fascists in the mountians

[Red Radical]

i live in a small town (18000 in 20 cities on this mountian)and i recently dicovered that a group of nazis and a local white supremacy faction have joined and mostly old men but about 20 teenagers from my school are also involved and they are asking around the school for donations and such im not sure what to do there is only like 5 people at my school that share our beliefs

[Red Scare]

just because they outnumber you doesn't mean you can't outmanuever them, post up TONS (and I mean TONS) of flyers all over your town and school to make them think that you guys have a lot of people on your side, and plus the flyers will probably get more recruits, adding to your side. then molotov cocktail the bastards from behind. :ph34r:

[spartan]

move carefully here! if they dont know your a leftist then dont let it be known for you are outnumbered. do what marxistleninist1 said and put up loads of posters and flyers to make it look like there is a much bigger left wing movement then there actually is. if they know your a leftist then you have got nothing to lose so ATTACK! a nice premptive strike should sort them out :D

[Red Scare]

also, lock your doors at night :ph34r:

[Red October]

What is the general community's attitude towards fascism and racism? if the community is opposed to it, then flyers identifying these nazis could help fost hostility towards fascism in your town. If your town is apathetic or favorable towards them, operate very carefully. Are you considering violence? That may be a good option in dealing with these bastards. If they don't know you're a leftist, they probably wont retaliate against you.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 28, 2007 02:09 am
i live in a small town (18000 in 20 cities on this mountian)and i recently dicovered that a group of nazis and a local white supremacy faction have joined and mostly old men but about 20 teenagers from my school are also involved and they are asking around the school for donations and such im not sure what to do there is only like 5 people at my school that share our beliefs
Get together with people you know definitely arent fash but would definitely be sympathetic to the antifa, even if theyre not necessarilly left wing.
Get their friends onboard, and keep going till it snowballs. Organise demos and counter demos. Get a few comrades together (when you find some) and go flyposting under cover of dark. Get the community on your side before they do and make them know theyre not welcome on your streets.

[Red Radical]

there are lots of bigots up here but in general the public is not racist or nazi where should i attack them im thinking i take them no 1 by 1 but like a 5on 1 fight and just beat them senseless

[Red Radical]

im willing to take any nessecary action

[spartan]

attack some of their members individually. know there territory and where they go and most importantly when individual members are alone. this way you can attack them without fascist interference. make sure you where dark clothes a balaclava and nothing distinctive which could help them single you out in the future. good luck comrade in your fight against the fascists.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 29, 2007 01:06 am
im willing to take any nessecary action
you dont need to physically attack them. In my experience, that only serves to demonise the antifa in the public mindset because it puts the fash on the moral pedestal. Hit them where it really hurts, ie in their support base. Observe their movements for a while while keeping your distance. The more of their activities you get to record, the better. Things like racist literature, or photos of racist or abusive grafiti and violence are gold dust. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with and when the time is right, publish a newsletter with this material to distribute around your community to get them on your side. Remember that the vast majority of people arent nazis and they will side with you against these extremists if they know the facts. The one who resorts to fists first usually loses the political battle.

[spartan]

only take physical action when things get really bad though judging by your comment that they outnumber you things are already really bad.

[bootleg42]

Lay low. If your outnumbered and in an area bull of bigots, then it's probably too dangerous. Finish school and then move to a big city (if possible). You're health is better off being used for bigger causes for the future. I assume you're young, so think that you have much more important work to do in the future, don't risk it all now for a small town full of bigots.

But if you have numbers, think it through and just pass flyers identitfing who they are.

Also for a side note, I always suggest people train and work out. Learn fighting, MMA or any fighting style. I started working out a year ago when I was somewhat fat and now I'm lean and a fighting machine so consider working out and eating healthy (veggies, fruits, WATER, MEAT, etc).

[Red Radical]

ok thank you i posted like 300 to 400 posters around the town no one saw me so i should be ok

[spartan]

well done comrade! people always say that the first step is always the hardest so well done for taking it. and like bootleg42 said if your not fit then start doing some exercising and eating a healthy diet. i did quite some time ago and now i feel like a new man.

[Red Radical]

ok well the stupid ass nazi attacked my friend after football today and he is not majorly hurt but has a fractured wrist and a few cuts and bruises overall he's ok but now we are pissed and want to get back at these nazi assholes

[Red October]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 29, 2007 05:40 pm
ok well the stupid ass nazi attacked my friend after football today and he is not majorly hurt but has a fractured wrist and a few cuts and bruises overall he's ok but now we are pissed and want to get back at these nazi assholes
How many people will fight with you? If the fascists outnumber you by too much, violent confrontation with them can get you seriously fucked up and you won't accomplish anything. But if you can get enough people so you can create a "hostile work environment" for these pigs, you stand a good chance. Though you have to be careful. These are not people to be taken lightly, as you well know, and they will not operate within reasonable boundaries. So you have to guard your family and friends too, because it is not uncommon for the fascists to attack them too, even if they have nothing to do with your political work. Good luck comrade!

[Red Radical]

lots of people hate the nazis at my school but arent leftists so i can get atleast double their numbers and thank you

[which doctor]

Where do you live?

[Red Radical]

in lake arrowhead(which is in the mountians for those who dont know

[spartan]

no point in being pacifist now comrade it is now time to attack and with extreme force! let the bastards know that they are dealing with people who are not scared or willing to be bullied by them. for the fascists are bullies and a good show of force combined with a few cracked skulls will scare them off.

[Comrade Rage]

Consider infiltration. In the kind of scenario you just described, it may be wise to have someone on the inside so that you know what they are planning.

[Red Radical]

ok i have absolutly no problem with that

[Red Radical]

i know the main kid is this asshole named Kevin Meister he is like super nazi he has a swastika tattoo on his sholder ther meet in his basement



sorry about my spelling

[spartan]

molotov his basement and cook the bastards during one of their meetings :D

[Red Radical]

ummm ok how would you like me to get a moltov in his basement

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I agree, gather leftist support, and molotov their meetings.

[Red Scare]

slip the molotov through the basement window :ph34r:

[Red Radical]

i'll see what happens

[Fawkes]

Gather with a large group of people outside their meetings to physically confront them and scare them.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Fascists and Nazis are too stupid for that. They'd think that you're there for their Swastika Cookies or something.

[spartan]

if you infiltrate their group you will know when they all get together for there meetings. then get your comrade who is infiltrating out and then get the fascists! its easy to molotov them just slip it through their basement window (where you said they meet). make sure you throw it with force so it will smash.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:17 pm
if you infiltrate their group you will know when they all get together for there meetings. then get your comrade who is infiltrating out and then get the fascists! its easy to molotov them just slip it through their basement window (where you said they meet). make sure you throw it with force so it will smash.
...and if they find out he is a red he will unlikely live to tell the tale.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:23 pm
Fascists and Nazis are too stupid for that. They'd think that you're there for their Swastika Cookies or something.
What?

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Fawkes+August 31, 2007 09:19 pm--> (Fawkes @ August 31, 2007 09:19 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 09:23 pm
Fascists and Nazis are too stupid for that. They'd think that you're there for their Swastika Cookies or something.
What? [/b]
Vanilla chip cookies (they believe that chocolate chips glorify the african ethnic group) with the chips making the shape of the Nazi Swastikas.

[Comrade_Scott]

burn some houses... im serious burn a couple down and that will hammer the point home just ensure to tread lightly after comrade :ph34r:

[Red Radical]

I would rather not burn a house or two down

[spartan]

only burn their fascist houses down.

[Red Radical]

well tonight they have a meeting and we might show up not for the swastika cookies tho

[spartan]

fucking skin the fascist bastards red radical!

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by Red-star-[email protected] 31, 2007 01:21 pm
Karma police! :ph34r: :lol:
:D :che: :banner:

[luxemburg89]

you dont need to physically attack them. In my experience, that only serves to demonise the antifa in the public mindset because it puts the fash on the moral pedestal. Hit them where it really hurts, ie in their support base. Observe their movements for a while while keeping your distance. The more of their activities you get to record, the better. Things like racist literature, or photos of racist or abusive grafiti and violence are gold dust. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with and when the time is right, publish a newsletter with this material to distribute around your community to get them on your side. Remember that the vast majority of people arent nazis and they will side with you against these extremists if they know the facts. The one who resorts to fists first usually loses the political battle.


Ulster Socialist, I think that is one of the best posts I have ever read on Revleft. I cannot really add to that - it is word perfect and word for word what I believe. Politically that statement is as accurate as possible. You will give your beliefs a bad name if you're seen to be the one bringing about the violence.


only burn their fascist houses down.

Ah, trial by fire, how Masonic! Nonesense, I'm sorry, but an innocent person's house in the vicinity could also catch fire and you could end up in jail - what good are you in jail?


fucking skin the fascist bastards red radical!

While I would love to see them dead I don't quite think resorting to Aztec rituals is quite necessary.

I have to ask you now not to go too far, do not kill them or disable them or whatever; not only is that politically a disaster but it casts a huge shadow over the left-wing movement. We do not want peaceful workers, from whom we could gain support, to associate us with senseless violence - as I'm sure the media would portray us. Please do not do anything to endanger yourself, it really isn't worth it for such a small, insignificant victory. I agree with Ulster Socialist, destroy them politically, destroy them in the public's image; resorting to violence will only backfire on you, no matter how noble your intent.

[spartan]

the media could not afford to defend racist nazis! it would make them look bad. you know how politically correct the media is and defending nazi scum is politically in correct something they will not do.

[Red Radical]

i got them comrades pm me if you would like to know how, victory is ours :ph34r:

[which doctor]

This thread is all talk.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:41 am
This thread is all talk.
I'll admit, the molotov stuff is kind of stupid, but after talking to Red Radical, I'm pretty sure it's not "all talk".

[Red Radical]

the moltov thing was really dumb

[The Advent of Anarchy]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fwzep82vcYU

You guys have GOT to watch this.

[Red Radical]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSWChUV0pNk&mode=related&search=


this pisses me off damn nazis :angry:

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 02, 2007 07:22 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSWChUV0pNk&mode=related&search=


this pisses me off damn nazis :angry:
ha ha surprise surprise the police are just standing around protecting them as usual, TBH Im not concerned about these losers, they seem tiny theyre certainly nowhere near as big as say the BNP and i couldnt see or hear any supporting listeners. All i could hear was them getting shouted down by antifa comrades.

[Red October]

Originally posted by Fawkes+September 02, 2007 09:49 am--> (Fawkes @ September 02, 2007 09:49 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 09:41 am
This thread is all talk.
I'll admit, the molotov stuff is kind of stupid, but after talking to Red Radical, I'm pretty sure it's not "all talk". [/b]
Agreed. As he said, he carried out his plan and got away with it, without doing anything stupid like burning houses. We should all congratulate him for what he's done and hope that more stuff like this happens all over the world. There is not enough militant antifascism in America as there should be, so props to whoever can do stuff like this.

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:58 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fwzep82vcYU

You guys have GOT to watch this.
Outnumbered what? 15 to 1?

Perfect Antifa odds.

[Comrade Rage]

The same thing that happened in Lansing happened in Madison. They actually drowned 'em out in Madison :D . The fuckrod police arrested random protestors though :angry: .

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+September 02, 2007 07:35 pm--> (Pia Fidelis @ September 02, 2007 07:35 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 06:58 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fwzep82vcYU

You guys have GOT to watch this.
Outnumbered what? 15 to 1?

Perfect Antifa odds. [/b]
Yeah, they are. I don't get why people seem to have a problem with fighting dirty and being "cheap". Street fights are not the same as MMA fights, there are no rules. If you don't fight dirty in a street fight, you're an idiot.

[Red October]

Originally posted by Fawkes+September 03, 2007 06:43 pm--> (Fawkes @ September 03, 2007 06:43 pm)
Originally posted by Pia [email protected] 02, 2007 07:35 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 06:58 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fwzep82vcYU

You guys have GOT to watch this.
Outnumbered what? 15 to 1?

Perfect Antifa odds.
Yeah, they are. I don't get why people seem to have a problem with fighting dirty and being "cheap". Street fights are not the same as MMA fights, there are no rules. If you don't fight dirty in a street fight, you're an idiot. [/b]
Exactly. This isn't a gentleman's boxing club, it's a war. If you have the opportunity to attack with overwhelming force, it would be stupid not to just so you can be sporting. You do what you have to do to ensure victory with the smallest chance of serious injury, death, etc. If you want to go one on one with a bonehead when you could have more, you're an idiot.

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by Fawkes+September 03, 2007 11:43 pm--> (Fawkes @ September 03, 2007 11:43 pm)
Originally posted by Pia [email protected] 02, 2007 07:35 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 06:58 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fwzep82vcYU

You guys have GOT to watch this.
Outnumbered what? 15 to 1?

Perfect Antifa odds.
Yeah, they are. I don't get why people seem to have a problem with fighting dirty and being "cheap". Street fights are not the same as MMA fights, there are no rules. If you don't fight dirty in a street fight, you're an idiot. [/b]
If you, with 14 of your friends, pick a street fight with one or two people, then you are degenerate scoundrel filth.

One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.

And, last time I checked, Antifas start more fights and end up sending more MISGUIDED YOUTHS to the hospital then any Nazi group ever did, at least where I am from.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+September 05, 2007 01:16 pm--> (Pia Fidelis @ September 05, 2007 01:16 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:43 pm

Originally posted by Pia [email protected] 02, 2007 07:35 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 06:58 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fwzep82vcYU

You guys have GOT to watch this.
Outnumbered what? 15 to 1?

Perfect Antifa odds.
Yeah, they are. I don't get why people seem to have a problem with fighting dirty and being "cheap". Street fights are not the same as MMA fights, there are no rules. If you don't fight dirty in a street fight, you're an idiot.
If you, with 14 of your friends, pick a street fight with one or two people, then you are degenerate scoundrel filth.

One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.

And, last time I checked, Antifas start more fights and end up sending more MISGUIDED YOUTHS to the hospital then any Nazi group ever did, at least where I am from. [/b]
left unchecked the nazis have the potential to send millions to their deaths.

Dont you ever forget that.

As much as i would rather see peaceful means used first, I wouldnt have a problem with a group of antifa kicking the shit out of a fash if it means preventing another 100 hitler wannabes, especially if the fash in question are actively promoting violence themselves. It is impossible to reason with these scumbags.

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 05, 2007 01:28 pm
left unchecked the nazis have the potential to send millions to their deaths.

Dont you ever forget that.
That is propaganda, in its purist form.

So we should swarm and beat up a teenager who is wearing a swastika patch? Yes, that will really give him a great epiphany as to what life is. Or should we stab a 14 year old in the throat for wearing white laces and a bomber jacket? Why not? It was defense of the people, right? Maybe throw a 16 year old down a flight of stairs for wearing a skrewdriver shirt? How about swarming and severly beating an Eastern-European immigrant who, with poor english abilities, could not explain that his shaved head was not an expression of Nazism?* Well, he was probably just denying, like all Nazis do? Right?

I hate to break it to, comrade, but a HUGE portion of the teenagers who are Nazis give it up before they are in their 20's. They do NOT need to be targeted with violence. Think about it. If a group of Nazis beat you to a bloody pulp, would that make you not want to be a Leftist anymore? Misguided youth are people, don't you ever forget that.

Would you support the same swarming tactics against someone of any other political ideology? Of course not. Take is this way. Your quote, if used by a Nazi to justify violence against Leftists, it would say this:

If Left unchecked the Communists have the potential to send millions to their deaths.

Don't you ever forget that.

And there is JUST as much historical evidence to side with this quote as yours.

Violence is NOT an effective method on ending violence, and beating teenagers into palsy does not end hate. Don't you ever fucking forget that, comrade.

*All of these instances are actual happenings in the past few years here.

[abbielives!]

if their are any minorities (migrent workers, queers, people of color, athiests, etc..) in your community, try speaking to them
also try bulding a positive vision

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+--> (Pia Fidelis)
That is propaganda, in its purist form.[/b]

No its called reality, have you ever read the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller?
It goes like this-
''In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+--> (Pia Fidelis)
So we should swarm and beat up a teenager who is wearing a swastika patch? Yes, that will really give him a great epiphany as to what life is. Or should we stab a 14 year old in the throat for wearing white laces and a bomber jacket? Why not? It was defense of the people, right? Maybe throw a 16 year old down a flight of stairs for wearing a skrewdriver shirt? How about swarming and severly beating an Eastern-European immigrant who, with poor english abilities, could not explain that his shaved head was not an expression of Nazism?* Well, he was probably just denying, like all Nazis do? Right?[/b]

No fuck off, you're taking what i said out of context. In case you havent read my previous posts, I am perfectly aware that not all 'skinheads' are bona fide nazis. Im referring specifically to the mature grass roots activists, who are actively promoting a fash party or encouraging or engaging in acts of racist aggression or intimidation. These are the ones that need to be made an example of, so they are aware that this scum will not be tolerated in our neighbourhoods.


Originally posted by Pia Fidelis

I hate to break it to, comrade, but a HUGE portion of the teenagers who are Nazis give it up before they are in their 20's. They do NOT need to be targeted with violence. Think about it. If a group of Nazis beat you to a bloody pulp, would that make you not want to be a Leftist anymore? Misguided youth are people, don't you ever forget that.

Again im not referring to the little johnnies, im referring to the die hard core BNP /NF brigade like the Mick Treacies and John Tyndalls. Im perfectly aware that the impressionable ones are the type we need to win over, but there will always be the die hard core set in their way. Frankly I couldnt care if someone put a bullet in this lot.


Originally posted by Pia Fidelis

Would you support the same swarming tactics against someone of any other political ideology? Of course not. Take is this way. Your quote, if used by a Nazi to justify violence against Leftists, it would say this:

If Left unchecked the Communists have the potential to send millions to their deaths.

Don't you ever forget that.

Woooah i hope you enjoy what little time you have outside the OI board, because believe me you wont have much more if you keep up with that sort of talk.

In any case, it wasnt the communists that killed millions, it was a deformed form of socialism better known as state capitalism, most of the tradgedy in question would have been avoidable had it not been for the economic and military meddling of the U$A and its whore satellite states.
For your benefit, it is for this reason that most comrades on this board actually oppose the USSR, its ideaology and other state capitalist countries rather than defend them.


Originally posted by Pia Fidelis
And there is JUST as much historical evidence to side with this quote as yours.
All of which is moot, as i've already said.


Pia [email protected]

Violence is NOT an effective method on ending violence, and beating teenagers into palsy does not end hate. Don't you ever fucking forget that, comrade.
Its not an effective method of ending violence but it is an effective proverbial stick in disuading others. And dont call me comrade, you reactionary fash apologist scumbag.

Pia Fidelis

*All of these instances are actual happenings in the past few years here.

None of which implicate the broad revolutionary or antifa school of thought.

[Fawkes]

If you, with 14 of your friends, pick a street fight with one or two people, then you are degenerate scoundrel filth.

One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.
If you were a general in the military and you were attempting to take over a city filled with 1,000 enemy combatants, would you attack it with 1,000 soldiers of your own, or with 14,000? If you chose the former, you are a total and absolute idiot.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:23 pm

If you, with 14 of your friends, pick a street fight with one or two people, then you are degenerate scoundrel filth.

One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.
If you were a general in the military and you were attempting to take over a city filled with 1,000 enemy combatants, would you attack it with 1,000 soldiers of your own, or with 14,000? If you chose the former, you are a total and absolute idiot.
Agreed. Never underestimate an opponent, no matter how drunk, stupid, or crazy he or she is.

[spartan]

If you were a general in the military and you were attempting to take over a city filled with 1,000 enemy combatants, would you attack it with 1,000 soldiers of your own, or with 14,000? If you chose the former, you are a total and absolute idiot.
i completly agree! one is good but ten is better!

[Red October]

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

If you, with 14 of your friends, pick a street fight with one or two people, then you are degenerate scoundrel filth.

One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.
If you were a general in the military and you were attempting to take over a city filled with 1,000 enemy combatants, would you attack it with 1,000 soldiers of your own, or with 14,000? If you chose the former, you are a total and absolute idiot.
Attacking with overwhelming force is a military strategy that has been used forever. It all goes back to the simple choice: Would you rather attack with less than you can and thereby increase your own risk of defeat, or attack with superior force and greatly reduce your chances of defeat? Anyone who would willingly choose to increase their chances for defeat because superior force just isn't sporting is a tactical idiot. Like I sad before, this isn't a gentleman's boxing club, its street fighting. Strength in numbers is a very good strategy. If you are in a street fight and you don't know your enemy's capabilities, attacking with superior force is the only strategy that makes sense.

[spartan]

Attacking with overwhelming force is a military strategy that has been used forever. It all goes back to the simple choice: Would you rather attack with less than you can and thereby increase your own risk of defeat, or attack with superior force and greatly reduce your chances of defeat? Anyone who would willingly choose to increase their chances for defeat because superior force just isn't sporting is a tactical idiot. Like I sad before, this isn't a gentleman's boxing club, its street fighting. Strength in numbers is a very good strategy. If you are in a street fight and you don't know your enemy's capabilities, attacking with superior force is the only strategy that makes sense.
yet again i completly agree with you Red October. it is just a real shame Pia Fidelis wont which is stupid and wrong.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Pia [email protected] 05, 2007 01:16 pm
If you, with 14 of your friends, pick a street fight with one or two people, then you are degenerate scoundrel filth.
Why? It's more likely that you win the fight, any judgements made about it being degenerate rely on some outmoded sense of "honour".


One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.

Yeah. One on one is more dangerous to those involved.


And, last time I checked, Antifas start more fights and end up sending more MISGUIDED YOUTHS to the hospital then any Nazi group ever did, at least where I am from.

Where are you from? Madeupnazispy-slurringantifaistan?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 05, 2007 11:16 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 05, 2007 11:16 pm)
Pia [email protected] 05, 2007 01:16 pm
If you, with 14 of your friends, pick a street fight with one or two people, then you are degenerate scoundrel filth.
Why? It's more likely that you win the fight, any judgements made about it being degenerate rely on some outmoded sense of "honour".


One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.

Yeah. One on one is more dangerous to those involved.


And, last time I checked, Antifas start more fights and end up sending more MISGUIDED YOUTHS to the hospital then any Nazi group ever did, at least where I am from.

Where are you from? Madeupnazispy-slurringantifaistan? [/b]
restrict the fucker. He's clearly a fash sympathiser, or at the very least a pro-cappie.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Why? It's more likely that you win the fight, any judgements made about it being degenerate rely on some outmoded sense of "honour".
Yeah.
Also, when in the hell have the Nazis ever shown honour to their victims?

From Anne Frank to this guy in a coma, there is no honour in Nazism. Avenge our blood!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:06 am

Why? It's more likely that you win the fight, any judgements made about it being degenerate rely on some outmoded sense of "honour".
Yeah.
Also, when in the hell have the Nazis ever shown honour to their victims?

From Anne Frank to this guy in a coma, there is no honour in Nazism. Avenge our blood!
Amen to that.

From the 6 million in the death camps to Stephen Lawrence

Nazi fucks can suck my dick!

[Pia Fidelis]

Wow! I am amazed!

I make a post against VIOLENCE and I am a sympathetic to Nazis? Pro-capitalist? Absurd and unfounded.

Do I think that Militant Nazism should be stopped? Of course. Is violence ANY means to do so? Not at all.

If you want to know my political beliefs, EVERY political compass (or similar) test has said that I am a Left-Wing Authoritarian. No post I have made says otherwise. I DO NOT support vigilante violence, of any sort, nor have I ever, nor will I ever. I do not care if it is a hardcore BNP/NPD supporter, or if it some 13 year old drawing swastikas in his mathbook, NO ONE needs to be oppressed by miltant violence. Now, when the INDIVIDUAL himself has committed a crime, the STATE, not another individual, takes all diciplinary action into its hands.


Why? It's more likely that you win the fight, any judgements made about it being degenerate rely on some outmoded sense of "honour".

Yeah.
Also, when in the hell have the Nazis ever shown honour to their victims?

From Anne Frank to this guy in a coma, there is no honour in Nazism. Avenge our blood!


If you were a general in the military and you were attempting to take over a city filled with 1,000 enemy combatants, would you attack it with 1,000 soldiers of your own, or with 14,000? If you chose the former, you are a total and absolute idiot.

If you truly want to compare a street-fight to a war, then go right ahead. Last time I checked wars took place between two states, who have professional armies and through whom there is cause under the direct command under the STATE. To support these ideas of vigilante justice is nothing but hyper-individualistic anti-statism.

Why are their laws in a country if a group wants to enforce its own order? What you proposed is a two-sided sword. By supporting militant Antifa vilgilantes, you also have to accept that similar from Nazis can and should be expected. The State arrests violent people, and that is why the jails are full of Nazis.

What made you the law?


One on one is different than the pathetic and cowardly swarming techniques used by Antifa and Nazis alike.

Yeah. One on one is more dangerous to those involved

I disagree. Both are equally dangerous in one regard: the destruction of order. These kind of methods, when continued extensivly, resolve in a total partisan war. I do not want to see a war fought in the streets. I am quite happy with peace.


Woooah i hope you enjoy what little time you have outside the OI board, because believe me you wont have much more if you keep up with that sort of talk.

In any case, it wasnt the communists that killed millions, it was a deformed form of socialism better known as state capitalism, most of the tradgedy in question would have been avoidable had it not been for the economic and military meddling of the U$A and its whore satellite states.
For your benefit, it is for this reason that most comrades on this board actually oppose the USSR, its ideaology and other state capitalist countries rather than defend them.


I have no idea what an OI board is, could you please explain? And, having read the rules, I hardly see as though anything I have done will get me banned.

Also, my point in mentioning that was to show the same level of propagation that you were using is shared by Nazis. Personally, I like the USSR, and I saw no problem with much of it's history, until of course the final years of decline and degeneracy. I also disagree whoheartedly that it was "state-capitalism", but such is a conversation outside this thread.


...the die hard core BNP /NF brigade like the Mick Treacies and John Tyndalls.... Frankly I couldnt care if someone put a bullet in this lot.

I could and DO care that people are being killed. Who is to say that, if their deaths are justifiable, then if a Nazi puts a bullet in my head that my death is justified? The STATE.


So, as an end point, I am not a Nazi, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be. I do not sympathise with Nazis, but I DO with misguided youth who are beat up instead of being taught.

I do oppose much of the violence that is suggested here, as I have said in nearly every post I have made in this sub-forum.

[RNK]

Is violence ANY means to do so? Not at all.

You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of what the Nazi movement actually is. Absolutely none. A lot of them are not "misguided youth". Most of them are treacherous, despicable things, that would attack you, drag you to some basement lair, and behead you with a kitchen knife. If, while you're being dragged away with broken legs and arms and a fractured skull, you don't want to fight -- fine. Die. But don't you fucking come here and try to preach to us simply because you don't have the fucking balls to stand up against injustice. You are completely ignorant to the nature of the enemy we have to fight. So go fuck yourself. You have no place here amongst revolutionaries.

[RedHal]

Misguided youth are people, don't you ever forget that.

you show more sympathy for these nazi kids than their victims. Nazism is not a passive movement, they preach violence and have all intentions to use it. Let me guess, you are a white male with left leaning politics, you are not their prime target. Ppl of colour are thier prime targets. These cowardly nazis will jump them whenever they get a chance, they do not have the luxury of hiding behind white skin.

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:14 am

Misguided youth are people, don't you ever forget that.

you show more sympathy for these nazi kids than their victims. Nazism is not a passive movement, they preach violence and have all intentions to use it. Let me guess, you are a white male with left leaning politics, you are not their prime target. Ppl of colour are thier prime targets. These cowardly nazis will jump them whenever they get a chance, they do not have the luxury of hiding behind white skin.
Male, yes, white? No. I am an open leftist who does not possess white skin - I do not see how I am not a "prime" target.

I never said that Nazism was passive - passive Nazism is pretty much an oxymoron. Do I have sympathy for people who get beat up? Of course. But, I do not have more sympathy for someone who gets beat up for their political beliefs -whether Nazi or otherwise. Whereas people who get beaten up for things that they cannot quite control, there is much more sympathy to be had. But, as I have said, if someone is out "on the prowl" to get into a fight with someone, then they are scum.

Let me put it this way - if 14 year old who is into Nazism and who is part of a Skinhead gang who has personally beaten up someone under his ideology gets attacked by Antifas, then I do NOT have any sympathy. Whereas, if a different Nazi, same age, who is just curious and is exploring the idea, and maybe posts on stormfront and "dresses the part" gets the same beating, does he deserve it just as much? I personally do not think so.

When it comes to accosting Nazis, I have (personally) found that the best method when you outnumber them is just to have them hand over their patches/laces/suspenders and any other Nazi-related stuff they have on them. Everytime I have done this, they have always complied (usually getting really upset and apologising when doing so mind you). Now, if, in a case like that mentioned happened and instead the Nazi attacks, then, I do not oppose anyone laying him a beating - he chose to engage the fight and therefore accepted the consequences of his choice.

So, yes, I do not like to hear about Nazi youth getting beat up, in the same way I do not like to hear about youth who get involved in violent (nonpolitical) gangs get beat up - it is someone getting the physical end of the mistakes that we all make as youngsters. But, the same applies with other gangs, if you have done anything within the gang, you have dug your own grave.


RNK's post

Do I not have a place here amongst leftists? Of course I do, just in the same way everyone here does - leftist is not about single-minded elitism, at least not the leftism I know.

As for my knowledge of Nazism, I am sure I know as much as anyone else here. I had grown up and had friends (back when it was popular to do so) become really into the ideology.

Actually, I have been victim of the violence from Nazis, and, as I said when addressing RedHal's post, Nazism is a violent ideology (infact it is a culmination of violent ideologies). But, I think that you over-estimate the number of Militant Nazis out there. Most of them in the western world are internet warriors whose "words are grand, but deeds small".

Also, I am sure I have accosted more Nazis in public (unless I was outnumbered but that is just common sense) than you have. I used to have a collection of white laces that would make any bonehead jealous. How many times have I instigated a fight? Zero. How many youth whose Swastika patches that I took of their jackets did I see again wearing such? None.

Now, when dealing with violent Nazis, of course, this is different. It is impossible to say what anyone can really prepare to do when accosted by a group of angry skinheads and you are the lone brown guy with a hammer and sickle pin. No matter how strong willed someone is, and no matter how dedicated they are to the cause, no one wants to get beat up - not even the most ardent. When I was attacked, did I fight back? I tried. What else can I say? I did not stand there and accept it as though I were a Christian in the Circum Maximus, and I find it very insulting that you think otherwise. How often have you personally accosted nazis? And, in asking that I am not challenging, I am just really curious.

I think that it is important to upturn the roots instead of trying to cut down a tree. Educate the youth to understand that these ideals are NOT going to do anything good for them. Violence should always be in your backpocket, not in your hand.

AGAIN, and this is important I make this clear - I am not all for Gandhist non-aggression and non-violence.

Plus, most of these beer-gutted nazis are so out of shape they cannot even get up a flight of stairs, let alone hold their own if they needed to :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Pia [email protected] 06, 2007 03:18 am
Wow! I am amazed!
It doesn't take much, then again the brainless are often amazed by the tiniest of things.


I make a post against VIOLENCE and I am a sympathetic to Nazis? Pro-capitalist? Absurd and unfounded.

Well you certainly seem to think that we should not act in a n effective manner against them.


Do I think that Militant Nazism should be stopped? Of course. Is violence ANY means to do so? Not at all.

You're deluding yourself, nazism is a violent movement which must be opposed on the streets as well as in the minds of the masses. It is no good fighting a war of words against an enemy prepared to put you in a coma or behead you.


If you want to know my political beliefs, EVERY political compass (or similar) test has said that I am a Left-Wing Authoritarian.

There are no left wing authoritarians - the ultimate goal of the left is a stateless classless society.


No post I have made says otherwise. I DO NOT support vigilante violence, of any sort, nor have I ever, nor will I ever. I do not care if it is a hardcore BNP/NPD supporter, or if it some 13 year old drawing swastikas in his mathbook, NO ONE needs to be oppressed by miltant violence.

No one needs to be oppressed by state violence.


Now, when the INDIVIDUAL himself has committed a crime, the STATE, not another individual, takes all diciplinary action into its hands.

How is the violence of the bourgeois state different from the violence of the individual, ****lamp.


To support these ideas of vigilante justice is nothing but hyper-individualistic anti-statism.

So? Your point being?

[spartan]

Jazzratt you should give Pia Fidelis a link to that russian beheading video of those two immigrants. that should make him understand.

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:07 am
You're deluding yourself, nazism is a violent movement which must be opposed on the streets as well as in the minds of the masses. It is no good fighting a war of words against an enemy prepared to put you in a coma or behead you.
I don't see why he doesn't get this. Sitting around trying to reason with Nazis has never worked when confronted with their violence and hate. I think Hitler himself said that the only thing that could have stopped the German fascist movement early on would have been high intensity violence against them. We cannot afford to let them spread and think it'll all be ok because we're going to respect their beliefs and assume they'll respond in kind. They don't give a shit if you're an antifa activist or a random immigrant who's never done anything against them, they will kill you all the same. Do you think they'll respect your non-violence and treat you the same way? Fuck no!

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:34 pm
Jazzratt you should give Pia Fidelis a link to that russian beheading video of those two immigrants. that should make him understand.
I posted that video in the Russian thread. Try again.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

If you truly want to compare a street-fight to a war, then go right ahead. Last time I checked wars took place between two states, who have professional armies and through whom there is cause under the direct command under the STATE. To support these ideas of vigilante justice is nothing but hyper-individualistic anti-statism.

And your point is what?


Why are their laws in a country if a group wants to enforce its own order? What you proposed is a two-sided sword. By supporting militant Antifa vilgilantes, you also have to accept that similar from Nazis can and should be expected. The State arrests violent people, and that is why the jails are full of Nazis.[/b]

Have you read ANYTHING on this site?
The state doesn't bring the true criminals to jail. Usually, they'll side with a Nazi, even if the Nazi started the fight---why? Because the Nazis are trying to destroy the Revolutionary Left, and as long as they do that, they are the "Useful Idiots" of the ruling class.


What made you the law?

What gave the state the right to assassinate our comrades and other people abroad? What gave them the right to kill Che Guevara? What gave them the right to invade the RSFSR? Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? Iraq? Afghanistan? Iraq? (they invaded Iraq twice). What gave them the right to deforest Vietnam? What gave them the right to starve the North Korean people? What gave them the right to exploit Third World Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? What gave them the right to lock Japanese people in concentration camps during WWII? What gave them the right to rule in favor of the Nazis and Klansmen when they massacred Communists in the Greensboro Massacre, calling it self-defense?!

I know that you're all snugged up in your little fantasy that the capitalists will take care of the people; however, the reality is this: WE LIVE UNDER A TYRANNICAL EMPIRE.

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:07 pm

If you want to know my political beliefs, EVERY political compass (or similar) test has said that I am a Left-Wing Authoritarian.

There are no left wing authoritarians - the ultimate goal of the left is a stateless classless society.
A Stateless society? Sounds like something Ayn Rand would have wanted. Socialism is completely about the utilisation of a large government body - I cannot see how there could be socialism without a state. I like the idea of a strong state, and a state-controlled economy. I suggest you look into this topic in more detail - there is much to be learned.



Now, when the INDIVIDUAL himself has committed a crime, the STATE, not another individual, takes all diciplinary action into its hands.

How is the violence of the bourgeois state different from the violence of the individual, ****lamp.

Bourgeois state? How is the state Bourgeois in a social-democracy? I am asking, not challenging. Also, if each individual choses what is his personal set of laws, then what is separating this from complete statelessness and personal interest expansions (ala Ayn Rand)?


QUOTE
No post I have made says otherwise. I DO NOT support vigilante violence, of any sort, nor have I ever, nor will I ever. I do not care if it is a hardcore BNP/NPD supporter, or if it some 13 year old drawing swastikas in his mathbook, NO ONE needs to be oppressed by miltant violence.


No one needs to be oppressed by state violence.

No one needs to be oppressed by violence. Personal-interest, hypernominalist, anti-state violence is more destructive to society than anything else. It is with these ideas that a Militant Nazi movement would be able to take over - no one here wants that.


To support these ideas of vigilante justice is nothing but hyper-individualistic anti-statism.


So? Your point being?

These ideas sound A LOT like those proposed by the Neo-Liberal Movement/Right-Wing Libertarian Movement. Please clarify where you separate yourself.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

A Stateless society? Sounds like something Ayn Rand would have wanted. Socialism is completely about the utilisation of a large government body - I cannot see how there could be socialism without a state. I like the idea of a strong state, and a state-controlled economy. I suggest you look into this topic in more detail - there is much to be learned.

Funny. I'd suggest the same for you. The masses should be in control of the state, not some beoureocracy of state capitalists.

If the state controlled the means of production, and the masses controlled the state through the people's democratic dictatorship, then fine by me.

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:30 am

What made you the law?

What gave the state the right to assassinate our comrades and other people abroad? What gave them the right to kill Che Guevara? What gave them the right to invade the RSFSR? Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? Iraq? Afghanistan? Iraq? (they invaded Iraq twice). What gave them the right to deforest Vietnam? What gave them the right to starve the North Korean people? What gave them the right to exploit Third World Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? What gave them the right to lock Japanese people in concentration camps during WWII? What gave them the right to rule in favor of the Nazis and Klansmen when they massacred Communists in the Greensboro Massacre, calling it self-defense?!

I know that you're all snugged up in your little fantasy that the capitalists will take care of the people; however, the reality is this: WE LIVE UNDER A TYRANNICAL EMPIRE.
Thanks, but I do not live in the USA, nor do I condone anything they have done.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+September 07, 2007 01:23 am--> (Pia Fidelis @ September 07, 2007 01:23 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 12:30 am

What made you the law?

What gave the state the right to assassinate our comrades and other people abroad? What gave them the right to kill Che Guevara? What gave them the right to invade the RSFSR? Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? Iraq? Afghanistan? Iraq? (they invaded Iraq twice). What gave them the right to deforest Vietnam? What gave them the right to starve the North Korean people? What gave them the right to exploit Third World Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? What gave them the right to lock Japanese people in concentration camps during WWII? What gave them the right to rule in favor of the Nazis and Klansmen when they massacred Communists in the Greensboro Massacre, calling it self-defense?!

I know that you're all snugged up in your little fantasy that the capitalists will take care of the people; however, the reality is this: WE LIVE UNDER A TYRANNICAL EMPIRE.
Thanks, but I do not live in the USA, nor do I condone anything they have done. [/b]
You have a funny way of showing it.

Also, where do you live?

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:53 am

A Stateless society? Sounds like something Ayn Rand would have wanted. Socialism is completely about the utilisation of a large government body - I cannot see how there could be socialism without a state. I like the idea of a strong state, and a state-controlled economy. I suggest you look into this topic in more detail - there is much to be learned.

Funny. I'd suggest the same for you. The masses should be in control of the state, not some beoureocracy of state capitalists.

If the state controlled the means of production, and the masses controlled the state through the people's democratic dictatorship, then fine by me.
It is not that simple. Your concept of the state seems to automatically associate it with the American system. What about the All-Powerful state under Stalin? I would by no means call that a capitalist driven state - not in the slightest. It is better defined, as you perfectly put it in the latter part of your post.

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:25 am
You have a funny way of showing it.

Also, where do you live?
How have I ever said that I am pro-USA? I am not at all. I entrust the STATE, not the American government.

As for my whereabouts, I will not say specifically, but I live in a Socially-Democratic country where I am have no major issues with the state.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+September 07, 2007 01:26 am--> (Pia Fidelis @ September 07, 2007 01:26 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 12:53 am

A Stateless society? Sounds like something Ayn Rand would have wanted. Socialism is completely about the utilisation of a large government body - I cannot see how there could be socialism without a state. I like the idea of a strong state, and a state-controlled economy. I suggest you look into this topic in more detail - there is much to be learned.

Funny. I'd suggest the same for you. The masses should be in control of the state, not some beoureocracy of state capitalists.

If the state controlled the means of production, and the masses controlled the state through the people's democratic dictatorship, then fine by me.
It is not that simple. Your concept of the state seems to automatically associate it with the American system. What about the All-Powerful state under Stalin? I would by no means call that a capitalist driven state - not in the slightest. It is better defined, as you perfectly put it in the latter part of your post. [/b]
Stalin ran it with a system called "Soviet Democracy". Here's more info, I gots to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Pia [email protected] 06, 2007 03:18 am


I DO NOT support vigilante violence, of any sort, nor have I ever, nor will I ever.NO ONE needs to be oppressed by miltant violence. Now, when the INDIVIDUAL himself has committed a crime, the STATE, not another individual, takes all diciplinary action into its hands.


Last time I checked wars took place between two states, who have professional armies and through whom there is cause under the direct command under the STATE. To support these ideas of vigilante justice is nothing but hyper-individualistic anti-statism.

Why are their laws in a country if a group wants to enforce its own order? What you proposed is a two-sided sword. By supporting militant Antifa vilgilantes, you also have to accept that similar from Nazis can and should be expected. The State arrests violent people, and that is why the jails are full of Nazis.


Both are equally dangerous in one regard: the destruction of order. These kind of methods, when continued extensivly, resolve in a total partisan war. I do not want to see a war fought in the streets. I am quite happy with peace.


I could and DO care that people are being killed. Who is to say that, if their deaths are justifiable, then if a Nazi puts a bullet in my head that my death is justified? The STATE.


above seem to be your key points


As to the state prosecuting Nazis: historically(and now) the state has been supportive of fascism, you might want to read Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds". we all know the state exists to preserve order, thats the problem th current order favors the capitalists not the people.you say you are happy with peace, are you sure you are a leftist? are you familiar with class war? it is only the entire basis for modern radical leftism.
you seem to be a reformist.
as for expecting the same from the nazis, well we already do, and we know that a lack of effective opposition only encourages them to be more violent. we want a war and we want to win.
you don't seem to understand that moral and being 'justified' a point of view thing
are you quite sure you are a leftist?

as for "vigilante justice is nothing but hyper-individualistic anti-statism"
well thats just funny

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+September 07, 2007 12:42 am--> (Pia Fidelis @ September 07, 2007 12:42 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 02:07 pm

If you want to know my political beliefs, EVERY political compass (or similar) test has said that I am a Left-Wing Authoritarian.

There are no left wing authoritarians - the ultimate goal of the left is a stateless classless society.
A Stateless society? Sounds like something Ayn Rand would have wanted. [/b]
Sounds like something Marx would have wanted - what with his "withering away of the state" idea. Oh and Lenin "When there is a state there can be no freedom, when there is freedom there will be no state". Add to that list all the notable anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist thinkers. The right-libertarians are a minority, fuckwit.


Socialism is completely about the utilisation of a large government body - I cannot see how there could be socialism without a state.

Socialism maybe, but communism?


I like the idea of a strong state, and a state-controlled economy. I suggest you look into this topic in more detail - there is much to be learned.

Tell me, did you read any leftist authors before coming to this site or did you learn everything about leftism from "the enemy" so to speak, because you're sounding pretty much like their strawman of socialism.


Bourgeois state? How is the state Bourgeois in a social-democracy?

Because in a social-democracy the ruling class is still the bourgeoisie and not the proletariat.


I am asking, not challenging. Also, if each individual choses what is his personal set of laws, then what is separating this from complete statelessness and personal interest expansions (ala Ayn Rand)?

Come back when you understand more about anarchy than the "lawless violence" strawman.


No one needs to be oppressed by violence.

So why are you so strongly pro-state - the state is by definition an entity with a monopoly on coercive force and that includes violence (in the form of armies, navies, police forces and the like).


Personal-interest, hypernominalist, anti-state violence is more destructive to society than anything else.

Woah, woah WOAH. Back the fuck up a second and tell me where this "hypernationalist" bullshit comes from? You can't have anti-state hypernationalism, it's a fucking contradiction in terms sonny-Jim - you cannot have an idea of "nations" without a state and that's a damn fact. Also I'd argue that bourgeois ownership of the means of production and the continuing escalation in state power over the working classes is much more dangerous to society than what are essentially street fights.


It is with these ideas that a Militant Nazi movement would be able to take over - no one here wants that.

You know that Nazism took over in Germany thanks to a desire for a strong state headed by a strong leader, right? Actually I'm probably presuming too much mental agility and knowledge on your part - should we start with the basics instead? You know that the original Nazi movement was in Germany and led by a bloke called Adolf Hitler (not his real name)?


These ideas sound A LOT like those proposed by the Neo-Liberal Movement/Right-Wing Libertarian Movement. Please clarify where you separate yourself.

Start here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showforum=36), it's not my responsibility to hold your hand through basic communism.

[Pia Fidelis]

you say you are happy with peace, are you sure you are a leftist? are you familiar with class war? it is only the entire basis for modern radical leftism.

I am familiar with class war, of course, but I do not 100% agree with all of the points of it. I hardly see clashing between the people to help with any unity - of course this is just my opinion. I hardly seem to be "radical" enough for most of the crowd here.

Well, here are my political compass results:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.26

How am I not a leftist? Just because I believe in a State-Run society.


A Stateless society? Sounds like something Ayn Rand would have wanted.

Sounds like something Marx would have wanted - what with his "withering away of the state" idea. Oh and Lenin "When there is a state there can be no freedom, when there is freedom there will be no state". Add to that list all the notable anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist thinkers. The right-libertarians are a minority, fuckwit.


Yes, the withering away of the state, as a progression and an ultimate goal. But, as clearly put in Das Kapital (my preferred text of Marx), personal interests and greed need to be regulated by a body of some sort until (as put in the Communist Manifesto) we have progressed to the point of Proletariat becoming the state. I guess at the end of the day, I find that Louis Althusser's interpretation of Marx to be the most logical and reasonable for this age. What is wrong with syndicalism? It is a uniting force for the entire proletariat. I do not think it is possible to jump steps to completely state-less society. And, believe it or not, Neo-Liberals are not as small a minority as you'd think in North America. I but they are pretty much unheard of here, admittedly.


Socialism is completely about the utilisation of a large government body - I cannot see how there could be socialism without a state.


Socialism maybe, but communism?

Not Communism, no. But Socialism is a stepping-stone for Communism. Every socialist is a Communist at heart.


I like the idea of a strong state, and a state-controlled economy. I suggest you look into this topic in more detail - there is much to be learned.


Tell me, did you read any leftist authors before coming to this site or did you learn everything about leftism from "the enemy" so to speak, because you're sounding pretty much like their strawman of socialism.

Did I? I apologise for saying so, but it is very ignorant of you to assume that I have not. Yes, I have read MANY leftist texts in my day - that is the simple answer. As for "the enemy" - do you mean completely what I am told about leftism by American-Controlled media? I do not trust, nor expect to learn anything from a profiteering capitalist-run media source.


No one needs to be oppressed by violence.


So why are you so strongly pro-state - the state is by definition an entity with a monopoly on coercive force and that includes violence (in the form of armies, navies, police forces and the like).

The capitalist state is all of that you mentioned. Anything when coerced with capitalism becomes a destructive force. A true state, one that is representative of the people and not of profit is a very, very different thing. I know I do not need to tell you that.

As for military and police, I think that just comes down to a matter of opinion as to what someone seeks in the state (or lack there of).


Personal-interest, hypernominalist, anti-state violence is more destructive to society than anything else.


Woah, woah WOAH. Back the fuck up a second and tell me where this "hypernationalist" bullshit comes from? You can't have anti-state hypernationalism, it's a fucking contradiction in terms sonny-Jim - you cannot have an idea of "nations" without a state and that's a damn fact. Also I'd argue that bourgeois ownership of the means of production and the continuing escalation in state power over the working classes is much more dangerous to society than what are essentially street fights.

Settle down there lad! I said nothing of Nationalism. I said Hypernominalism. Do not get confused. As for that which you said of Nationalism, I agree.


It is with these ideas that a Militant Nazi movement would be able to take over - no one here wants that.


You know that Nazism took over in Germany thanks to a desire for a strong state headed by a strong leader, right? Actually I'm probably presuming too much mental agility and knowledge on your part - should we start with the basics instead? You know that the original Nazi movement was in Germany and led by a bloke called Adolf Hitler (not his real name)?

Yes, Hitler did have a strong state - that is undeniable. But, was it a state for the people? No. It was a state that effectively tied the hands of the entire population so the expansionist German and American corporations could more-easily pick their pockets. That said, I am not even going to mention the Racial and Genocidal policies, because we all know of those horrors. All the policy of that "strong state" proved to do nothing for the population, with the barely passable exception of job-creation programs. Infact, the hand-in-hand role between the Nazi government and the German corporations is quite unbelievable. No state-controlled economy there. That is NOT at all what I mean why I say a strong state, you are twisting my words.

What do you mean "Adolf Hitler (not his real name)"?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Pia [email protected] 07, 2007 02:40 pm
How am I not a leftist? Just because I believe in a State-Run society.
Economic security means nothing without freedom.


Yes, the withering away of the state, as a progression and an ultimate goal. But, as clearly put in Das Kapital (my preferred text of Marx), personal interests and greed need to be regulated by a body of some sort until (as put in the Communist Manifesto) we have progressed to the point of Proletariat becoming the state. I guess at the end of the day, I find that Louis Althusser's interpretation of Marx to be the most logical and reasonable for this age. What is wrong with syndicalism? It is a uniting force for the entire proletariat. I do not think it is possible to jump steps to completely state-less society

I personally have never really liked the idea of strengthening the socialist state because all it serves to do is centralise power in the hands of a few. It is for this reason I believe that the USSR, China & the other experiments were ultimately doomed to failure ( along with a lot of other conditions - including the existance of feudalism in those nations). My main point in using the "whithering away of the state" example was not to suggest Marx was an anarchist but to point out that an opposition to statism is not automatically anti-left.


And, believe it or not, Neo-Liberals are not as small a minority as you'd think in North America. I but they are pretty much unheard of here, admittedly.

Neo-liberalism is prevalent worldwide but those who are ideologically right-libertarian are a relative minority within the Libertarian spectrum, which is dominated by the left.


Not Communism, no. But Socialism is a stepping-stone for Communism. Every socialist is a Communist at heart.

Socialism is no more a stepping stone to communism than capitalism is.


Did I? I apologise for saying so, but it is very ignorant of you to assume that I have not.

With the given evidence it was the only educated guess I felt sure enough of to make, turns out I was wrong C'est la vie.


Yes, I have read MANY leftist texts in my day - that is the simple answer. As for "the enemy" - do you mean completely what I am told about leftism by American-Controlled media? I do not trust, nor expect to learn anything from a profiteering capitalist-run media source.

I'm sure you did read those texts in your day and I'm sure you didn't learn everything you know from "the enemy" but I still disagree with you on many, many points.


The capitalist state is all of that you mentioned. Anything when coerced with capitalism becomes a destructive force. A true state, one that is representative of the people and not of profit is a very, very different thing. I know I do not need to tell you that.

The people need no representative entity be it a "true enlightened socialist state" or a "beneficent" dictator.


As for military and police, I think that just comes down to a matter of opinion as to what someone seeks in the state (or lack there of).

A police and military are required to keep a state in existance, without the police the discontent will rise up from within and without a military the state will be destroyed from without.


Settle down there lad! I said nothing of Nationalism. I said Hypernominalism. Do not get confused. As for that which you said of Nationalism, I agree.

Damn, sorry about the confusion.


Yes, Hitler did have a strong state - that is undeniable. But, was it a state for the people? No.

Can you indicate a historical precedent for "states for the people"? The only example I can think of are the Soviets which were quickly dismantled by the enourmous Russian state bureaucracy.


It was a state that effectively tied the hands of the entire population so the expansionist German and American corporations could more-easily pick their pockets.

In fairness the benefits for the average German, especially at the beginning of Hitler's reign, were quite high.


That said, I am not even going to mention the Racial and Genocidal policies, because we all know of those horrors. All the policy of that "strong state" proved to do nothing for the population, with the barely passable exception of job-creation programs. Infact, the hand-in-hand role between the Nazi government and the German corporations is quite unbelievable. No state-controlled economy there. That is NOT at all what I mean why I say a strong state, you are twisting my words.

Okay, so as to avoid an accusation of a Godwin I shall ask you what you would define as a strong state with a proper state-controlled economy. What do you define as a strong state with a proper state-controlled economy?

There are only a few countries I can think of that have used a marxist-leninist style state - these include the USSR (and, whilst a lot of good can be said of it, we all know how terribly that experiment went), China (It's possible to blame a lot of that on the stupidity of Mao and the corruption of his successors but I would argue that the societal model employed is not entirely blameless in China's failure), Albania (Although old Enver was a bit of a head case), The "Democratic" "People's" Republic of North Korea (although Jusche has always been politically bankrupt), Vietnam (which I must confess ignorance of - the same goes for the numerous African states that had "Marxist" revolutions) and, last but not least, Cuba.

If you would allow me the indulgence of second guessing you I'd like to hazard that your ideal state has more in common with Cuba than any of the other states on that list - if this is the case then our "debate" (if it deserves such a grandiose appellation) could last for months without reaching a conclusion - the pros and cons of a Cuban-style state system are hotly discussed on this forum and it is my experience that both sides are remarkably dogmatic. I will say this much as a criticism of Cuba - whilst having an impressive record on the improvement of the quality of life for each citizen (greater literacy for example) it is still nowhere near even the most liberal definition of "socialism" lacking as it does any real dictatorship of the proletariat and without that it cannot be said to be anything more than a simple social-democracy.


What do you mean "Adolf Hitler (not his real name)"?

Hitler changed his name.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Pia Fidelis seems to have no real knowledge of socialism---let alone communism. He seems to be the liberal.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:47 pm
Pia Fidelis seems to have no real knowledge of socialism---let alone communism. He seems to be the liberal.
he seems to have no real knowledge of logic. Lets leave him to his magical fantasy pixie land of rainbows and fairies where everyone is nice to each other, and nazis arent violent. :lol:

[RNK]

You've got it lucky if you live in "social-democracy", Pia. But not as lucky as you think. "Social-democracy" is simply a term given to bourgeois democracy that spends more time pushing the idea that they care about the people -- but, stripped down, it is still bourgeois democracy; politics are still determined by a small handful of individuals who have monopolized the beauraucracy, and the voice of the people amounts to nothing more than the voice to choose between two or three individuals who will dictate how they live.

You are, in a way, a walking example of why we need to fight menshevism; you've been so convinced that your way of life is great that you've abandoned entirely the idea of fighting for more. Why bother? You have it pretty good, right? Maybe not the best, but you're comfortable with your cage -- for now.

Back to the topic at hand... others brought up a good point -- the Nazis in Germany rose because of their stance on a strong state; and they made the people believe they fought for them.


I like the idea of a strong state, and a state-controlled economy. I suggest you look into this topic in more detail - there is much to be learned.

We have. And, for the most part, we threw this idea into the trash can where it belongs. No matter how you dress it up, the state is still a tool used by a minority to oppress and exploit the majority; it is nothing more than a means to control the people within it's bounderies, whether the control is "harsh" or "loose".

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Pia Fidelis+September 07, 2007 01:30 am--> (Pia Fidelis @ September 07, 2007 01:30 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 01:25 am
You have a funny way of showing it.

Also, where do you live?
How have I ever said that I am pro-USA? I am not at all. I entrust the STATE, not the American government.

As for my whereabouts, I will not say specifically, but I live in a Socially-Democratic country where I am have no major issues with the state. [/b]


if you don't have any major issues with the state then you are not paying attention

[Red October]

He's a liberal if he wants a social democracy. Social Democracy is just capitalism with a bunch of welfare and stuff like that, but economic exploitation remains. This is why countries like Sweden are not "socialist", even though liberals like to claim they are. The proletarians in social democracies still do not own the means of production.

[Dr Mindbender]

i told you he was a pro-cappie.

[Fawkes]

You choose your politics based on an internet poll?

[Pia Fidelis]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 07, 2007 04:16 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 07, 2007 04:16 pm)
Pia [email protected] 07, 2007 02:40 pm
How am I not a leftist? Just because I believe in a State-Run society.
Economic security means nothing without freedom.[/b]
Of course, but a the state does not equal oppression. The state can be a force that maintains and preserves freedom. But, of course, the Proletariat also play a role in the state - I do not see it as a seperation. The Proletariat is the main force in a society, and it is one of the regulating factors.


I personally have never really liked the idea of strengthening the socialist state because all it serves to do is centralise power in the hands of a few. It is for this reason I believe that the USSR, China & the other experiments were ultimately doomed to failure ( along with a lot of other conditions - including the existance of feudalism in those nations). My main point in using the "whithering away of the state" example was not to suggest Marx was an anarchist but to point out that an opposition to statism is not automatically anti-left.


I agree with you on the USSR and China. But, I am sure you agree, the first few pieces of legislation and law passed in the early stages of these two states were commendable. Of course, modern China is a very scary place - I was especially disgusted when they sided with the USA against North Korea, simply to protect their profiteering interests, which, as a result, has tied the hands of North Korea.

As a personal question though, do not you feel empowered when you see the grand demonstrations in North Korea and China that show such might? I personally, despite disgreeing with many elements of it, enjoy watching footage of old USSR military marches and speeches.

As for Russia (or the USSR), I hardly think it was the right place for the instation of this form of government, for especially two reasons: (1) it was too far a jump from pre-capitalist feudalism to any form of Proletariat state and (2) Russia's size and diversity of living/working aswell as social conditions made it so that it was next to impossible to unify the Proletariat. That is one thing I have always been a bit dissapointed by with Marx - to suggest that the feudal Russian serf could progress to these ideas over-night. An obscure Marx reference, mind you, that was included as an introduction to the second Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto.



And, believe it or not, Neo-Liberals are not as small a minority as you'd think in North America. I but they are pretty much unheard of here, admittedly.



Neo-liberalism is prevalent worldwide but those who are ideologically right-libertarian are a relative minority within the Libertarian spectrum, which is dominated by the left.

Agreed. I guess I just misunderstood what you meant.



Not Communism, no. But Socialism is a stepping-stone for Communism. Every socialist is a Communist at heart.



Socialism is no more a stepping stone to communism than capitalism is.

Of course Capitalism is a stepping stone, but Socialism is that which surpasses capitalism (I hate to use a vertical system in this regard, but it is hard to do so otherwise). Of course it is a Althusserian interpretation of Marxist theory, but I think that the system must evolve as the mind of the people does.


QUOTE
As for military and police, I think that just comes down to a matter of opinion as to what someone seeks in the state (or lack there of).



A police and military are required to keep a state in existance, without the police the discontent will rise up from within and without a military the state will be destroyed from without.


No disagreement here.


It was a state that effectively tied the hands of the entire population so the expansionist German and American corporations could more-easily pick their pockets.



In fairness the benefits for the average German, especially at the beginning of Hitler's reign, were quite high

Well, here I have to dissagree. From even before his reign began, many Germans (I mean both citizens and otherwise) were being cast-down in the National Socialist scheme of things. In the beginning, it was more Germans being sent to labour camps then anyone else, simply for not agreeing with the policies. Even National Socialists themselves were not safe - let us not forget the Night of Long Knives. I think it is only fair to say that the only people to really benefit from National Socialism were the government, the corporations, the ardent Nazis who blindly followed Hitler. The Proletariat, especially the agricultural field, was highly taxed and forced into "unity" plans by the government - they had no freedom from day one.


Okay, so as to avoid an accusation of a Godwin I shall ask you what you would define as a strong state with a proper state-controlled economy. What do you define as a strong state with a proper state-controlled economy?


Now, I know I will sound like a "true idealist" when I say this, but, there has not been, yet, a state that I would consider to be an ideal representation of my views on state-controlled economy. There are various Communist and Socialist countries that have attempted to do this, so I can only really peice together from various elements. I know this sounds like I am circumventing the question, but I would rather not assign myself to follow the ideals 100% of any state. As I mentioned before, in the beginning of many of these sates, Cuba, North Korea, USSR, China, Jacobin France (et cetera) there was great advancement in the Proletariat and great legislature passed to create the state, but, because of many, many factors (as we all know, so I will not bother going into it), these all fell to corruption.

As for the latter part of your question, I think that every economic body of the state needs to be under regulation from both the Government and the Proletariat to avoid capricious profiteering, personal interest, and venturist exploitation. This would be kept in maintenence by various bodies, but mainly controlled by Proletarian democracy using the vehicle of Unionism and Syndicalism - all of this has been referred to as "structured Marxism" before, but I do not personally advocate the use of this term. The State, therefore, does not seperate different classes and institutions, but unifies them under the cause of the Proletariat. I apologise if this is not 100% clear, as I am a bit tired from a long week at work. If clarification is needed, I will do so when I am well-rested. ;)


You choose your politics based on an internet poll?

Of course not, I was simply using the political compass as a point of reference.


Pia Fidelis seems to have no real knowledge of socialism---let alone communism. He seems to be the liberal.

I resent this. I am neither a liberal or a social-democrat and ESPECIALLY not a capitalist.

As for my qualms with the government I live under, I admit I was a bit hastey to admit that I had "no major issues with it. Of course I have problems with it - I think that goes without saying. What I should have said, is that when compared to the American system, I have LESS problems with it. Sorry for any misunderstanding.