Hard left?

[Atrus]

I have a friend, who's brother is a member of the Labor party and sees the conservatives as the devil incarnate. I struggle to see so big a difference anymore, so I got my friend to tell him that. The conversation went like this:

Wallace:
Right
I'm under strict orders from one of my mates, who, hearing that you do stuff for Labour, wanted me to tell you this:
"I don't know why he hates conservatives so much. They're practically the same as Labour these days"
Also note: He thinks England should be communist. You would NOT like him.
Nick:
I'd like to meet him and make fun of him. I love winding up trots.
Wallace:
That's it? I was expecting more swear words from you.
Nick:
i made a complete tit out of a commie at Liverpool Uni's guild elections.
Nick:
and i mean there were people actually stopping to watch and laugh at him.
Nick:
its funny, i was just describing it to jonathan
Nick :
i was just explaining how in the 21st century its impossible to tell between Nazis and Communists.
Nick:
tell your friend that lol
Wallace :
Will do.
Nick:
I might do an essay about it for my course actually.
Nick:
i could do it for political thinkers.
Wallace:
On how on my mate is a nazi?
Nick:
more on how trots and nazis are becoming difficult to distinguish between.
Nick:
cause the hard left these days is becoming increasingly anti-semitic - theres been loads of studies done on that
Nick:
and racist and fascist parties right from the original hitler nazis up to the bnp today have a lot of so called "socialist policies", based on a racially orientated interpretation of citizenship.
Nick:
ergo trots and nazis are the same thing.
Wallace:
Well isn't that just modern communists? He's very to the letter about it
Nick:
i bet you i'd pwn him on marxist theory.

In this argument, I am "The friend", Wallace my friend and "Nick" is the Labor party member.

Personally, I've never heard so much bollocks in all my life. If anyone has the time to read through that, give me your opinions?
I posted it here because I'm interested to see if any of the "restricted" members agree with him.
Thanks.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think I see your point; and yes, mental retardation is a problem in today's society.

[Atrus]

The worst part is this guy is studying Politics at University.

[jake williams]

The worst part is this guy is studying Politics at University.
I don't know if you've met a lot of poli sci kids, but they don't tend to be particularly bright.

[F9]

that point is really good about nazis and socialism.Its a good opportunity for a good laugh!:laugh:I always have fun when stupid kids start making theories about anarchism,communism and they dont fuc*ing know what they say!:laugh:

Fuserg9:star:

[Sendo]

Poli Sci and Econ at the average college is like a cult or some religious obsession. Too bad their assertions aren't true. 99.99999% of the people that these departments breed are conservatives, liberals, or right-libertarians...or even closet fascists. They have a hegemony of bias and, yes, have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

The only thing that's better than the poli sci snobs are the Chicago school-esque economists who know their economic views are just "science." (Too bad every application has failed miserably and only implemented during disasters or military juntas).

A tell-tale sign of bullshit is self-asserted objectivity. I love how they're arguments are never dependent on evidence, but on background assumptions. History and psychology have proven this true. So all you need to discredit commies is assert that all Commies are Stalinists and that Nazis were AT ALL true to their originally populist/socialist platform. So boom we have conflated totalitarianism, nationalism, and socialism. The next step is to find anti-semites within "National Socialist" parties. This is what passes for an argument in Poli Sci.

Or you get those Weber-ists with their ridiculous claims that Catholicism breeds laziness, Confucianism slavishness, Islam fanatacism, and Protestantism breeeds productive capitalists. Or you get the Francis Fukuyamas who say "no liberal democracy has gone to war with another." A end of history argument. Though liberalism is logically UNSUSTAINABLE and filled with contradictions, there is also the HISTORICAL record. So, the U.S. has never warred against another democracy??? I'm wondering what the CIA and marines have been doing lately. These morons assume that war is only war if it is declared. Not to mention the exploitative relationships that liberalism creates on other countries.

"History without theory is blind, and theory without history is barren."

[Bud Struggle]

To be honest--unless you LOOK into the situation both political theories are similar. Both produced vastly ruthlless brands of Totalitarianism, with millions dead and enslaved. Both sides want to change the world to suit their needs and philosophies, and both sides lived and died in the 20th century. Both are yesterdays news in a world that has moved on.

The difference is: Communists are (for the most part) decent people that want a better world for everyone. Fascists are seperatists that want a world where people are parsed on arbitrary differentiations between people based on peculiarities of birth.

I learned lots (even though most of you here think I'm a total prick--which I no doubt am--but that's another story :rolleyes:) since I came here. While I don't much agree with your beliefs--your motives are quite worthwhile. I'd have a beer with you people. I can't say the same about the Stormfront ilk.

[Dr Mindbender]

i get depressed at reactionary centralists who don't know the difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism. Have you tried explaining to him?

[Dejavu]

The difference is: Communists are (for the most part) decent people that want a better world for everyone. Fascists are seperatists that want a world where people are parsed on arbitrary differentiations between people based on peculiarities of birt

Tis true. Theres a segment among Communists I can't stand, these are usually the more educated type that know better but still cling on to their absurd ideology and then there are those Communists that are more idealistic ( usually younger) that really want a better world for all but are convinced that Communism is the way to go. I consider them well-intentioned but naive. I'd say my favorite Commies are the ones that claim to be Anarchists. At least we can agree on somethings, namely, statism is bad. :D

As far as the Fascists go, well they have developed a more refined intellectual grounding too. Some of them argue for their positions rather well. By Fascists I mean Nationalist Socialists, the various brands of Nazis, White/Black/Hispanic/etc Nationalists, Classic Mussolini Fascists , Franco Fascists , Zionists, Theocratic Fascists (Islamic, Christian, etc.) and so on. The prevailing modern thought among the Fascists isn't so much hate anymore but its promoting a thing particular to themselves such as race, culture , religion, etc. For example, the White Nationalists feel that they have a right to defend their culture. I would agree in principle to preserve anything you consider worth conserving but I don't think this needs to be a collectivized effort they tote the line with being condescending towards others.

The main difference with the most of the Communists and most of the Fascists is what TomK pointed out. In general , Communist would like to see a world revolution with the international proletarian breaking away from his chains. They would like to change the world on a global scale. The Fascist want to liberate their race and/or nation from oppression ( much like Communist want to do with the proletarian class) but the Fascist want to keep it national , not international. The Fascists are like "we only care about prosperity for OUR people, we can care less about the rest of the world." Some of the more extreme Fascists would like to see to it that other nations do not thrive but most don't care about other nations but only care about their own.

I believe both movements are socialistic in nature on the bases of them being collectivist movements. The difference to me is that one side is more internationalist socialist while the other is nationalist socialist.

[Dejavu]

Simply put. Communism and Fascism are like cousins that don't like each other much in the Socialist-Collectivist family. Family Feud! :laugh:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

the hard left these days is becoming increasingly anti-semitic - theres been loads of studies done on that... and racist and fascist parties right from the original hitler nazis up to the bnp today have a lot of so called "socialist policies", based on a racially orientated interpretation of citizenship... ergo trots and nazis are the same thing.

Just saw this :laugh: bit of a leap, isn't it?

I'd also love to see the studies that prove that leftists are anti-semetic, I wonder did they go around asking leftists if they hated Jews?

[Atrus]

I wonder did they go around asking leftists if they hated Jews?

I can just see that now
"1. Do you hate Jews?

2.What are your thoughts on the Holcaust?"

Yeah...really good :P

[Joby]

I hate the average poli-sci kid.

They're so convinced that everything they think is right after, oh, 3 or 4 semesters.

[graffic]

I didnt read much of your post but the point about Labour and Conservatives is quite true. Tony Blair brought Labour to the right, and Gordon Brown is pretty much the same as Blair, so yes there is very little between the Conservatives and Labour.

The only party in the UK which is considered "Revolutionary" or "Hard Left" is the Socialist Workers. Which is, of course, known for its petty squables and fucked up policys, the bulk of support for the party is made up of Deluded Marxists and reactionary Muslims. Hence why "revolutionary leftists", in this country - who seriously believe in "a revolution" must be smoking something pretty strong.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I believe both movements are socialistic in nature on the bases of them being collectivist movements. The difference to me is that one side is more internationalist socialist while the other is nationalist socialist.This line of thinking sounds eerily familiar. Please tell me you're not a fan of Alex Jones. You already like to spin out absurd theories like "anarcho-capitalism" and returning to the gold standard, but I can't stomach the fetishism for new world order conspiracy theories.

It's actually highly ironic when capitalists try to associate socialism with fascism. Radical fascists often cite capitalism and socialism as both being Zionist conspiracies to take over the world. The industrious lust capitalists have for referring to themselves as the only individualist branch of economics is quite telling for 95% of the population - whose only function in society is to serve as some ambiguous "demand" element that can be easily shaped, morphed, lied to, and altered. There's your individuality.

[Dejavu]

This line of thinking sounds eerily familiar. Please tell me you're not a fan of Alex Jones. You already like to spin out absurd theories like "anarcho-capitalism" and returning to the gold standard, but I can't stomach the fetishism for new world order conspiracy theories.

It's actually highly ironic when capitalists try to associate socialism with fascism. Radical fascists often cite capitalism and socialism as both being Zionist conspiracies to take over the world. The industrious lust capitalists have for referring to themselves as the only individualist branch of economics is quite telling for 95% of the population - whose only function in society is to serve as some ambiguous "demand" element that can be easily shaped, morphed, lied to, and altered. There's your individuality.


I don't care much for Alex Jones. Lets put it this way , I don't look to him to derive intellectual inspiration. Alex Jones certainly isn't the intellectual inspiration behind Anarcho-Capitalism or the gold standard so I don't see the need to go off on a tangent here. Did you ever hear me speaking about the NWO? I've heard NWO rant from all sides of the spectrum, not just anarcho-capitalists and libertarians.

Actually , Fascism and socialism are compatible, the Fascistic regimes of the past certainly proved that. They have a common root in collectivism and all socialist inspired movements such a Fascism ( mixed with nationalism) and Communism ( from class warfare) all are critical of individualism ( classical liberalism). Again, you seem not to be capable of looking outside of the box. I think you'll be surprised to find out that Marx derived a lot of his class analysis from the classical liberals that did it before him. However, classical liberals looked at it more pragmatically separating the industrial class from the predatory or political class. The industrial class creates its own wealth through savings, investment , and work while the political class ( the state) is predatory and seeks to coercively take the wealth from the industrial class and redistribute it how it sees fit. I can't see how anyone can see anything wrong with the industrial markets responding to the demand of consumers. Guess what? The majority of consumers are the working people. Capitalism, when its not misdirected by the State, responds to the demands of the majority of consumers and is the working horse for their prosperity. How else do you explain when the standard of living goes up and population boom? For the first time in history, the common man can accumulate his own wealth, own his own property, and determine his own lot in society. Though Communism addresses 'equality,' better to be equal in liberty , than equal in bondage and servitude which is the result of Communism.

[Zurdito]

He sounds like he read a lot of Nick Cohen or something. I'm surprised that so many of you have never encountered this attitude before. It is a reaction against the Stop the War Movement, many liberals believe that the left is anti-semitic, and a number have written books on it. If you challenge them they have no susbtance to their arguments, but they do like to be abusive.

Also his use of the word "pwn" marks him out as the kind of person who people stop laugh at in the street, and not the other way round. :D

[Zurdito]

Actually , Fascism and socialism are compatible, the Fascistic regimes of the past certainly proved that. They have a common root in collectivism and all socialist inspired movements such a Fascism ( mixed with nationalism) and Communism ( from class warfare) all are critical of individualism ( classical liberalism).

Fascism and revolutinary politics do have a "common root" if you want to put it like that, but the root isn't "collectivism", it is economic crisis. It is idealistic to say that the "ideal" of "individual liberty" is challenged by the "ideal" of collectivism. Rather, in certain economic conditions, liberalism is able to employed by the ruling class, because they can afford to provide the mass of the population with a high enough standard of living, that people will to an extent consent to their rule, and therefore the ruling class can afford to provide limited democratic rights for the masses.

However, when people's living standards are attacked by periodic economic crisis (or, in the semicolonial world or "third world", where they are never high enough to begin with), then the state, the tool of the ruling class, must be ever more repressive towards its citizens: liberalism goes out of the window. Or course, one kind of response is reformism, i.e. the New Deal, but we don't need to deal with that for the purposes ofthis conversation. Instead, let's look specifically at right-wing reaction to working class militancy, and see how this degenerates to fascism in the most extreme cases.

The response to economic crisis may just be, as under Thatcher and Reagan, increasing state repression against organised labour, but within a broadly "liberal democratic" framework.

The response may also be, as in the case of Pinochet for example, a bonapartist regime which uses the state apparatus to crush not jsut organised labour but also all political opposition, on behalf of the elite. In such cases economic policy will resemble the example above.

Then finally there is fascism. I will let Trotsky describe this - I've quoted this many times on this forum, but Trotsky's analysis of fascism is second to none:




At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium -- the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat -- all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.

From fascism the bourgeoisie demands a thorough job; once it has resorted to methods of civil war, it insists on having peace for a period of years. And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed in accordance the patterns set by Mussolini -- the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role -- but it means first of all for the most part that the workers' organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism....


The argument he makes there is that both fascism and socialism arise when the state itself can no longer keep power. But fascism is the reaction against socialism in this situation, it exists to defeat socialsim. If it superficially resembles socialism in some ways, it is because it's sole purpose is to engage in a war against socialism, to set the would-be socialist masses in a frenzy against the socialist leaders, and to preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie. Of course however to acheive this, the prostrated, desperate borgeoisie must make huge concessions to those same sections of the masses which it wishes to employ for its own ends, and therefore promises them greater (temporary) influence over the means of production and a greater colelctive share of societies wealth than they have under either of the two kinds of governments described above. In other words, the free market has failed so badly that the bourgeoisie has pre-emptively to abolish it or risk losing any legitimacy.

The alternative to this analysis seems to me to always take the form of some kind of belief that "colelctivism" is just a kind of mental illness that grabs all the "sheep", liek some kind of zombie movie. Sorry, but that's laughable. Fascism and socialism - "collectivism" in your words - have both only ever taken power in periods of greate conomic, social and political crisis. Therefore this shows that they arise out of material situations and are in fact alternate and diametrically opposed responses to material situations.

Now of course the ruling class today can sit back and pontificate about "liberalism" and against "collectivism". this si because right now they can afford to. But it wasn't always so and won't always be so. In fact the British government right now is underwriting the entire banking system with tax payers money. what this shows of course is that "liberalisms" ideals of the free and sovereign individual can never be acheived under capitalism: and as we can see that they have no alternative to capitalism, then we must conclude that they are in fact impossible.

[Kropotesta]

was this Nick refering to the 'Horseshoe' model of ideologies when referencing to communism and nazism being the same?
But yeah I think you should have debate with this twit to see if he can really 'pwn' you at Marxist theory.
I agree that politic uni students are possibly the most ignorant ill informed people on current subjects, irony or what!, or just think that being overly smart makes them untouchable. In fact at a recent uni look around for politics I thought there would be some interesting informed debate but instead it was full of pompous middle class adults and annoyingly sterile kids. even the lecturers looked abit agitated!
I also got told once, by a mature student of sociology at a really scrub the bottom uni, that she infact knew more on anarchist communism, which she had to ask me what it was, than myself, as she had "studied it for a week at degree level and people won't take your ideas seriously without a degree to back it up". I was pretty pissed, in both ways by this time, and proceeded to shout her down. Jeez, at the time she was conducting a survey on how the Smiths had changed the Manchester music scene......

[Bilan]

Simply put. Communism and Fascism are like cousins that don't like each other much in the Socialist-Collectivist family. Family Feud! :laugh:

Bullshit.
It's like calling "fire" and "water" distant cousins because they can both kill you.
Don't be silly.