Why do you engage in dialogue with the other side?

[Robert]

New to this forum, I have a couple of questions before posting in any of the many active threads
I see: what are the motives for the exchanges here at OI? Are the capitalists really here to engage in purposeful debate? Or just to show up the left as "misguided"? To show off their high school debate skills? You aren't going to recruit any hard leftists to your cause, you know. Are you masochistic? I don't insult you, I'm just fascinated by your participation in manifestly lost causes, and I suspect latent masochism as a root cause.

A question to the leftists: what is the point of debating a capitalist or crypto-fascist? Do you expect to recruit them to the left (it can happen, though it's rare), or to just get them to go away? What is the purpose of your visit to the OI sub-forum if it is nothing but a special place for undesireables?

Thank you.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 15, 2007 01:12 am
New to this forum, I have a couple of questions before posting in any of the many active threads
I see: what are the motives for the exchanges here at OI? Are the capitalists really here to engage in purposeful debate? Or just to show up the left as "misguided"? To show off their high school debate skills? You aren't going to recruit any hard leftists to your cause, you know. Are you masochistic? I don't insult you, I'm just fascinated by your participation in manifestly lost causes, and I suspect latent masochism as a root cause.

A question to the leftists: what is the point of debating a capitalist or crypto-fascist? Do you expect to recruit them to the left (it can happen, though it's rare), or to just get them to go away? What is the purpose of your visit to the OI sub-forum if it is nothing but a special place for undesireables?

Thank you.
the purposes of the OI board (in my understanding) are thusly-

* it provides a means of feedback for those who disagree, which is healthy for the democratic nature of the forum.

*It provides us with a regular feed of reactionary arguments which helps improve our own debating skills.

*If reactionaries were allowed to post elsewhere on the forum, the likelihood is they would attempt to hijack and perverse the course of the progressive nature of other discussions.

*There is always the off chance we might actually convert someone, which is obviously again beneficial for the movement!

Also, as for 'crypto-fascists' they arent allowed here at all, in fact anyone with even slightly racist homophobic or gratuitously sexist leanings are banned without warning.

[Demogorgon]

Things would get breathtakingly dull if the only things to argue about were the same old leftist division points.

For me, this section has two purposes

1. It makes me feel clever whenever some right winger without the first clue what they are talking about comes along and I can take apart their argument.

2. It helps me towards actually being clever because it is a good way to develop my arguments and knowledge when a right winger that does know what they are talking about coems along.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 14, 2007 08:18 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 14, 2007 08:18 pm)
Robert the [email protected] 15, 2007 01:12 am
New to this forum, I have a couple of questions before posting in any of the many active threads
I see: what are the motives for the exchanges here at OI? Are the capitalists really here to engage in purposeful debate? Or just to show up the left as "misguided"? To show off their high school debate skills? You aren't going to recruit any hard leftists to your cause, you know. Are you masochistic? I don't insult you, I'm just fascinated by your participation in manifestly lost causes, and I suspect latent masochism as a root cause.

A question to the leftists: what is the point of debating a capitalist or crypto-fascist? Do you expect to recruit them to the left (it can happen, though it's rare), or to just get them to go away? What is the purpose of your visit to the OI sub-forum if it is nothing but a special place for undesireables?

Thank you.
the purposes of the OI board (in my understanding) are thusly-

* it provides a means of feedback for those who disagree, which is healthy for the democratic nature of the forum.

*It provides us with a regular feed of reactionary arguments which helps improve our own debating skills.

*If reactionaries were allowed to post elsewhere on the forum, the likelihood is they would attempt to hijack and perverse the course of the progressive nature of other discussions.

*There is always the off chance we might actually convert someone, which is obviously again beneficial for the movement!

Also, as for 'crypto-fascists' they arent allowed here at all, in fact anyone with even slightly racist homophobic or gratuitously sexist leanings are banned without warning. [/b]
I would also add that having an OI section also shows our tolerance towards debating other viewpoints. In some sites, they'll ban people completely, without any recourse.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 01:23 am

I would also add that having an OI section also shows our tolerance towards debating other viewpoints. In some sites, they'll ban people completely, without any recourse.
thats more or less what i meant in my first point.

;)

[Robert]

All good to know. But I confess my suspicion that there is no way a committed leftist or rightist would venture into this sub-forum if he were 100% sure of his philosophy. I could be wrong, but ...

To illustrate my theme, I would never venture into, say, a redneck forum to debate the merits of interracial dating or national socialism, and neither would anyone here as far as I can tell; but it's not because I'm too noble to visit such sites. Instead, it's because I am 100% sure that members of those fora are ignoramuses. If I were a little insecure about what I believed on those issues, then I'd argue about it. But then only because of that ever-so-slight uncertainty.

My own political uncertainty, which leads me here, stems from reading of too many heartbreaking-make-me-ashamed-to-be-a-human abuses of my fellow man by, au choix, capitalists, colonialists, monarchists, Nazis, pharoahs, czars, and the Khmer Rouge to be real excited about any formulation I've seen so far.

You folks may have some answers.

[Bilan]

If you're seeking answers, I assume you have questions too.
What are they?

[Le Libérer]

I dont agree with you about people who are set in one idealogy 100%. I have been here since 2003 and I have seen communists leave because they have changed their minds on what they believe as well as conservatives take a 180 and become revolutionaries.

I like to think we all can learn from debating opposing idealogies, while its been my experience debating a neocon (my brother -in -law) I have learned alot as to what to expect in trends, I wouldnt have had a clue had they not spilled the beans to prove a point.

[Robert]

"Vaginas look like beautiful roses opening in the morning sun (before sex) and afterwards look like a british bulldog that's been eating custard..." - William Everard

I have lots of questions that I'll post later today, but first this: is that the most unusual tag line on a mod's ID that I have ever seen?

Yes. I am surprised some feminist or sex-egalitarian didn't complain about it, but it's hilarious to me. A little disgusting, but 'sall good.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 15, 2007 01:18 pm

"Vaginas look like beautiful roses opening in the morning sun (before sex) and afterwards look like a british bulldog that's been eating custard..." - William Everard

I have lots of questions that I'll post later today, but first this: is that the most unusual tag line on a mod's ID that I have ever seen?

Yes. I am surprised some feminist or sex-egalitarian didn't complain about it, but it's hilarious to me. A little disgusting, but 'sall good.
I think its was originally posted in a chit-chat thread. Chit Chat is where all the non-serious threads go. And that William Everard guy is an admin.

[pusher robot]

what are the motives for the exchanges here at OI?


There is a class of persons (happily not quite so numerous as formerly) who think it enough if a person assents undoubtingly to what they think true, though he has no knowledge whatever of the grounds of the opinion, and could not make a tenable defence of it against the most superficial objections. Such persons, if they can once get their creed taught from authority, naturally think that no good, and some harm, comes of its being allowed to be questioned. Where their influence prevails, they make it nearly impossible for the received opinion to be rejected wisely and considerately, though it may still be rejected rashly and ignorantly; for to shut out discussion entirely is seldom possible, and when it once gets in, beliefs not grounded on conviction are apt to give way before the slightest semblance of an argument. Waving, however, this possibility—assuming that the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against, argument—this is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth.

If the intellect and judgment of mankind ought to be cultivated, a thing which [most] at least do not deny, on what can these faculties be more appropriately exercised by any one, than on the things which concern him so much that it is considered necessary for him to hold opinions on them? If the cultivation of the understanding consists in one thing more than in another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one's own opinions.

Whatever people believe, on subjects on which it is of the first importance to believe rightly, they ought to be able to defend against at least the common objections. But, some one may say, "Let them be taught the grounds of their opinions. It does not follow that opinions must be merely parroted because they are never heard controverted. Persons who learn geometry do not simply commit the theorems to memory, but understand and learn likewise the demonstrations; and it would be absurd to say that they remain ignorant of the grounds of geometrical truths, because they never hear any one deny, and attempt to disprove them."

Undoubtedly: and such teaching suffices on a subject like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections. But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. Even in natural philosophy, there is always some other explanation possible of the same facts; some geocentric theory instead of heliocentric, some phlogiston instead of oxygen; and it has to be shown why that other theory cannot be the true one: and until this is shown, and until we know how it is shown, we do not understand the grounds of our opinion. But when we turn to subjects infinitely more complicated, to morals, religion, politics, social relations, and the business of life, three-fourths of the arguments for every disputed opinion consist in dispelling the appearances which favour some opinion different from it.

The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination.

Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty.

Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light.

So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up.

[Whitten]

Also, as for 'crypto-fascists' they arent allowed here at all, in fact anyone with even slightly racist homophobic or gratuitously sexist leanings are banned without warning.

Technicly one doesn't have to be racist to be a fascist, usually sexist but not necessarily racist.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:42 pm

Also, as for 'crypto-fascists' they arent allowed here at all, in fact anyone with even slightly racist homophobic or gratuitously sexist leanings are banned without warning.

Technicly one doesn't have to be racist to be a fascist, usually sexist but not necessarily racist.
i challenge you to give me an example of a fascist who isnt a racist, homophobe or sexist ( anti-semitism counts as racism btw)

[spartan]

i challenge you to give me an example of a fascist who isnt a racist, homophobe or sexist ( anti-semitism counts as racism btw)
Oswald Mosley's BUF had Jewish members in very important positions within the organization.

Also British Jewish businessmen often financed the BUF.

I would also like to point out that many Fascist (not Nazi) movements only adopted racist policies after pressure from the conquering Germans (case in point Mussolini).

Fascism (whether it is racist Fascism or unracist Fascism) is still a reactionary anti-Socialist ideology though that should be resisted at every possible opportunity.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 05:57 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 05:57 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 05:42 pm

Also, as for 'crypto-fascists' they arent allowed here at all, in fact anyone with even slightly racist homophobic or gratuitously sexist leanings are banned without warning.

Technicly one doesn't have to be racist to be a fascist, usually sexist but not necessarily racist.
i challenge you to give me an example of a fascist who isnt a racist, homophobe or sexist ( anti-semitism counts as racism btw) [/b]
Most of the original italian and latin american fascist movements had no racial character to them, they demanded obediance to the state and nation, not race. Its only because of teh nazi's that fascists are made out to have been particuarly racist for their time.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Whitten+November 15, 2007 07:07 pm--> (Whitten @ November 15, 2007 07:07 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 05:57 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 05:42 pm

Also, as for 'crypto-fascists' they arent allowed here at all, in fact anyone with even slightly racist homophobic or gratuitously sexist leanings are banned without warning.

Technicly one doesn't have to be racist to be a fascist, usually sexist but not necessarily racist.
i challenge you to give me an example of a fascist who isnt a racist, homophobe or sexist ( anti-semitism counts as racism btw)
Most of the original italian and latin american fascist movements had no racial character to them, they demanded obediance to the state and nation, not race. Its only because of teh nazi's that fascists are made out to have been particuarly racist for their time. [/b]
i guarantee you most if not all had homophobic and/or sexist tendencies as seems to be a consequent symptom of such jingo-ist subserviance.

[spartan]

The Brazilian Integralism Fascist ideology was not racist.

Indeed it's slogan was "Union of all races and all people".

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

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:21 pm
The Brazilian Integralism Fascist ideology was not racist.

Indeed it's slogan was "Union of all races and people".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism
to me non-racist fascism is an oxymoron.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 07:24 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 07:24 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 07:21 pm
The Brazilian Integralism Fascist ideology was not racist.

Indeed it's slogan was "Union of all races and people".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Integralism
to me non-racist fascism is an oxymoron. [/b]
Well then you don't understand what fascism is?

[spartan]

There was no racism in fascist Spain under Franco. There where no race laws.
You are right!

Spain actually became a haven for Jews fleeing Nazi persecution!

And once in Spain they were'nt treated badly at all by the authorities or discriminated against or anything like that.

To call Fascism inheritently racist is simpleism at it's worst!

[Robert]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I suppose one can believe something 100% and then change his mind, but I have to wonder why in the world he was so certain of his position in the first place. Maybe more information helps change minds, but can't we all stipulate that our opinions are based only on what we know, and that we don't know everything, and that therefore we cannot be sure of anything 100%? Anyway ...

As to whether fascism is racist, my own view is that WWII fascist Germany has become so fully associated with racism (though Hitler admired the Japanese as "disciplined people") that it's practically impossible to separate the two terms. That said, the extreme nationalism of France's Le Front National probably qualifies as "fascist," though it seems "merely" anti-Arab, not pro-Gallois as the Nazis were pro-Aryan. the French left would say: "right, that makes them racist," but for whatever reason there is nowhere near the antipathy in France toward, say, Jews, Chinese, or Slavs as there is toward Arabs, this I guess because of their painful history with Algeria and the recent troubles in the suburbs among unemployed Arabs.

Oddly, however, (or maybe not?) there is little to no antipathy in France against the French Vietnamese immigrants, notwithstanding France's frustrations in Indochine.

I said I had a question. I do. I'd like to make of it a separate thread.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:23 pm

There was no racism in fascist Spain under Franco. There where no race laws.
You are right!

Spain actually became a haven for Jews fleeing Nazi persecution!

And once in Spain they were'nt treated badly at all by the authorities or discriminated against or anything like that.

To call Fascism inheritently racist is simpleism at it's worst!
Just because Spain accepted Jews doesn't mean it wasn't a racist state. Fascism preaches the superiority of the nation and the nationality. How are you going to tell me that there were no race laws? Just look at the oppression of the Basque peoples.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:23 pm
To call Fascism inheritently racist is simpleism at it's worst!
How could you say that? Extreme nationalism within fascism is an "inherently" racist notion.

Fascism thrives off of dividing peoples of different ethnicities. This division creates the people within the fascist state to believe they're superior to people from other countris who do not look like those within the state or those within who are a prosecuted minority. That is racism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Debating helps me think and develop my political views in greater detail. It is mostly thanks to debate that I can move from general vague principles to concrete policy proposals.

Also, by attacking our ideas, capitalists can help point out weak spots that we should reinforce. Criticism is good; what does not refute you, makes you stronger. ;)

[MarxSchmarx]

Spain actually became a haven for Jews fleeing Nazi persecution!

Actually, so long as we are praising fascist regimes :rolleyes: , Francoist Spain was a pogrom compared to Imperial Japan.

While the Europeans and Americans (and Australians probably) read "the protocols of the elders of Zion" and became paranoid, the Japanese read the protocols and said "my goodness, these Jews are fucking geniuses!" In fact, imperial Japan even tried to recruit Jewish refugees to Manchuria!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu_Plan

Moreover, as Hitler put pressure on his allies to enact anti-Jewish laws, the Japanese steadfastly refused to go after the Jews living in Shanghai and other occupied areas. In fact, as the U$A and the UK turned their Jews away, some Japanese diplomats tried to issue as many visas to Jews as they could:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiune_Sugihara

It is probably among the greatest ironies of history that for all the horrific atrocities committed by the Japanese imperialists in the early 20th century, they had a soft spot for the most persecuted minority in history.

Don't get me wrong, both regimes were shit. As LH pointed out Franco hated the Basques, the horrors the Japanese inflicted on Korea, China and south-east Asia puts them on a par with every other murderous regime of the 20th century. :angry:

[spartan]

I am sorry if people here think that i am praising Fascist regimes but the fact remains that some Fascist regimes and movements were'nt racist in nature (case in point the Brazilian Integralism movement).

All i was doing was pointing out these facts as a member asked for examples of non-racist Fascist movements which i took upon myself to provide.

No matter how "progressive" Fascism appears to be it is still a reactionary anti-Proletarian movement (though Proletarians are often it's biggest supporters and are it's foot soldiers whilst the Bourgeoisie simply fund the movement).

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by rev0lt+November 16, 2007 04:25 am--> (rev0lt @ November 16, 2007 04:25 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 03:23 pm
To call Fascism inheritently racist is simpleism at it's worst!
How could you say that? Extreme nationalism within fascism is an "inherently" racist notion.

Fascism thrives off of dividing peoples of different ethnicities. This division creates the people within the fascist state to believe they're superior to people from other countris who do not look like those within the state or those within who are a prosecuted minority. That is racism. [/b]
The nature of a Fascist regime tends to depend on the historical situation of the country in question. For example, in Fascist Croatia the Serbs were persecuted while the Bosnian Muslims more or less embraced(there is some debate about this as well). It was simply a matter of politics; Bosnian Muslims traditionally got more flak from Serbs, and both Croats and the Muslims were supported by the Austro-Hungarian empire at one time; ergo with all the radical Catholicism of the Ustase, it was politically expedient to align with a non-Christian group against the Orthodox Serbs.

This is an important issue when one is considering modern-day Fascism in countries which are ethnically mixed. Those who fear the rise of Fascism in the US(and this is a possibility) need to accept the fact that Fascism need not be overtly racist. Do not be surprised to find the ruling class finding ways to unite different races in America under American nationalism against its enemies. We have already seen for years how the conservatives try to rally blacks and Hispanics to their side.

[Robert]

Those who fear the rise of Fascism in the US(and this is a possibility) need to accept the fact that Fascism need not be overtly racist.

Let's just call the USA fascist now and get it behind us, comrades.

[Ol' Dirty]

The reason we have the OI section of the board is to garner facetious remarks from people who don't have anything better to do with their time than have pointless discussions with strangers on an internet forum. Couldn't you tell that this is all a Red Conspiracy to destroy Western Civilization? We're trying to suck your soul through your screen right now.

Edit: Also, this thread should be either closed or trashed.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:20 am
Edit: Also, this thread should be either closed or trashed.
Agreed. If anyone is interested about the OI section and it's nature, all they have to do is read this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66884) and the other pinned threads there.