Hypothetical situation in a future communist society

[Dimentio]

You walk on the street a day, and then you'll see a guy coming out of his house with a gray sweater with Hitler's face on it. He goes to a ice-cream terminal, and then raises his right arm and starts to shout "SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!"

What would you do? What would the society do?

[KC]

Move this crap to Learning or Chit-Chat.

[Dimentio]

Well, I am just curious what would happen. How would disturbance of public order being taken care of in a stateless society?

[blackstone]

"SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!"

What's that mean?

What if it was in a community that doesn't know what that means? Nothing will probably be done. Now if it was in a communist society, that had a high concentration of people who are Jewish,then i suspect their would be something done.

[F9]

he might be a sick person with mind dissabilities and he doesnt know what the fuck he is doing.if so and you understand it it would be shame to attack a sick kid!BUT if you see him and he is a normal fucking fascist HUNG him!Death is the only thing that he deserves!

Fuserg9:star:

[Sankofa]

"Pick up a a rock and bash his facist skull in!" would be the first thought.

I'm sure the masses would recognize the threat of what he's saying, and therefore silence him. What should the fitting punishment for Facism be, for that matter?

[Dimentio]

"Pick up a a rock and bash his facist skull in!" would be the first thought.

I'm sure the masses would recognize the threat of what he's saying, and therefore silence him. What should the fitting punishment for Facism be, for that matter?

I do not think fascism will be a threat in a stable communist society, since only what we would call "gnomes" ("tomtar" in Swedish) would support any strange ideologies like that. And "gnomes" are more of a psychological problem for themselves than a threat to the surrounding environment.

I do not believe that communism should resemble mob rule, the least civilised and most problematic system of social conduct.

[Sankofa]

Ideologies such as Nazism should be completely demolished and not tolerated.

What's the point of establishing a classless society if we let reactionaries spew their rhetoric in the open? While I don't think one looney is so much a problem, it's his ideals that would be dangerous; shut him down before he can infect people.

I think the people branding together and smashing this type of behavior is the very example of socialism, is it not?

[manic expression]

That would make about as much sense as someone screaming "VIVE LE ROI!" on the streets of Paris today.

[Dimentio]

Ideologies such as Nazism should be completely demolished and not tolerated.

What's the point of establishing a classless society if we let reactionaries spew their rhetoric in the open? While I don't think one looney is so much a problem, it's his ideals that would be dangerous; shut him down before he can infect people.

I think the people branding together and smashing this type of behavior is the very example of socialism, is it not?

Under good material conditions, loonies would just infect other loonies. And loonies are an integral part of mankind.

Capitalism flourishes, and yet, both more progressive ideologies and more reactionary ideologies are generally tolerated under capitalism. I cannot see why communism should be overtly ideologically repressive.

[Sankofa]

Fascists aren't an integral part of mankind. Hugo Chavez put it best when he said that "Fascistas no son humanos" Fascists aren't human.

Communism isn't about being fair, right? It's about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Fascism and other reactionary ideologies undermines our entire struggle and revolution.

Fascism is racism, homophobia, sexism, discrimination, oppression; in one word, Fascism is capitalism! It should be destroyed, and anyone advocating such a position in a Communist society deserves to be at the receiving end of a firing squad.

[Dr Mindbender]

by the time communism fully comes into fruition, hopefully racism/fascism will have been successfully be debunked as as stupid and irrelevant as the persecution and burning of witches.

So in serpent's hypothetical scenario, a seig heiling bonehead under communism would be regarded with the same ridicule as someone running about today crying ''she's a witch! Burn her!''.

[Dimentio]

Fascists aren't an integral part of mankind. Hugo Chavez put it best when he said that "Fascistas no son humanos" Fascists aren't human.

Communism isn't about being fair, right? It's about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Fascism and other reactionary ideologies undermines our entire struggle and revolution.

Fascism is racism, homophobia, sexism, discrimination, oppression; in one word, Fascism is capitalism! It should be destroyed, and anyone advocating such a position in a Communist society deserves to be at the receiving end of a firing squad.


Communism is the society which is established after the dictatorship of the proletariat, not an eternal dictatorship of the proletariat (because there would be no proletariat anymore since classes has been abolished).

[Sankofa]

Communism is the society which is established after the dictatorship of the proletariat, not an eternal dictatorship of the proletariat (because there would be no proletariat anymore since classes has been abolished).

Thanks, mistake noted, but you're not addressing the point.

Who are we benefitting by tolerating Fascism? Certainly not the masses.

[jake williams]

Who are we benefitting by tolerating Fascism? Certainly not the masses.
There's a big difference between tolerating Fascism and tolerating Fascists, and it's not just semantics. It's a completely different thing to prevent ultra-nationalist authoritarian systems, and to hang up on the instant anyone who strays from the Party Line in thought, or even action. The idea that there's Goodthink and anyone who strays from it should be annihilated is just totally unacceptable in a sensible society.

[APL_Serpov]

Well on this matter I think there needs to be some clarification on the actual nature of the society in question.

For example is the world socialist and communism under construction? Or is this occurring in a nation state constructing socialism?

In the former, by that time fascism, which is an expression of captialism should have been fully debunked, and left on the ash heap of history. To use Ulster Socialist's words:


a seig heiling bonehead under communism would be regarded with the same ridicule as someone running about today crying ''she's a witch! Burn her!''

However, communism can only be developed after the construction of socialism in all countries, which will slowly break down all hither to national barriers.

Now if the latter is the case, a nation state constructing socialism, the person most likely would be arrested and possibly executed for promoting an counter ideology.

That this would occur in a socialist state should not be a surprise. The same actually occurs in all class dictatorships at all times in human history. As no class dictatorship Proletarian, Bourgeois, or otherwise is going to willingly accept a threat to its power.

Generally speaking opposing ideologies under Western bourgeois-"democracies" are ridiculed so as to make the proponent look like a fool or a nut-job and sometimes both...arrests and executions being for those who are actually considered a threat that propaganda cannot take care of in and of itself. In more obvious bourgeois dictatorships arrest and execution would happen there as well.

[Dros]

Well, I am just curious what would happen. How would disturbance of public order being taken care of in a stateless society?

I think the members of society would take care of it in some way. A stateless society does not mean chaos. It means the absence of the oppressive elements that comprise the STATE. So somehow, this would be necessarily taken care of.

Maybe they'd throw ice cream at him?;):D

[Dimentio]

Well on this matter I think there needs to be some clarification on the actual nature of the society in question.

For example is the world socialist and communism under construction? Or is this occurring in a nation state constructing socialism?

In the former, by that time fascism, which is an expression of captialism should have been fully debunked, and left on the ash heap of history. To use Ulster Socialist's words:



However, communism can only be developed after the construction of socialism in all countries, which will slowly break down all hither to national barriers.

Now if the latter is the case, a nation state constructing socialism, the person most likely would be arrested and possibly executed for promoting an counter ideology.

That this would occur in a socialist state should not be a surprise. The same actually occurs in all class dictatorships at all times in human history. As no class dictatorship Proletarian, Bourgeois, or otherwise is going to willingly accept a threat to its power.

Generally speaking opposing ideologies under Western bourgeois-"democracies" are ridiculed so as to make the proponent look like a fool or a nut-job and sometimes both...arrests and executions being for those who are actually considered a threat that propaganda cannot take care of in and of itself. In more obvious bourgeois dictatorships arrest and execution would happen there as well.

I think ridicule and isolation from media is a more humane way than execution, which would just brew opposition and martyrs.

[Dimentio]

Thanks, mistake noted, but you're not addressing the point.

Who are we benefitting by tolerating Fascism? Certainly not the masses.

Organised fascism in the future communist society would most likely be as fringe as UFO movements or hermits sitting in a cabin with guns... They would in no way be able to gather popular support, and therefore, just loonies will be attracted.

Sure, they could potentially threat individuals, but not the foundation of society, because under communism, there is no centralised vector of control which a reactionary movement could conquer and subvert.

[Sankofa]

There's a big difference between tolerating Fascism and tolerating Fascists, and it's not just semantics. It's a completely different thing to prevent ultra-nationalist authoritarian systems, and to hang up on the instant anyone who strays from the Party Line in thought, or even action. The idea that there's Goodthink and anyone who strays from it should be annihilated is just totally unacceptable in a sensible society.

You're misunderstanding me. I don't approve of this type of actions towards people that simply disagree or simply differ in opinion against the "party line" of thought.

I'm talking about defending our ideology period. Are you really going to argue that not tolerating Fascism (therefore not tolerating Fascists) is wrong?

[APL_Serpov]

Perhaps isolation from the media is. And perhaps it is not. A lot of this hypothetical situation depends on the actual nature of the person who is doing the sieg heiling in question.

For example...is this person mentally ill? Is this person part of an anti-socialist movement? Does this person intend to overthrow the state in question? Is this person a immature child?

Each of these must be taken into consideration. If the person is mentally ill what he/she needs is medical treatment. If this person is in an anti-socialist movement and wishes to or intends to overthrow the state, then execution is the only sure solution although exile to a work (or education) camp might also be a good alternative. In the case of a child the child would need to be educated on the horrors of fascism.

The way in which those with ideologies different from the ruling ideology, and the ruling class will differ with each and every different situation naturally.

In the case of a nation state constructing socialism we have ample evidence that in many cases the people, the workers and farmers (or peasents depending on the country--the US has never had a feudal peasant class so we tend to use the word farmer) will take the matter in their own hands before the state authorities can even begin to take charge of the situation.

In the Soviet Union for example during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 it was not unheard of after the Red Army liberating the area for the workers and peasants to round up all those who had collaborated with the Germans and execute them before the NKVD could even arrive. In fact this direct people's action happened very frequently in the Russian Federated Soviet Socialist Republic, and its sister Soviet Socialist Republics of Byelorussia and Ukraine

[Sankofa]

Organised fascism in the future communist society would most likely be as fringe as UFO movements or hermits sitting in a cabin with guns... They would in no way be able to gather popular support, and therefore, just loonies will be attracted.

Sure, they could potentially threat individuals, but not the foundation of society, because under communism, there is no centralised vector of control which a reactionary movement could conquer and subvert.

I agree that Fascism would be unlikely in this situation, and I doubt they would have major popular support; if any at all. But any level of Fascism is serious and should be strictly dealt with. That much we can agree, I'm sure.

[Dimentio]

You're misunderstanding me. I don't approve of this type of actions towards people that simply disagree or simply differ in opinion against the "party line" of thought.

I'm talking about defending our ideology period. Are you really going to argue that not tolerating Fascism (therefore not tolerating Fascists) is wrong?

Defend communism from what? If the entire civilised world is communist, and capitalism and fascism only thrives in the most backwater regions of the Earth, and if we assume that this communism which we are speaking of is functional in fulfilling it's own goals, it will defend itself by merit, and there will be no material reason for people to support reactionary ideologies.

Of course, some disturbing elements will still exist, but I think it is rather a social than a political problem.

[Sankofa]

Defend communism from what? If the entire civilised world is communist, and capitalism and fascism only thrives in the most backwater regions of the Earth, and if we assume that this communism which we are speaking of is functional in fulfilling it's own goals, it will defend itself by merit, and there will be no material reason for people to support reactionary ideologies.

Of course, some disturbing elements will still exist, but I think it is rather a social than a political problem.

Now you're changing the circumstances of the situation. At the beginning of the thread, you were talking about a Fascists coming out into the middle of the street, not backwater regions.

Besides, you just affirmed my point. Communists will defend the revolution by merit, and won't support reactionary ideologies. Thus, there is no room for Fascism, whether its practice, or tolerance of such ideals.

[Dimentio]

Now you're changing the circumstances of the situation. At the beginning of the thread, you were talking about a Fascists coming out into the middle of the street, not backwater regions.

Besides, you just affirmed my point. Communists will defend the revolution by merit, and won't support reactionary ideologies. Thus, there is no room for Fascism, whether its practice, or tolerance of such ideals.

I did not change the subject, I was talking about how society would deal with this under communism, the hypothetical state-less situation occuring when the class antagonisms has been neutralised by the creation of the class-less society.

[Sankofa]

I did not change the subject, I was talking about how society would deal with this under communism, the hypothetical state-less situation occuring when the class antagonisms has been neutralised by the creation of the class-less society.

I never accused you of changing the subject, merely the circumstances of what we were talking about.

Back on topic, under Communism, this is my question: Is it not correct for the masses to react negatively, violently if need be, towards fascism, instead of simply tolerating it?

No society I would bother fighting for would allow these type of ideas to be perpetrated openly.

[Dimentio]

It is completely right to react against reactionary bullshit, but there is a qualitative difference between a society under war and a society under peace.

For example, even though I support local direct democratic communities unifying under a confederate umbrella in a communist context, I still think we will need some form of a constitution and human rights, so that mob justice will not become legio.

[Sankofa]

It is completely right to react against reactionary bullshit, but there is a qualitative difference between a society under war and a society under peace.

For example, even though I support local direct democratic communities unifying under a confederate umbrella in a communist context, I still think we will need some form of a constitution and human rights, so that mob justice will not become legio.

Of course! Who's arguing against a constitution? Who's arguing against human rights? There should be a set of moral codes, rules, and guide lines for society to avoid total chaos.

However, in my personal opinion, Fascism deserves none of the said freedoms. Just like the bourgeois class must be destroyed, so must any member of society, working class or not, who are Fascists.

Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is. But who's going to complain about being authoritarian to Fascists of all the scum on the Earth?

[Vanguard1917]

You walk on the street a day, and then you'll see a guy coming out of his house with a gray sweater with Hitler's face on it. He goes to a ice-cream terminal, and then raises his right arm and starts to shout "SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!"

What would you do? What would the society do?

He will probably be considered an eccentric or a loony, possibly drunk, and, most likely, he will be a source of amusement to bystanders (at least to those with a sense of humour).



But any level of Fascism is serious and should be strictly dealt with.


What Serpent described in his initial post is not 'fascism'.

Fascism, in any meaningful sense, is a social phenomenon. One weirdo with a dodgy sweater does not equal fascism.

[Sankofa]

What Serpent described in his initial post is not 'fascism'.

Fascism, in any meaningful sense, is a social phenomenon. One weirdo with a dodgy sweater does not equal fascism.

But wearing a sweat shirt with Hitler's face on it and screaming "sieg heil" means he's obviously proposing Fascist ideology doesn't it?

I mean, you could walk into an airport with a burka on your face, and start to shout "ALLAH U AKBAR!" Which doesn't equal terrorism, but that doesn't mean you won't get dealt with like a terrorist.

[Vanguard1917]

But wearing a sweat shirt with Hitler's face on it and screaming "sieg heil" means he's obviously proposing Fascist ideology doesn't it?


So what if that's what he thinks he's doing? What if a man was running around London today wearing a toga and shouting about the introduction of a Roman slave society? Is he a threat to anything? Will he be taken seriously by anyone?

Fascism as a social force may indeed need to be faced and dealt with by a workers' state in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

But that is wholly different from an individual eccentric - in a communist, classless society where the threat of fascism has long disappeared together with the material conditions for counter-revolution - walking around and behaving odd. He will not be considered a threat to communism. At most, he will be considered an annoyance.

[Sankofa]

So what if that's what he thinks he's doing? What if a man was running around London today wearing a toga and shouting about the introduction of a Roman slave society? Is he a threat to anything? Will he be taken seriously by anyone?

Fascism as a social force may indeed need to be faced and dealt with by a workers' state in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

But that is wholly different from an individual eccentric - in a communist, classless society where the threat of fascism has long disappeared together with the material conditions for counter-revolution - walking around and behaving odd. He will not be considered a threat to communism. At most, he will be considered an annoyance.

The Roman Empire is long since dead and isn't even relevant towards us today, not to mention this topic.

Fascism will be dealt with, and will need to be continuously dealt with as long as our society persists.

A random person preaching about Fascism would indeed be "annoying" but certainly nothing to ignore. I don't care how small of an problem that person is, he's still a threat.

[Vanguard1917]

Fascism will be dealt with, and will need to be continuously dealt with as long as our society persists.


Well that's not at all a very Marxist way of looking at things. Fascism exists so long as certain material conditions exist. Just as it is the case that those conditions are by no means eternal and inherent to human society, it is also true that the threat of fascism isn't either.

[Sankofa]

Well that's not at all a very Marxist way of looking at things. Fascism exists so long as certain material conditions exist. Just as it is the case that those conditions are by no means eternal and inherent to human society, it is also true that the threat of fascism isn't either.

Tell me great leader, how is the Marxist way of looking at things?

Even if a successful worker's revolution were to happen next week, it's going to take time for these defeatist ideologies to die out.

If those conditions were met, obviously there wouldn't be some guy running around shouting Nazi slogans.

Fascism must be dealt with in an authoritarian manner. When the conditions are met and it goes away, that's fine, but we should retain the same vigilant attitudes and actions regardless.

[Vanguard1917]

Tell me great leader, how is the Marxist way of looking at things?

It is to understand that ideas have real, material foundations. An idea like fascism cannot be a real life threat to communist society because the material conditions for such ideas to exist in any meaningful social sense will not exist in communist society.



Even if a successful worker's revolution were to happen next week


Maybe you're confusing the transitional stage after capitalism (i.e. workers' rule, where the threat of counter-revolution prevails) with communist society (where classes have disappeared and the state has withered away).


If those conditions were met, obviously there wouldn't be some guy running around shouting Nazi slogans.


There could. Eccentrics and strange individuals exist in all societies. Don't confuse such individuals with real social forces.

[Sankofa]

It is to understand that ideas have real, material foundations. An idea like fascism cannot be a real life threat to communist society because the material conditions for such ideas to exist in any meaningful social sense will not exist in communist society.



Maybe you're confusing the transitional stage after capitalism (i.e. workers' rule, where the threat of counter-revolution prevails) with communist society (where classes have disappeared and the state has withered away).



There could. Eccentrics and strange individuals exist in all societies. Don't confuse such individuals with real social forces.

The original post was concerning what should we do if someone were to come out in a Hitler shirt, shouting "Sieg Heil" I doubt this would happen in a period after Fascism has already been eliminated.

I didn't mean to convey that I was mixing these periods up. Obviously, the road between worker's revolution and communism is a difficult one. I was trying to point out how foolish it was to tolerate Fascism once we've gotten to that point as a society.

Also, I don't think there's anything "eccentric" about Fascism, whether or not the person is serious, it's not a joking matter. Just because one Fascist out in the street isn't a "social force" doesn't mean we should not deal with this person harshly.

What would you do if some one just started calling random passer-byers racial slurs? Obviously, this one person isn't a social force that would start to divide workers among ethnic lines but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated.

[cb9's_unity]

Yonkers seems completely incapable of listening to what people are trying to tell him. No one here is saying fascism should be tolerated. ever. Fascism is a set of material conditions that must be fought against. Fascists simply support the ideas of fascism. So the act of a fascist taking about fascism is not fascism itself.

Looking at the situation how is shooting a fascist even pragmatic? I personally want people not to be fascists because they don't believe in nationalism and racism, not because they are simply afraid to be fascists. Simply by treating fascists like the human beings they are we fight fascism. In fact fascists thrive off of being oppressed and without a certain amount of oppression fascism can never get off the ground.

People like Hitler have made their living off of directing hatred of oppression into mass hatred of a certain scapegoat. The nazi's were able to turn the oppressive actions of the allies against the german people into hatred of the jews or anyone who is differnt. If we start killing nazi's people will start asking why they can not express their own opinion, the fascists could very easily turn that feeling of oppression into hatred of the communism they perceive is disenfranchising them. Even if the general ideology of communism has nothing to do with someone bashing in a nazi's head the fascists will find a way to spin it to their uses.

[Sankofa]

Yonkers seems completely incapable of listening to what people are trying to tell him. No one here is saying fascism should be tolerated. ever. Fascism is a set of material conditions that must be fought against. Fascists simply support the ideas of fascism. So the act of a fascist taking about fascism is not fascism itself.



You didn't read. I never said that someone promoting Fascist ideals was the very definition of what Fascism was. I said even if it's only one person, his ideas are Fascist, therefore reactionary, and thus must dealt with appropriately.




Looking at the situation how is shooting a fascist even pragmatic? I personally want people not to be fascists because they don't believe in nationalism and racism, not because they are simply afraid to be fascists. Simply by treating fascists like the human beings they are we fight fascism. In fact fascists thrive off of being oppressed and without a certain amount of oppression fascism can never get off the ground.



I never said shooting everyone who was Fascist was pragmatic, that was a personal opinion, you're reading too hard.

The point isn't to "scare" the masses into not being Fascist, they should have the historical knowledge, if not the very common sense, of what Fascism is and why it's evil and shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Anyone who advocates the principles of Fascism deserves to be oppressed. Ultimately, it will be the people who decide how to deal with them; you already know my position.



People like Hitler have made their living off of directing hatred of oppression into mass hatred of a certain scapegoat. The nazi's were able to turn the oppressive actions of the allies against the german people into hatred of the jews or anyone who is differnt. If we start killing nazi's people will start asking why they can not express their own opinion, the fascists could very easily turn that feeling of oppression into hatred of the communism they perceive is disenfranchising them. Even if the general ideology of communism has nothing to do with someone bashing in a nazi's head the fascists will find a way to spin it to their uses.

That's all fine and good, but the circumstances that allowed Hitler to come to power won't exist in the situation in which we are speaking. Furthermore, can you really oppress oppressors? What's the point of letting reactionaries the likes of these, have the freedom to voice their opinions?

As I stated above, people will already know why Nazis aren't allowed to express their hate speech openly. I doubt people would really feel sorry that Fascists couldn't preach their message of racism, hatred, genocide, and division; especially in a society that's classless, united, and free of all discrimination. That's just common sense.

[RNK]

First of all this is under the assumption of occuring in a communist society which more than likely will occur after generations of transitional socialism which will see all the old traditions and archaic notions, and even opinions of moral and social values, completely transformed.

Fascism today has unique traits which draw people to it. These are dumb people, naturally, who are drawn to it like a fish is drawn to a shiny piece of bait, but nonetheless there are aspects of it which appear appealing to the uninformed.

Two things will generally prevent fascist ideals from creeping up. First, the eradication of the uninformed part of the equation -- after decades of transformation, values of competition and greed and selfishness and all the hallmarks of the capitalist relations of production and the quagmire of moral and social shit it generates will largely be destroyed. Co-operation and generosity and other progressive ideals will take their places. Education on social and economic matters will further solidify the notion.

Secondly.. shit, I forget where I was going. Oh yeah! The material conditions which allowed fascism to form, and which led it to appear appealing in the eyes of some, will largely be abolished. Fascism is a great tool for tricking people into believing that the misery and hardships and suffering they face can be fixed by empowerment of the most visceral and absolute kind; these aspects, hopefully, will not be present in a socialist or communist society.

In either case, the kind of emancipation that would go hand-in-hand with communism would allow the people to defend themselves against such a fascist undertaking by allowing the people to smash any such movement. Free, educated people will not look kindly at a small group attempting to force their control on them.

[Apollodorus]

Anyone who advocates the principles of Fascism deserves to be oppressed. Ultimately, it will be the people who decide how to deal with them; you already know my position.


There was a time when peasants deserved to be oppressed. There was a time when communists deserved to be oppressed (and there still is in many parts of the world). And now, we live in a time where those who are unfortunate or disadvantaged, videlicet, the proletariats, deserve to be oppressed. That is the nature of the class struggle. A society in which fascists, or any other people who are deemed to be deserving of oppression, are oppressed would not be a classless society at all but a dystopian imitation of such a society.

[Sankofa]

There was a time when peasants deserved to be oppressed. There was a time when communists deserved to be oppressed (and there still is in many parts of the world). And now, we live in a time where those who are unfortunate or disadvantaged, videlicet, the proletariats, deserve to be oppressed. That is the nature of the class struggle. A society in which fascists, or any other people who are deemed to be deserving of oppression, are oppressed would not be a classless society at all but a dystopian imitation of such a society.

Call me crazy, but I don't think peasants and communists were or are in the same league as Fascists, so your point is moot.

[black magick hustla]

Before, I would tell you that we should kick him until his head bleeds.

But now I go by Vaneigem's slogan of "nothing is sacred, everything can be said."

the problem with censorship is that it always backfires because nobody knows were to draw the line

[Dimentio]

Of course! Who's arguing against a constitution? Who's arguing against human rights? There should be a set of moral codes, rules, and guide lines for society to avoid total chaos.

However, in my personal opinion, Fascism deserves none of the said freedoms. Just like the bourgeois class must be destroyed, so must any member of society, working class or not, who are Fascists.

Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is. But who's going to complain about being authoritarian to Fascists of all the scum on the Earth?

These rights need to be universal, otherwise, they are meaningless. I do not think that mob justice on the street is a sign of a civilised society. I would rather like to adress the mental reason why they guy behaves like he is doing.

[Forward Union]

You walk on the street a day, and then you'll see a guy coming out of his house with a gray sweater with Hitler's face on it. He goes to a ice-cream terminal, and then raises his right arm and starts to shout "SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!"

What would you do? What would the society do?

I'd ignore him.

[lombas]

You walk on the street a day, and then you'll see a guy coming out of his house with a gray sweater with Hitler's face on it. He goes to a ice-cream terminal, and then raises his right arm and starts to shout "SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!"

What would you do? What would the society do?

Not give him any ice-cream.

;)

[Sankofa]

These rights need to be universal, otherwise, they are meaningless. I do not think that mob justice on the street is a sign of a civilised society. I would rather like to adress the mental reason why they guy behaves like he is doing.

Why some posters in this thread suddenly are under the assumption that a revolution is non-violent is beyond me.

You can not negotiate with fascism, comrade. In very the same way you can't talk the bourgeoisie into ceasing oppressing towards the working class.

Rights are guaranteed to everyone excluding fascists and all other reactionaries. As I've said several times, the masses will decide what their policies will be.

However, giving these people free speech is stupid.

[Apollodorus]

How would you define fascism, comrade Yonkers? Wiktionary defines it thus:


1. A political regime based on strong centralised government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.

2. A system of strong autocracy or oligarchy.

You say that we communists, anarchists et cetera should not allow reactionaries to exist. Are not reactionaries those who criticise or oppose a new regime? Does that then make those who wish to suppress fascists, by definition, fascists themselves?

[jake williams]

the problem with censorship is that it always backfires because nobody knows were to draw the line
I personally, and very strongly believe, that the problem with censorship is far more fundamental than this. Human intellectual endeavour is assaulted from every conceivable direction and dimension by uncertainty. That we should formally and absolutely dismiss any idea from discourse is I think very dangerous on the grounds of intellectual honesty alone, irrespective of its potential human consequences, which are not slight.

[Sankofa]

How would you define fascism, comrade Yonkers? Wiktionary defines it thus:



You say that we communists, anarchists et cetera should not allow reactionaries to exist. Are not reactionaries those who criticise or oppose a new regime? Does that then make those who wish to suppress fascists, by definition, fascists themselves?

No, this is incorrect. People fighting to eradicate Fascism does not equal Fascism.

What about when workers become class conscious, start the revolution, and use violence to oust the bourgeoisie element in society?

The ruling classes most certainly will object to the new type of government being set in place. They will have to submit to the will of the proletariat or be suppressed. Are you saying that Communism is fascist?


I personally, and very strongly believe, that the problem with censorship is far more fundamental than this. Human intellectual endeavour is assaulted from every conceivable direction and dimension by uncertainty. That we should formally and absolutely dismiss any idea from discourse is I think very dangerous on the grounds of intellectual honesty alone, irrespective of its potential human consequences, which are not slight.

I absolutely agree, we can not and should not dismiss any idea. People should be allowed to think, to be free, to criticize any aspect of society; that's not what I'm arguing against.

What we should not tolerate is capitalism and any of its divisions to have form. Being authoritarian to ideologies such as Fascism doesn't offend anybody intellectually.

What's next? We allow people to strut around in full Klan fatigues, burning a cross, with a noose in their hands?

[black magick hustla]

What's next? We allow people to strut around in full Klan fatigues, burning a cross, with a noose in their hands?


to be honest, some weeks ago i would have told you we should beat the shit out of them.

although i dont really care doing that in the context of capitalism, in a socialist society i dont think its a good idea.

things start like that, then communist dissidents are called fascist collaborators, and then the party is purged.

the problem with your line is that political opportunists start throwing the word "capitalism" and "fascism" to all other leftists, accusing them of wanting to "restore" capital etc. i think that history has been pretty clear on that, and it would be a shame for it to repeat as a farse

[Sankofa]

to be honest, some weeks ago i would have told you we should beat the shit out of them.

although i dont really care doing that in the context of capitalism, in a socialist society i dont think its a good idea.

things start like that, then communist dissidents are called fascist collaborators, and then the party is purged.

the problem with your line is that political opportunists start throwing the word "capitalism" and "fascism" to all other leftists, accusing them of wanting to "restore" capital etc. i think that history has been pretty clear on that, and it would be a shame for it to repeat as a farse

I understand the fears about this type of behavior going to far, but I think it's possible to contain it.

I'm the last one that wants to see another "McCarthy Era" in a Communist society where everyone is running around accusing each other as being capitalist.

We should keep an eye out for opportunists such as these who throw around baseless accusations at other comrades for their own gain; that behavior being reactionary.

But I don't think acting in a negative way, either through the masses or the state (if not yet dissolved), when a person comes out into the open as says "Hey, look! I'm a Fascist! Hitler was right!" is in itself dangerous.

[Apollodorus]

But I don't think acting in a negative way, either through the masses or the state (if not yet dissolved), when a person comes out into the open as says "Hey, look! I'm a Fascist! Hitler was right!" is in itself dangerous.

If a person comes out into the open ostentatiously demonstrating their political opposition to everyone else, or worse, dressing up as Hitler, do you think they would really be a fascist? I mean, in this country we have people in this country doing far worse things without getting prosecuted. They are called comedy troupes. Whether or not anyone would find the aforementioned situation funny or not is out of the question, but it would be certain that they were not being sincere.

[Sankofa]

If a person comes out into the open ostentatiously demonstrating their political opposition to everyone else, or worse, dressing up as Hitler, do you think they would really be a fascist? I mean, in this country we have people in this country doing far worse things without getting prosecuted. They are called comedy troupes. Whether or not anyone would find the aforementioned situation funny or not is out of the question, but it would be certain that they were not being sincere.

*yawn* This the best you could come up with?

We aren't talking about comedy troupes; it's not even relevant and I won't waste my time addressing it.

Let's just assume the person mentioned in the original post is a genuine Fascist.

I don't have the patience to keep arguing this point for three more pages because certain individuals are intent on splitting hairs.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Has anyone even read the title of the thread. The hypothetical events are taking place in a future communist society not a socialist one. The only posters that have taken this into account have been Vanguard1917 and Serpentz.

If we do look at the hypothetical in a future communist society is falters at the starting blocks. It is Capitalist society with its reactionary bourgeois and petty-bourgeois that allows Fascism to exist. In a future communist society where classes and the material basis for Fascism no longer exist, Fascism itself is non-existent.

If however we take the hypothetical in the light that many others have, that being during the dictatorship of the proletariat, then I would reach the conclusion that the masses would "deal" with this sort of character. I am of course not condoning some form of vigilante mob rule, but i'm sure that the masses would decide how to handle Fascists and the like.

[Apollodorus]

I don't have the patience to keep arguing this point for three more pages because certain individuals are intent on splitting hairs.

In that case, allow me to conclude my argument, comrade.

The curtailment of opposing ideologies, or indeed, any opposition to a regime, a political system or a political philosophy, has historically proven to have a negative effect. Evidently, they had a negative effect upon those who were persecuted, but it also had a negative effects upon the radical left. Firstly, it split the radical left apart. Communists in Russia persecuted anarchists, and there has been a mistrust on both sides ever since. At a smaller level, communism too was divided. Proponents of Trotsky were divided from proponents of Stalin, with the Trotskyists forevermore divided from the Stalinists. Indeed, under Stalin persecuting opponents became as important, if not more important, than maintaining the classless society in which man is truly free. In a nutshell, persecution of any group upon another creates division, and division creates weakness. Secondly, all this persecution has partially caused the bad reputation communism has today. Of course, it was mainly caused by capitalist propaganda, but there is no denying the deeds committed in the Soviet Union, and that these deeds were bad.

You might think, 'Yeah, they were bad, except when they were done to fascists.' But who were the fascists anyway? What makes one a fascist? One moment it will be 'anyone who shouts 'SIEG HEIL!' wearing a jumper with Hitler's face on it.', the next it will be 'anyone who stands in the way of social progress.' For is it progress at all if people still believe that violence should be used against fellow human beings: not merely that, but violence based on encountering this fellow human being once, briefly. Is it not widely considered that punishment without a trial, or any analysis of the crime whatsoever, is barbarity? You roll your eyes at my comment about the comedy troupe, and assure me that in this hypothetical situation the man in question is a genuine fascist. But how could you know?

But perhaps this argument has moved beyond the hypothetical situation mentioned by comrade Serpent: instead into a more fundamental question about whether in a post-revolutionary society fascists should be persecuted. So what if they execute coup d’état? If the society was truly stable they would be able to regain control with ease. But of course, regain control peacefully. For what is the point of having a revolution if people are no more free than they were before? In response to what you asked me before, if I thought communism to be fascist, no I do not. But then, I do not consider any regime, political system or political philosophy which condones the violent treatment of protesters to be communism.

You may end this discussion here or you may not, comrade, feel free to make the choice.

[Q]

You walk on the street a day, and then you'll see a guy coming out of his house with a gray sweater with Hitler's face on it. He goes to a ice-cream terminal, and then raises his right arm and starts to shout "SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!"

What would you do? What would the society do?
I would laugh at him, ridiculise him. In communist society he's like the nobleman that wants to return to feudalism, silly and ignored.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'd have a nice conversation of why not to be a fascist. I wouldn't want him hauled off or anything, though.

[Beladi]

A.I. Serpov

General Secretary,
Committee for the formation of an American Party of Labor.



When did you cease to be a trotskyist agent and suddenly join the ranks of the marxist-leninists? A few weeks ago you were still preaching trotskyism in chatrooms. Explain to us why we should believe that you're among our ranks. Also, does your 'committee for the formation of an american party of labor' know about your betrayal of the Organization for the Formation of the Communist Party of America (Bolsheviks)? Does the few homosexuals that you talk to online constitute the membership of this organization, Mr Massey? These are questions that need to be answered before your fledging 'committee' is taken seriously.



VRK

[krmchedlishvili]

they know now about his activities. and its on them to act.

[Q]

Wow, talk about gravedigging :rolleyes: