Change
Ukrainian Genocide to Holocaust
“COMMIE!” To “NAZI!”
Matko Buska! to Oy Vey!
And you have the Jewish version.

Anyway...I did a search on the subject today and came up with some material on it. I skimmed it quick to see if it was relevant but did not give it a good read. The burden of proof rests on the accusers and I want to see what kind of evidence is put forward to substantiate the breadth of the claims.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:11 pm
hmm. you are an idiot
Me, or him? :huh:

If you're talking about me, I was joking.

If you are talking about him, then that is completely understandable.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:10 pm

All of that's very nice and good, but it of course is built in the presupossition that class 'matters'. There can be no 'matters' without morality, and there can be no morality without moral reasoning.

You have no reason to support one class over another without morality. You don't even have any reason to support your own interests. You just have a terrible mess of muddled thinking and broken ideas.

Let me save you some trouble: until you can defend your ideas morally, you can't defend them at all.

Class is no more important than hair color unless you devise some means by which it's more important, beyond simply stating over and over again. You have to prove that class matters. Go ahead, do it. Prove that class is more important than hair color without already presupposing that it is. "Well, class influences your life." It may. But that doesn't matter until you demonstrate why you should care. And you can't do that without morality.

An example:

StormFront members believe that race matters.
The reason they believe race matters is because they care.
Caring is a form of moral reasoning.
To follow a path of moral reasoning is to exercise one's morality.
StormFront members follow their chosen morality.
In so doing, they conduct themselves accordingly.
Sometimes to the exclusion of all else.

I hope this helps.
I hope I've 'gotten' what Publius was trying to say.
If not, I'm sorry to have interfered.

Compañero Lynx