Communist Opposition to Fascism [Archive]

BurnTheOliveTree

8th September 2008, 20:47

Just as Communism has always acted violently towards dissent.

Well, some people who went under the banner of communism have done, certainly. Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Stalin, I can agree. To say that it has always acted violently towards dissent is an unfair generalisation. The Paris Commune, Cuba, Venuzuela, the early USSR, Bolivia, Nepal, and so on, have only used violence in defence against armed reactionaries. In other words, they suppressed people and groups who were attempting a violent return to the past - all ideologies are tarred by that same brush. The difference is that violent suppression is inherent and vital to the ideology of fascism, and is also nearly arbitrary in it's attacks on the working class. You don't even need to be a dissident, in Mussolini's Italy you could be beaten to death for being the first out of a voting booth as an example to the rest of the populace, to scare them into voting fascist!

I understand why you feel that way, but it is a slippery slope and may only lead to violence (the very thing you want to avoid). What you said sounds a lot like the saying, "you can't negotiate with a terrorist". That mentality brought the West to recent wars and halts progression of peace with Israel and the Palestinians.

Well, terrorism is a different question entirely, being as it is a means to a political end, rather than a political end itself. You can negotiate with a terrorist, because even the worst of them tend to have political goals which can actually be satisfied. A fascist political goal is to have socialists, communists, trade unionists, and many other demographics killed. That is not their means, like the terrorist, but their end.

The truth of the matter is, "fascists" (or at least a significant amount) are not some loonybin rabid dogs with the intent to destroy everything in their wake.

A great deal of them are - historically they were mainly comprised of mentally deranged ex-soldiers from the first world war, who had residual bloodlust. The ones who aren't literally insane certainly amount to that politically - to get to their utopia necessitates an astronomical level of bloodshed, particularly given that they are ultimately nationalist expansionists. Fascism cannot and never has existed without constant state-terror and violence.

People are people no matter what they believe, and there is obviously a reason that shaped how they view things. Dialogue with opponents has the ability to change their views. When you're not fighting with words you're taking the fight to the streets.

And they need to be fought on the streets! I'm not wasting my time sipping tea and discussing the nuances of a corporatist economy with these nutters when the local BNP in my area are planning to go "Paki bashing" every third wednesday, I'm going to try to organise some actual resistance.

-Alex

Jazzratt

8th September 2008, 20:49

Coming from a moderator, I would think that you wouldn't resort to ad hominem statements with childish cursing.

1. You don't know what ad hominem means. Learn it.

2. While it's not the most polite thing in the world "fucking moron" hardly qualifies as childish.

Disliking someone for their beliefs and dismissing their opinion is the definition of bigotry.

Then everyone is a bigot. If I sincerely believed that homosexuals were criminals that deserved the death penalty (just one of the many opinions I've encountered that I'm horrendously bigoted against) would dislike me for it constitute bigotry?

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

That's a poor definition of bigotry.

How do you expect people to take leftists seriously when many themselves are bigots?

I expect people to be slightly more intellectually capable than moss and recognise that disrespecting people for something they have no choice about (skin colour, sexuality, gender, physical ability and so on) is morally different from disrespecting someone for something that is a conscious choice (religion, politics and so on). You can call the latter bigotry if you really want, but it devalues the outrage felt about the former.

That's just as bad as the disgruntled youth that use protests and demonstrations to destroy cars and break shop windows.

Not all protests can, or should be, a group of bearded hippies linking hands and singing "we shall overcome". Sometimes action on the street should be an expression of the anger felt by the working class (of whatever age).

Frost

8th September 2008, 21:44

The Paris Commune, Cuba, Venuzuela, the early USSR, Bolivia, Nepal, and so on, have only used violence in defence against armed reactionaries.

Communists have used violence to get into power as well. Although Marx himself did not mention an armed revolution to establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, violence has played an essential role in many Marxist movements.

In other words, they suppressed people and groups who were attempting a violent return to the past - all ideologies are tarred by that same brush. The difference is that violent suppression is inherent and vital to the ideology of fascism, and is also nearly arbitrary in it's attacks on the working class.

I believe suppression to be inherent to Fascism, but violence is simply a means to do so, not necessarily the key to suppression. One important question in itself is what is Fascism? As Orwell correctly stated, it has become a label ignorantly thrown around. Personally, I don't think there is a true, singluar definition of this ideology. With so few examples of "Fascism" in practice, it's hard to compare different takes on it. I suppose what I really mean by that statement is that people can say that the USSR was "Communist" and the DPRK is "Communist" but they are totally different takes on Marx's ideas. The difference between Fascism and Communism in this respect is that at least Communism has guidelines from Marx while there's no such thing as the "Fascist Manifesto".

You can negotiate with a terrorist, because even the worst of them tend to have political goals which can actually be satisfied. A fascist political goal is to have socialists, communists, trade unionists, and many other demographics killed. That is not their means, like the terrorist, but their end.

I see it really as a means and an end. I would disagree that a goal of Fascist ideology is to kill all the groups you mentioned, just as it isn't a goal of Communists to kill all reactionaries. Both of these events have occurred by Fascist-labelled governments and Communist-labelled governments, respectively. But not every fascist movement has that intention nor does every Marxist movement. Hence, I believe that discussion/negotiation is very possible.

A great deal of them are - historically they were mainly comprised of mentally deranged ex-soldiers from the first world war, who had residual bloodlust. The ones who aren't literally insane certainly amount to that politically - to get to their utopia necessitates an astronomical level of bloodshed, particularly given that they are ultimately nationalist expansionists. Fascism cannot and never has existed without constant state-terror and violence.

I think that a great-deal of them having residual bloodlust is an unfair generalization. The movements in Germany and Italy were not driven by bloodlust (although some individuals may have been, not a great deal of them) but economic hardships, the abuse of foreign powers, and a desire for stability all combined with a strong nationalist sentiment.

And they need to be fought on the streets! I'm not wasting my time sipping tea and discussing the nuances of a corporatist economy with these nutters when the local BNP in my area are planning to go "Paki bashing" every third wednesday, I'm going to try to organise some actual resistance.

Well, street fighting may be your thing, but these things are probably best off to be handled by authorities. Furthering violence will only create more violence.

Frost

8th September 2008, 22:17

1. You don't know what ad hominem means. Learn it.

2. While it's not the most polite thing in the world "fucking moron" hardly qualifies as childish.

Ad Hominem is against the man. Calling me a "fucking moron" was an unnecessary insult that brought nothing constructive towards the argument.

Personal attacks are indeed childish. Children resort to insults in disagreements with one another as opposed to those in rational discussion. Whatever you call me, a personal insult is indeed something a child would do.

Then everyone is a bigot. If I sincerely believed that homosexuals were criminals that deserved the death penalty (just one of the many opinions I've encountered that I'm horrendously bigoted against) would dislike me for it constitute bigotry?

Perhaps you misunderstood. Dismissing somebody because of their beliefs is bigotry, not disagreeing with their opinion. When people here say "I can't argue with a Fascist" it is an example of bigotry because it is an automatic dismissal of a person because of their belief despite any valid points they may bring to the table.

That's a poor definition of bigotry.

It was the very first definition that came up when I searched for an official one. I suspect you feel you have a better definition of the word. Let's hear it.

I expect people to be slightly more intellectually capable than moss and recognise that disrespecting people for something they have no choice about (skin colour, sexuality, gender, physical ability and so on) is morally different from disrespecting someone for something that is a conscious choice (religion, politics and so on). You can call the latter bigotry if you really want, but it devalues the outrage felt about the former.

Yes, it is morally different. However, a moral argument about the definition of a word has no relevance. But the former is not necessarily bigotry according to its definition. There is a difference between disrespect and intolerance. Discriminating against a person for the former reasons is discrimination. However if they were to not listen to the ideas of that person due to their discrimination then it is bigotry.

Not all protests can, or should be, a group of bearded hippies linking hands and singing "we shall overcome". Sometimes action on the street should be an expression of the anger felt by the working class (of whatever age).

Your example of hippies is only an extreme example. Protests/demonstrations can be peaceful without being full of hippies linking hands. Vandalism and wanton destruction is a bit more than an "expression of anger" but moreso an opportunity for angsty teens to break the law to feel cool. There is a difference between breaking store windows of a corporate building and lighting some poor bugger's parked car on fire.

BurnTheOliveTree

8th September 2008, 22:28

Communists have used violence to get into power as well. Although Marx himself did not mention an armed revolution to establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, violence has played an essential role in many Marxist movements.

Again, only against armed reactionaries, and because we have no choice - violence is an unavoidable consequence of changing established social order, because no ruling class in history has ever voluntarily given up power. It's horrible, it's tragic, but it's ultimately necessary for the emancipation of the vast majority of our species.

I believe suppression to be inherent to Fascism, but violence is simply a means to do so, not necessarily the key to suppression.

Find me fascists who have not used violence as the dominant form of suppression in their regime, and we'll talk.

One important question in itself is what is Fascism? As Orwell correctly stated, it has become a label ignorantly thrown around. Personally, I don't think there is a true, singluar definition of this ideology. With so few examples of "Fascism" in practice, it's hard to compare different takes on it.

Sure, I can appreciate that - politics is not an exact science, after all. However, I would argue that we can pinpoint certain traits that fascism definitely has:

1. It advocates a one-party state/dictatorship, with a mixed economy - the goal being that the nationalised industries can be used by the fascist state for it's war efforts. Apart from that it seems content to let the market fuck the poor.

2. It is nationalistic, and socially conservative.

3. It is rabidly anti-communist.

4. It is extremely violent.

Show me fascist movements that don't have these traits.

I would disagree that a goal of Fascist ideology is to kill all the groups you mentioned, just as it isn't a goal of Communists to kill all reactionaries

Sure it is. Look at what fascists have said and done historically.

I think that a great-deal of them having residual bloodlust is an unfair generalization. The movements in Germany and Italy were not driven by bloodlust (although some individuals may have been, not a great deal of them) but economic hardships, the abuse of foreign powers, and a desire for stability all combined with a strong nationalist sentiment.

Perhaps you are right in saying that the movements were not actually driven by mental ex-soldiers, but they were certainly a crucial factor, just as the economic hardship and nationalism was - and the nationalism is at least partially attributable to the war, as is the economic crisis. See? Fascism is inextricably tied to violence.

Well, street fighting may be your thing, but these things are probably best off to be handled by authorities. Furthering violence will only create more violence.

The police aren't going to do shit, they'll tell them off and give them minor punishments. There needs, in my opinion, to be a serious deterrent to these fuckers, and proper self-defence is the best means to that.

-Alex

Jazzratt

8th September 2008, 22:54

Ad Hominem is against the man. Calling me a "fucking moron" was an unnecessary insult that brought nothing constructive towards the argument.

Yes, but your refusal to take the argument seriously because I called you something mean is a lot closer to arguing against the man than me saying your a fucking moron because your ideas are fucking stupid.

In other words - I am not dismissing the argument because of the person making it, rather I am dismissing the person because of the argument.

Personal attacks are indeed childish. Children resort to insults in disagreements with one another as opposed to those in rational discussion. Whatever you call me, a personal insult is indeed something a child would do.

Yes, that's right no adults ever insult anyone, ever. Look, when you leave school or whatever it is your doing now and start encountering normal people you'll notice that not everyone is completely polite all the damn time.

Perhaps you misunderstood. Dismissing somebody because of their beliefs is bigotry, not disagreeing with their opinion. When people here say "I can't argue with a Fascist" it is an example of bigotry because it is an automatic dismissal of a person because of their belief despite any valid points they may bring to the table.

When a fascist brings a valid point to any discussion about politics I will curry my testicles and eat them.

It was the very first definition that came up when I searched for an official one. I suspect you feel you have a better definition of the word. Let's hear it.

I generally imagined that bigotry was something negative, by that description, though it can be quite neutral.

Yes, it is morally different. However, a moral argument about the definition of a word has no relevance. But the former is not necessarily bigotry according to its definition. There is a difference between disrespect and intolerance. Discriminating against a person for the former reasons is discrimination. However if they were to not listen to the ideas of that person due to their discrimination then it is bigotry.

This is stupid. So a homophobic person could simply be "discriminatory" whilst someone who fucking hates homophobes is a bigot? If this is the case then bigotry is quite often a good thing and I am a proud bigot.

Your example of hippies is only an extreme example.

If you're going to offer up stupid mischaracterisations of violent action and the people that undertake it then I feel I should be able to do the same for peaceful actions.

Protests/demonstrations can be peaceful without being full of hippies linking hands. Vandalism and wanton destruction is a bit more than an "expression of anger" but moreso an opportunity for angsty teens to break the law to feel cool. There is a difference between breaking store windows of a corporate building and lighting some poor bugger's parked car on fire.

1. Not everyone involved in violent protests or riots is an "angsty teen".

2. Ageist condescension is frowned upon on this forum.

3. What you call "angst" is nothing if not the anger of a section (13-19 apparently) of the working class.

4. While a poor bugger losing their car is unfortunate, the chaos of a riot and the damage caused sends a message that even the wittiest chants (and there are some pretty witty ones) or most perfectly worded slogan could never put across.

5. Finally it should be noted that a lot of riots start because the police are deliberately goading a group of very angry people, often mistreating them. It's like they're asking demonstrators to illustrate their rage.

Frost

8th September 2008, 23:05

Again, only against armed reactionaries, and because we have no choice - violence is an unavoidable consequence of changing established social order, because no ruling class in history has ever voluntarily given up power. It's horrible, it's tragic, but it's ultimately necessary for the emancipation of the vast majority of our species.

And how does that differ from the mentality of a Fascist? Violence can be a necessary means for things, I agree. Violence after revolutions have occurred after every successful Marxist revolution in attempts to maintain the current order. How does that differ from a fascist regime using violence to maintain their order?

Find me fascists who have not used violence as the dominant form of suppression in their regime, and we'll talk.

Again, that's not what I mean. I can say the exact same thing for Marxist regimes. Does that make either inherently violent? I don't think so. The argument of "that's not really Communism" could apply to fascists too, no?

1. It advocates a one-party state/dictatorship, with a mixed economy - the goal being that the nationalised industries can be used by the fascist state for it's war efforts. Apart from that it seems content to let the market fuck the poor.

2. It is nationalistic, and socially conservative.

3. It is rabidly anti-communist.

4. It is extremely violent.

Show me fascist movements that don't have these traits.

1. I agree with the your statement until the hyphen. I didn't see Franco's Spain as a mighty war machine like Hitler's.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. I don't think Fransisco Franco was any more violent than every Marxist regime.

Sure it is. Look at what fascists have said and done historically.

When talking about historical actions, I could easily point out Communists that committed horrible atrocities. Again, they weren't necessarily following Marxism, but who is to say that Hitler and Mussolini speak entirely for Fascism?

Perhaps you are right in saying that the movements were not actually driven by mental ex-soldiers, but they were certainly a crucial factor, just as the economic hardship and nationalism was - and the nationalism is at least partially attributable to the war, as is the economic crisis. See? Fascism is inextricably tied to violence.

Nationalism has links to violence. But it is not inherently violent. Many, many nationalist movements have led to war and have sparked it but on the same token there have been nationalists have achieved goals peacefully (take the split of Czechoslovakia for example).

The police aren't going to do shit, they'll tell them off and give them minor punishments. There needs, in my opinion, to be a serious deterrent to these fuckers, and proper self-defence is the best means to that.

I think this violence has been a two way street. There have been plenty of racially motivated attacks against Whites, especially in North America. This kind of violence will only breed more hatred between more or less racial factions and indeed it has.

Frost

8th September 2008, 23:45

Yes, but your refusal to take the argument seriously because I called you something mean is a lot closer to arguing against the man than me saying your a fucking moron because your ideas are fucking stupid.

If I didn't take it seriously I wouldn't have responded.

Yes, that's right no adults ever insult anyone, ever. Look, when you leave school or whatever it is your doing now and start encountering normal people you'll notice that not everyone is completely polite all the damn time.

What? I would tell you to encounter normal people and notice that insults are irrational and unnecessary. People may not be polite all the time but they don't go off dropping f-bombs on people because they disagree.

When a fascist brings a valid point to any discussion about politics I will curry my testicles and eat them.

Well a fascist can't bring a valid point to you if you ignore them.

This is stupid. So a homophobic person could simply be "discriminatory" whilst someone who fucking hates homophobes is a bigot?

Again you misunderstood what I said. You can hate either gays or homophobes, that is discrimination. But if you refuse to acknowledge or listen to them based on the fact that you don't agree with their sexual preference/anti-gay views, then you are a bigot.

1. Not everyone involved in violent protests or riots is an "angsty teen".

Perhaps I shouldn't have conveyed that all violent protesters are. But the demographic of these protests are highly populated by youth.

2. Ageist condescension is frowned upon on this forum.

I'm not trying to discriminate based on age, but there is a certain maturity level between a typical young teen and an adult. That's just chemistry.

3. What you call "angst" is nothing if not the anger of a section (13-19 apparently) of the working class.

Angry about what? Most children haven't even experienced the real world yet. Not to mention hormonal levels in young teens greatly affect their behaviour. Many children have the slightest understanding of left ideology yet feel the need to destroy whatever they can get their hands on in protest. If protests weren't a mere opportunity for people to needlessly destroy it would happen a lot more. Protests just give people the chance of "getting away with it".

4. While a poor bugger losing their car is unfortunate, the chaos of a riot and the damage caused sends a message that even the wittiest chants (and there are some pretty witty ones) or most perfectly worded slogan could never put across.

I understand your point, but putting a fellow worker more in the hole of debt may cause a sense of disgust with the left.

5. Finally it should be noted that a lot of riots start because the police are deliberately goading a group of very angry people, often mistreating them. It's like they're asking demonstrators to illustrate their rage.

There are agent provacateurs of course. Police do egg on angry protesters as well. However, the actions of protesters corelate to the seriousness of the beliefs protesters hold to the general public.

The worker that is not class-conscious may hear a news report and say "stupid commies, always up to trouble" instead of looking at it as a legitimate movement that is in his/her best interest. It relates to my last point. Is it necessarily fair? I don't think so, but it is a valid reaction when viewing things through bourgeois media.

Jazzratt

9th September 2008, 00:16

If I didn't take it seriously I wouldn't have responded.

But why bring it up at all? Style over substance bollocks.

What? I would tell you to encounter normal people and notice that insults are irrational and unnecessary. People may not be polite all the time but they don't go off dropping f-bombs on people because they disagree.

I've never heard a normal person talk about "f-bombs". Generally if I, or most people I know, think something is fucking stupid they'll say so.

Well a fascist can't bring a valid point to you if you ignore them.

Fascist ideology is nationalist corporatism. Nothing good comes from that shit.

Again you misunderstood what I said. You can hate either gays or homophobes, that is discrimination. But if you refuse to acknowledge or listen to them based on the fact that you don't agree with their sexual preference/anti-gay views, then you are a bigot.

Then I am a bigot. Absolutely proud of it too.

Perhaps I shouldn't have conveyed that all violent protesters are. But the demographic of these protests are highly populated by youth.

Really? Where do you get these statistics from?

I'm not trying to discriminate based on age, but there is a certain maturity level between a typical young teen and an adult. That's just chemistry.

Teenagers aren't rendered entirely insensible by hormones. They might be more passionate but pointing at their biochemistry as the sole indicator that a young teen will act in a certain way is really quite stupid.

Angry about what? Most children haven't even experienced the real world yet. Not to mention hormonal levels in young teens greatly affect their behaviour. Many children have the slightest understanding of left ideology yet feel the need to destroy whatever they can get their hands on in protest. If protests weren't a mere opportunity for people to needlessly destroy it would happen a lot more. Protests just give people the chance of "getting away with it".

The majority of violent protests tend not to involve children or young teens, so it's dishonest to use your examples of the biochemistry of those demographics to attack the older teens and young adults generally involved in protests. Also, protests are not an excuse for violence, and are rarely treated that way but it is easy to get picked up in the feeling of anger that comes with a protest. Simply shouting at coppers becomes unfulfilling after a while and that is when the violence begins.

I understand your point, but putting a fellow worker more in the hole of debt may cause a sense of disgust with the left.

It's unpleasent but it is understandable. When swept up in the violence people will strike out randomly. This is why I said violent protest has its place, not every protest should be extremely violent but condemning angry workers for being angry is just stupid.

There are agent provacateurs of course. Police do egg on angry protesters as well. However, the actions of protesters corelate to the seriousness of the beliefs protesters hold to the general public.

The worker that is not class-conscious may hear a news report and say "stupid commies, always up to trouble" instead of looking at it as a legitimate movement that is in his/her best interest. It relates to my last point. Is it necessarily fair? I don't think so, but it is a valid reaction when viewing things through bourgeois media.

Do you honestly think that a peaceful protest generally goes down any better? Anything explicitly communist is generally ignored, even if it is part of a larger march (for example the coverage of the antiwar movement focused on the liberals, turning only to communists when something violent happened)? Generally radical leftists only get mentioned when they undertake violent action or act as the "violent element" in a liberal protest. Some people will be convinced of leftism by agitation, and they are not the people that the message of anger is intended for, the people who get the message from violent actions are the kind who will hear that news and think "at least someone's doing something". This is why violence shouldn't be our only tactic but is still entirely legitimate.

Mindtoaster

9th September 2008, 00:31

Some people will be convinced of leftism by agitation, and they are not the people that the message of anger is intended for, the people who get the message from violent actions are the kind who will hear that news and think "at least someone's doing something". This is why violence shouldn't be our only tactic but is still entirely legitimate.

^^

Quite honestly this is what first sparked my interest in leftism, and I know thats what happened for alot of people.

Saw some footage of an antifa rally, starting looking up some stuff on anarchism and it all went from there

Frost

9th September 2008, 01:25

But why bring it up at all? Style over substance bollocks.

I brought it up because I could easily dismiss you as some disgruntled youth. However, I thought I'd give you a chance despite your rudeness for the sake of discussion.

I've never heard a normal person talk about "f-bombs". Generally if I, or most people I know, think something is fucking stupid they'll say so.

Well then you must be pretty young then. Going off with statements like yours seem pretty uneducated. Saying things are "fucking stupid" and hurling insults instead of actually discussing them are immature.

Fascist ideology is nationalist corporatism. Nothing good comes from that shit.

Then I am a bigot. Absolutely proud of it too.

Then expect the same from everybody else then. If you can't listen to people with differing opinions, perhaps you lack faith in yours. I really do find it odd that a bigot moderates the OI forum.

Really? Where do you get these statistics from?

I don't have scientific research to back the claim, but from knowing a couple politically active kids from when I was a teen and by videos I see on the news, but recordings from the protesters seem to suggest a strong youth presence.

Teenagers aren't rendered entirely insensible by hormones. They might be more passionate but pointing at their biochemistry as the sole indicator that a young teen will act in a certain way is really quite stupid.

I totally agree that they aren't. But a person who is clinically depressed is probably more likely to commit suicide. I don't think it is the sole indicator, but hormones combined with a general lack of education and varying degrees of immaturity can lead to these acts of destruction.

The majority of violent protests tend not to involve children or young teens, so it's dishonest to use your examples of the biochemistry of those demographics to attack the older teens and young adults generally involved in protests.

I wasn't trying to place the blame solely on biochemistry. With your reasoning, how do you know that young teens aren't behind the hooliganism in protests? Are there stats on that?

Also, protests are not an excuse for violence, and are rarely treated that way but it is easy to get picked up in the feeling of anger that comes with a protest.

Perhaps it isn't an excuse but it brings the opportunity for many to destroy and loot because they can get away with it. I'm not saying it is the intention of the protest to destroy, but it should be the intention of the protesters to crack down on opportunists.

Simply shouting at coppers becomes unfulfilling after a while and that is when the violence begins.

It seems that protests are about the fulfilling the lust of destruction from that statement. If protesters can't be "fulfilled" without becoming violent then that is suggesting that the motive of protest is to vandalize and destroy. Then, as stated before, protesting is just an excuse to get violent.

but condemning angry workers for being angry is just stupid.

Now you're putting words into my mouth. I don't condemn them for being angry, they have every right to be. I condemn them for taking out their anger through violence when it isn't necessary.

Do you honestly think that a peaceful protest generally goes down any better?

Then why the need to not be peaceful? If it doesn't make a difference then why become violent?

Anything explicitly communist is generally ignored, even if it is part of a larger march (for example the coverage of the antiwar movement focused on the liberals, turning only to communists when something violent happened)?

I'll agree with that.

Some people will be convinced of leftism by agitation, and they are not the people that the message of anger is intended for, the people who get the message from violent actions are the kind who will hear that news and think "at least someone's doing something". This is why violence shouldn't be our only tactic but is still entirely legitimate.

Yes, I believe that some will be convinced by agitation, but is that what the radical left needs? It makes the left seem no different, or even worse than people that turn to Nazi skin groups to take political action. It only feeds into the stereotype that the radical left are mainly comprised of angsty suburban teens that want to rebel against their parents who were brought up on cold-war propaganda.

Random Precision

9th September 2008, 02:23

I believe suppression to be inherent to Fascism, but violence is simply a means to do so, not necessarily the key to suppression. One important question in itself is what is Fascism? As Orwell correctly stated, it has become a label ignorantly thrown around. Personally, I don't think there is a true, singluar definition of this ideology. With so few examples of "Fascism" in practice, it's hard to compare different takes on it.

There is no shortage of examples of fascism in practice: Italy 1921-44, Germany 1933-45, Austria 1932-45 (first under Dolfuss, then Hitler after the Anschluss), Spain 1939-75, Portugal 1926-68, Croatia 1941-43, Greece 1936-45 (under Metaxas until '41, then a Nazi puppet regime), Brazil 1937-45, Chile 1973-90, etc. etc.

I suppose what I really mean by that statement is that people can say that the USSR was "Communist" and the DPRK is "Communist" but they are totally different takes on Marx's ideas. The difference between Fascism and Communism in this respect is that at least Communism has guidelines from Marx while there's no such thing as the "Fascist Manifesto".

Well, yes, there is. It's called The Doctrine of Fascism (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm), it was written by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile and first appeared signed by Benito Mussolini as part of an encyclopedia article in 1932.

freakazoid

9th September 2008, 03:05

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Well I am completely intolerant of Nazis. So does that make me a bigot?

Well a fascist can't bring a valid point to you if you ignore them.

Do they even HAVE valid points?

The worker that is not class-conscious may hear a news report and say "stupid commies, always up to trouble" instead of looking at it as a legitimate movement that is in his/her best interest. It relates to my last point. Is it necessarily fair? I don't think so, but it is a valid reaction when viewing things through bourgeois media.

The media is going to twist anything we do to try to make us look bad.

Do you honestly think that a peaceful protest generally goes down any better? Anything explicitly communist is generally ignored, even if it is part of a larger march (for example the coverage of the antiwar movement focused on the liberals, turning only to communists when something violent happened)? Generally radical leftists only get mentioned when they undertake violent action or act as the "violent element" in a liberal protest. Some people will be convinced of leftism by agitation, and they are not the people that the message of anger is intended for, the people who get the message from violent actions are the kind who will hear that news and think "at least someone's doing something". This is why violence shouldn't be our only tactic but is still entirely legitimate.

I like you more and more every day, :blushing: Interesting note, did you guys know that after the Oklahoma City bombing militias grew, not shrank, because people became aware that they were out there. Most people seem to be under the illusion that violence will only turn away potential comrades, I disagree.

Then expect the same from everybody else then. If you can't listen to people with differing opinions, perhaps you lack faith in yours. I really do find it odd that a bigot moderates the OI forum.

That's because Jazzratt takes no crap from no one.

and by videos I see on the news

Well there's your problem.

It seems that protests are about the fulfilling the lust of destruction from that statement. If protesters can't be "fulfilled" without becoming violent then that is suggesting that the motive of protest is to vandalize and destroy. Then, as stated before, protesting is just an excuse to get violent.

"Violence against the system is not violence." There is a purpose to destroying things. Look at my sig quote.

I condemn them for taking out their anger through violence when it isn't necessary.

So are you saying that there are times when it is necessary?

Coming from a moderator, I would think that you wouldn't resort to ad hominem statements with childish cursing.

Well you just don't know Jazzratt. :D

Then why the need to not be peaceful? If it doesn't make a difference then why become violent?

Because being peaceful doesn't achieve anything. Violence is merely a reaction to the oppression.

Chapter 24

9th September 2008, 03:06

If fascism and fascists are generalized as irrational and undebatable people specifically because of their ideological standpoint, then so be it. If one dismisses a fascist as being abhorrent specifically because he/she is a fascist then that is the way it is, because the fact is that fascists have nothing substantial to offer communists and are in fact people who wish to see that every communist is dead. Fascists have no right to complain when their ideology is dismissed and are refused the opportunity to debate. That is the risk they take when they decide to become a fascist.

Revolutiondownunder

9th September 2008, 04:26

That's a poor definition of bigotry.

Interestingly enough its also the correct definition of Bigotry.

I expect people to be slightly more intellectually capable than moss and recognise that disrespecting people for something they have no choice about (skin colour, sexuality, gender, physical ability and so on) is morally different from disrespecting someone for something that is a conscious choice (religion, politics and so on). You can call the latter bigotry if you really want, but it devalues the outrage felt about the former.

So Islamaphobia and religious anti-semitism are not bigotry?

Interesting.

Pia Fidelis

9th September 2008, 11:13

So Islamaphobia and religious anti-semitism are not bigotry?

Of course they are not. You choose to be Muslim, just in the same manner one chooses to be Jewish. I know many people born into Christian/Jewish homes who have rejected the religion of their parents.

As for the rest of this thread, I can only laugh. Some of you guys speak about "fascists" like George W. does about "terrorists".

Jazzratt

9th September 2008, 11:16

I brought it up because I could easily dismiss you as some disgruntled youth. However, I thought I'd give you a chance despite your rudeness for the sake of discussion.

How very magnanimous of you, expect a personal telegram of thanks any day now.

Well then you must be pretty young then. Going off with statements like yours seem pretty uneducated. Saying things are "fucking stupid" and hurling insults instead of actually discussing them are immature.

Saying something is "fucking stupid" is putting forward a position - namely that whatever point is being discussed is unworthy of consideration. If challenged most people would be more than happy to explain why something is fucking stupid.

Then expect the same from everybody else then. If you can't listen to people with differing opinions, perhaps you lack faith in yours. I really do find it odd that a bigot moderates the OI forum.

People are welcome to ignore my views, or even me as a person because of my views, that's their prerogative. I moderate the OI forum because, while I'm ready to listen to and challenge the opposing view I'm completely unprepared to waste time on idiots.

I don't have scientific research to back the claim, but from knowing a couple politically active kids from when I was a teen and by videos I see on the news, but recordings from the protesters seem to suggest a strong youth presence.

The youth I've seen at most such events fit snuggly in the upper teens/early twenties bracket. Maybe it's different where you are.

I totally agree that they aren't. But a person who is clinically depressed is probably more likely to commit suicide. I don't think it is the sole indicator, but hormones combined with a general lack of education and varying degrees of immaturity can lead to these acts of destruction.

Why is immaturity bad? A lot of "maturity" is made up of acceptance of certain aspects of bourgeois culture that really should be rejected by leftists - the sanctity of property for example. Also why the contempt for people who, for whatever reason, do not get far in academia? Are you another of those elitist psuedoleftists who believe that the future is only for the bright and well educated?

I wasn't trying to place the blame solely on biochemistry. With your reasoning, how do you know that young teens aren't behind the hooliganism in protests? Are there stats on that?

It's fairly common sense. Unless they're also leftists most legal guardians of children and young teens will probably keep them away from protests, while the older teens and young adults are far less likely to need permission/transport off their legal guardians. This means there will a bias to this group among the youth at protests.

It seems that protests are about the fulfilling the lust of destruction from that statement. If protesters can't be "fulfilled" without becoming violent then that is suggesting that the motive of protest is to vandalize and destroy. Then, as stated before, protesting is just an excuse to get violent.

Now you're putting words into my mouth. I don't condemn them for being angry, they have every right to be. I condemn them for taking out their anger through violence when it isn't necessary.

Why does it have to be necessary? It is justifiable.

Then why the need to not be peaceful? If it doesn't make a difference then why become violent?

As I mentioned, it does make a difference - people listen. Someone other than the protestors, indymedia readers and coppers become a aware that there was a protest at all.

Yes, I believe that some will be convinced by agitation, but is that what the radical left needs?

Political agititation as opposed to raw violence is something the left needs, yes. For a start not all people are convinced by violence - political agitators fill that gap. Work place organisers, commited leftist spokespeople and speechmakers are all needed to help the leftist movement grow.

It makes the left seem no different, or even worse than people that turn to Nazi skin groups to take political action. It only feeds into the stereotype that the radical left are mainly comprised of angsty suburban teens that want to rebel against their parents who were brought up on cold-war propaganda.

I think your confused as to what an "agitator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitator)" is...

Frost

9th September 2008, 21:16

Before I respond further, I'd like to thank whoever moved this discussion to a more appropriate place. I don't mind sharing my take on things, but it was taking away from the original post significantly.

There is no shortage of examples of fascism in practice: Italy 1921-44, Germany 1933-45, Austria 1932-45 (first under Dolfuss, then Hitler after the Anschluss), Spain 1939-75, Portugal 1926-68, Croatia 1941-43, Greece 1936-45 (under Metaxas until '41, then a Nazi puppet regime), Brazil 1937-45, Chile 1973-90, etc. etc.

Your point is well taken. Unfortunately the term "fascism" has become vague and its label has been applied to many people and governments. I do like your examples, however. As you can see they weren't hellbent on mass-murdering droves of their opponents. Or rather, at least any more than Marxist governments.

Even those who claim to be fascist argue over the validity of the label. Mussolini's regime differed than Hitler's National Socialism, and there exists schools of thought that say that the Nazi regime was not fascist in the true sense. With this in mind, it is hard to determine out of these examples that can be unarguably fascist. Hence, I said that fascism hasn't really been "tested" enough.

Well, yes, there is. It's called The Doctrine of Fascism (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm), it was written by the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile and first appeared signed by Benito Mussolini as part of an encyclopedia article in 1932.

An interesting point. It is a valid piece of literature, but is it as highly regarded by Fascists as the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are to Marxists? Most people deemed "Fascists" are done so by their loyalties to other pieces of literature such as Mein Kampf and most probably never even heard of The Doctrine of Fascism.

Interestingly enough, I do not see that killing all communists/socialists/unionists/certain ethnicities is a goal of this ideology. I think if anything it should dispell the myth of "all fascists want us communists dead so they can't make any valid points to us".

Personally, I think that the main problem when arguing about this political ideology is that many people here and everywhere else views Fascism in the same light as many anti-Communists view Communism in the sense of "Evil Kim Jong-Il/Stalin/Pol Pot, etc." Communists can easily argue that such individuals were not "true Communists", but I think it would be equally valid to say that certain leaders were not "true Fascists".

Frost

9th September 2008, 21:36

Well I am completely intolerant of Nazis. So does that make me a bigot?

Do they even HAVE valid points?

Read the previous posts for those answers.

The media is going to twist anything we do to try to make us look bad.

I agree that they twist things but it would be a lot less hard to make a peaceful protest look bad than a violent one.

Well there's your problem.

Point taken. However, it is sort of hard not to point out that there are a large youth contingent in people who are politically active. I don't think that because bourgeois media agrees that we should disagree.

"Violence against the system is not violence." There is a purpose to destroying things. Look at my sig quote.

So are you saying that there are times when it is necessary?

Of course there is time when violence is necessary. A woman who shoots her abusive husband out of sheer terror for her safety of her person and that of her children is different than hurling a rock at a cop during a demonstration or destroying the property of innocents out of some "workers' rage"

Because being peaceful doesn't achieve anything. Violence is merely a reaction to the oppression.

Then what makes of people like Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.? I'd say they achieved a substantial amount in their goals and did it without taking up arms.

Pirate turtle the 11th

9th September 2008, 21:44

Then what makes of people like Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.? I'd say they achieved a substantial amount in their goals and did it without taking up arms.

Ghandhi -> britain had just come out of a huge war and was ruined as an empire, if india revolted violently Britain would have struggled (and probs fail) to put down an uprising. Also Gandhi deserved to eat shit and die.

Mandela -> Did blow up buses in the past. Also what effect do you think south africa getting fucked up in angola had?

Martin luther King - alot of very angry people were ready to start shooting cops etc and the ruling class saw it as a wiser decision to big this dude up over malcom X since that would tell people "peace worked"

Pirate turtle the 11th

9th September 2008, 21:47

Read the previous posts for those answers.

I agree that they twist things but it would be a lot less hard to make a peaceful protest look bad than a violent one.

Not really all the cops have to do is attack and the filmed results will make it look like it was intended to be violent.

Frost

9th September 2008, 21:58

Ghandhi -> britain had just come out of a huge war and was ruined as an empire, if india revolted violently Britain would have struggled (and probs fail) to put down an uprising. Also Gandhi deserved to eat shit and die.

Mandela -> Did blow up buses in the past. Also what effect do you think south africa getting fucked up in angola had?

Martin luther King - alot of very angry people were ready to start shooting cops etc and the ruling class saw it as a wiser decision to big this dude up over malcom X since that would tell people "peace worked"

I was merely pointing out that things can be achieved by peaceful means. Freakazoid stated that "being peaceful doesn't achieve anything". But being peaceful worked for Gandhi.

Look at the anti-Communist movements at the end of the Cold War, especially that in Czechoslovakia. It wasn't called the "Velvet Revolution" simply because Havel was a big fan of Velvet Underground. It would be amusing if his devotion to the band influenced the creation of the term. I wonder if anybody could confirm that...

Mandela was a terrorist, yeah. However I mentioned him because the anti-apartheid movement changed into a non-violent stuggle in its latter years.

BurnTheOliveTree

9th September 2008, 22:00

Ghandhi -> britain had just come out of a huge war and was ruined as an empire, if india revolted violently Britain would have struggled (and probs fail) to put down an uprising. Also Gandhi deserved to eat shit and die.

Also, we had the most progressive government we've ever had, Attlee's Labour - and as a consequence of the war, it was no longer economically viable to hold onto India anyway. Gandhi had shit to do with it, there were larger forces than him at work.

-Alex

P.S - Frost, will reply to you tomorrow man. I wrote a load earlier at college and my computer crashed, I shall re-post tomorrow.

Pirate turtle the 11th

9th September 2008, 22:26

I was merely pointing out that things can be achieved by peaceful means. Freakazoid stated that "being peaceful doesn't achieve anything". But being peaceful worked for Gandhi.

Because there was a threat of alot of angry indain people shooting the british. (Also Ghandi was a racist piece of shit)

Look at the anti-Communist movements at the end of the Cold War, especially that in Czechoslovakia. It wasn't called the "Velvet Revolution" simply because Havel was a big fan of Velvet Underground. It would be amusing if his devotion to the band influenced the creation of the term. I wonder if anybody could confirm that...

The USSR was getting fucked up in Afghanistan also the USA was economicly crushing the USSR and to get into a position where it could do that violent means were taken.

Mandela was a terrorist, yeah. However I mentioned him because the anti-apartheid movement changed into a non-violent stuggle in its latter years.

I doubt if it wasnt for Angola beating the crap out of South africa aparthraid would have fallen.

Dr Mindbender

9th September 2008, 22:50

Now that is ridiculous. Have you actually received death threats from someone who claimed to be fascist? !

that is an intellectually dishonest statement.

Hitler did not win his election on the back of ''i'm going to kill all the jews'' rants. All that came later.

The fascists mantain their respectable facade to mantain the illusion among the general public and their naive woolly minded liberal idiot apologists.

Here in the UK, the BNP are the textbook example of a fascist party that has mastered this deviance to a fine art.

FYI: Fascism apologism will probably earn you a no-return ticket to OI.

Frost

9th September 2008, 23:32

How very magnanimous of you, expect a personal telegram of thanks any day now.

Wait... how did you get my address? I look forward to it because I never received a telegram before:lol:

Saying something is "fucking stupid" is putting forward a position - namely that whatever point is being discussed is unworthy of consideration. If challenged most people would be more than happy to explain why something is fucking stupid.

Then why say it's "fucking stupid" in the first place without an explanation. If whatever is being discussed is unworthy of consideration, then why would a person challenged explain? But I don't really want to dig deeper into issues like that when more political things can be discussed.

People are welcome to ignore my views, or even me as a person because of my views, that's their prerogative. I moderate the OI forum because, while I'm ready to listen to and challenge the opposing view I'm completely unprepared to waste time on idiots.

Ignoring views is one thing, but saying unwarranted comments is another. Well, you do seem to be challenging views on here but I think perhaps you judging character too quickly, or at least in this instance. If you jumped on my post because you feel I am an idiot, I believe it is more than fair to say that I am not. I gave terms, which you initially disputed the meaning of, yet backed down from those types of comments after I backed them up. I have also discussed with several members on this thread and try to get back to their replies. I don't think that's very idiotic.

The youth I've seen at most such events fit snuggly in the upper teens/early twenties bracket. Maybe it's different where you are.

Well I would say so. I'll take your word for it.

Why is immaturity bad? A lot of "maturity" is made up of acceptance of certain aspects of bourgeois culture that really should be rejected by leftists

I think there is a difference between acting responsible and bourgeois maturity. Maturity comes with accepting

Also why the contempt for people who, for whatever reason, do not get far in academia?

I never said anything like that. I didn't mention academia, but there is a degree of education needed for becoming class-conscious. To simplify, I would think a young kid struggling with algebra wouldn't understand Marxist economics. Nor would I think that a young kid has the experience and understanding of labour and money. I'm not knocking them for it, but a problem with fringe views on anything is that it attracts people more for the fact that it is considered rebellious than for an actual faith in it.

I bring up youth because it is a time period in life where one searches for an identity. I don't discredit the youths' devotion to ideologies, but for many it is just a phase. That is why I criticize the image of the radical left. It attracts many youth yet cannot retain them, which I think is a serious problem.

I'm sure everybody has heard of former radical leftists that changed their views due to the fact they "grew up". I think it is only beneficial to enforce the seriousness of the ideology in which people past their teens or early twenties can identify with.

Acts of vandalism and violence may be fine and dandy to teens, but younger people past those years will no longer say "A car is parked on the street we're protesting at? Let's burn it!" but someone older than that would probably look at that situation and think "I worked damn hard to afford my crappy car, I'd get justice on someone who destroyed mine." or perhaps "Why would they do that? What did I do to deserve to have my property vandalized/destroyed by some angry mob?"

Are you another of those elitist psuedoleftists...

No. Please stop there. If I was I'd most likely have a picture of Obama as my avatar:lol:

It's fairly common sense. Unless they're also leftists most legal guardians of children and young teens will probably keep them away from protests, while the older teens and young adults are far less likely to need permission/transport off their legal guardians. This means there will a bias to this group among the youth at protests.

It sounds fair enough. I'll take it.

It seems that protests are about the fulfilling the lust of destruction from that statement. If protesters can't be "fulfilled" without becoming violent then that is suggesting that the motive of protest is to vandalize and destroy. Then, as stated before, protesting is just an excuse to get violent.

Isn't that what I said? Maybe you put the quote caption at the wrong point. If you want to bring that statement up specifically, I'll gladly respond.

Why does it have to be necessary? It is justifiable.

Well, whether or not it is justified is a separate argument although it encompasses what we've talked about. I'd just say that I respectfully disagree with your view that it is justified.

As I mentioned, it does make a difference - people listen. Someone other than the protestors, indymedia readers and coppers become a aware that there was a protest at all.

So you probably subscribe to the view "no press is bad press". It is fair enough especially since the far left are seriously underrepresented in the mainstream. I think there is an issue about image though. That's why I feel that it does more harm than good, hence my criticism.

Political agititation as opposed to raw violence is something the left needs, yes. For a start not all people are convinced by violence - political agitators fill that gap. Work place organisers, commited leftist spokespeople and speechmakers are all needed to help the leftist movement grow.

I think your confused as to what an "agitator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitator)" is...

I used the term agitation in more of a general sense than that of a politcally scientific one. I suppose I misunderstood. My bad.

Agitators are essential for a movement and I agree with your statement. My only criticism is that of where does the balance occur? My opinion is that there is too much violence in attempts to draw in members, and too little of an agitator presence. I find the latter a lot more helpful than the former. Despite the supression of agitators in the mainstream, I put more faith in them furthering the movement than the violent protesters that get coverage. But I'm sure we could agree to disagree on that one.

P.S. - Considering that this discussion has been moved from the OI Section to the Anti-Fascism section, am I correct to assume that restricted members cannot post in this? I'm sure they could add to it as well. The broader the political views of the people involved, the better discussion would get I think. I could see this thread in this section as much as the OI but whatever's clever I suppose.

I find it sort of unfair that there is an ideology being discussed without having followers testify. My points were not in defense of Fascism, but merely the overwhelming bigotry of the left.

I hope that what I have said would make those with this attitude approach things differently, and with a little more of an open mind. Arguing with others with differing opinions is an opportunity to bring people into the movement instead of alienating them and furthering their own hatred.

Frost

9th September 2008, 23:52

that is an intellectually dishonest statement.

Please explain further.

Hitler did not win his election on the back of ''i'm going to kill all the jews'' rants. All that came later.

Yes. I don't see the relevance though.

The fascists mantain their respectable facade to mantain the illusion among the general public and their naive woolly minded liberal idiot apologists.

Let's be honest here. I have found way more criticism and disgust with the BNP in the mainstream than sentiments of respectability. I don't think liberal apologists would defend a party that strongly opposes the liberal policies of the British Government.

FYI: Fascism apologism will probably earn you a no-return ticket to OI.

As I said at the very end of my last post, I am not here defending Fascism but providing a critique of the bigotry of a movement that prides itself in not being bigoted. Hypocrisy is something that could easily be used against leftists of all sorts and plenty see through it. It only furthers the argument that the Anti-Fascists are becoming the Fascists themselves.

Dr Mindbender

10th September 2008, 00:31

Please explain further.
to say that we should afford tolerance to fascists is to ignore the fact that whenever they have been provided with a platform they have sought to quash their opposition and targets of hate by any concievable means.

not to mention their ideology is aggressively anti-worker, and has no progressively redeeming tenants that should be supported by anyone who deems themselve to be an ally of democracy or egalitarianism.

Yes. I don't see the relevance though.
You are saying that we should tolerate hitler wannabes.

Let's be honest here. I have found way more criticism and disgust with the BNP in the mainstream than sentiments of respectability. I don't think liberal apologists would defend a party that strongly opposes the liberal policies of the British Government.
I'm not saying that the liberals are pro-BNP, what i'm saying is that they are the responsible authors of the false dichotomy that we have to choose between a free-speaking society and affording a platform to fascists.

As I said at the very end of my last post, I am not here defending Fascism but providing a critique of the bigotry of a movement that prides itself in not being bigoted. Hypocrisy is something that could easily be used against leftists of all sorts and plenty see through it. It only furthers the argument that the Anti-Fascists are becoming the Fascists themselves.

What jazzrat says. Hating someone for circumstances beyond their control is bigotry. Hating someone for choosing to be hateful is entirely different and the fact that you choose to continually mix the two is frankly an insult in more ways than one. I'd go as far as to say it belittles the plights of genuine victims of fascism.

Frost

10th September 2008, 01:45

to say that we should afford tolerance to fascists is to ignore the fact that whenever they have been provided with a platform they have sought to quash their opposition and targets of hate by any concievable means.

And that is not to say that Marxists have done the same? It's two sides of the same coin. Each side is no less cruel than the other in a historical context of quashing opposition. I think it's time to get out of this hateful paradigm.

not to mention their ideology is aggressively anti-worker, and has no progressively redeeming tenants that should be supported by anyone who deems themselve to be an ally of democracy or egalitarianism.

Then why put up with ordinary Capitalists then? Should you hate them just the same?

You are saying that we should tolerate hitler wannabes.

I'm saying that leftists in general should look at all opponents as an opportunity to have them converted. It shouldn't be hard to help change one's mind if your convictions are strong and your arguments superior. Being-closed minded is merely stooping to their level.

I'm not saying that the liberals are pro-BNP, what i'm saying is that they are the responsible authors of the false dichotomy that we have to choose between a free-speaking society and affording a platform to fascists.

I think the argument there is that how could a society be truely free-speaking without having everybody have a say? The problem lies within the term "free" I think.

The fact of the matter is nobody is truly free, nor is there a truly "free" society. Freedom of speech implies that this right applies to everybody, when obviously it doesn't and never has. The West is full of free-speaking societies in the sense that you can say what you want within certain limitations. A "free-speaking society" is a misleading term.

What jazzrat says. Hating someone for circumstances beyond their control is bigotry. Hating someone for choosing to be hateful is entirely different and the fact that you choose to continually mix the two is frankly an insult in more ways than one. I'd go as far as to say it belittles the plights of genuine victims of fascism.

You just gave an emotional argument for a definition while disregarding the definition itself. I clearly stated the dictionary definition of the word yet you clearly chose to ignore it and the fact that Jazzratt said herself that she was a bigot.

Whether or not you think the correct term of the word is belittling to victims should be taken up with Random House publishers and not myself.

Oneironaut

10th September 2008, 07:32

Holden Caulfield

10th September 2008, 14:11

I have been beating up by nazis on two separate occasions. ive found that the only way to actively engage nazis is not by being tolerant of them but showing the same tolerance that they show for us. fascism has nothing to offer, why should i listen to that?

meet political moves with political moves, and meet physical intimidation with physical intimidation,

you are bang on comrade, look at the rise of fascism in italy; communists were attacked physically and politically until they were too weakened and too few to stop the fascists from talking control of the nation

Dr Mindbender

10th September 2008, 22:49

And that is not to say that Marxists have done the same? It's two sides of the same coin. Each side is no less cruel than the other in a historical context of quashing opposition. I think it's time to get out of this hateful paradigm.
By that single statement we can conclude that you are completely ignorant about marxism and communism in general. Violence by marxist governments was a do or die consequence of the material circumstances inflicted upon them by foreign counter-revolutionary influence. Marxists do not kill for the sake of killing. Fascists kill because it is their primary objective. Therein lies a big fucking difference.

Then why put up with ordinary Capitalists then? Should you hate them just the same?
Because capitalists do not base their world view primarilly along ethnic lines and are sometimes suggestable to progressive argument. Fascist ideas are based on immaterial anti-science which is why it is impossible to debate at their level.

I'm saying that leftists in general should look at all opponents as an opportunity to have them converted. It shouldn't be hard to help change one's mind if your convictions are strong and your arguments superior. Being-closed minded is merely stooping to their level.
as i said fascists are generally completely closed minded to the pardigm of racial superiority and inferiority, just as much as we are commited to our model of class basis.

While i admit some fascists do recant, i dont think its worth entertaining them in the hope that one of the defectors that constitute the 0.09% of fascists will be the next lenin or che guevara.

I think the argument there is that how could a society be truely free-speaking without having everybody have a say? The problem lies within the term "free" I think.
You cant have a free speaking society and at the same time give free speech to those whose objective it is to take it away.

I think the Manic street preachers summed this up well in ''if you tolerate this...''

The fact of the matter is nobody is truly free, nor is there a truly "free" society. Freedom of speech implies that this right applies to everybody, when obviously it doesn't and never has. The West is full of free-speaking societies in the sense that you can say what you want within certain limitations. A "free-speaking society" is a misleading term.
there are those that wish to remove the free speech of islamic extremists by locking them in jail to prevent terrorist encitement. Yet in spite of this the west still chooses to label itself as free. Why would we be any less free in denying free speech to fascists whose objectives are arguably far more reprehensible to those of islamic extremists?

You just gave an emotional argument for a definition while disregarding the definition itself. I clearly stated the dictionary definition of the word yet you clearly chose to ignore it and the fact that Jazzratt said herself that she was a bigot.
In light of who posesses the most hatred, the fact that you continue to pursue this matter shows how petty your line of thinking is.

you might choose to label anti-fascists as bigots but i wouldnt necessarilly choose to label anti-communists as bigots as much as i regard them as reactionary ass-hats.

By the way, Jazzrat is male.

Whether or not you think the correct term of the word is belittling to victims should be taken up with Random House publishers and not myself.
why don't you do something more constructive with your life other than trolling? Trust me, you're not contributing anything new that hasnt already been discussed.

Revolutiondownunder

11th September 2008, 02:23

Most people deemed "Fascists" are done so by their loyalties to other pieces of literature such as Mein Kampf
.

And most people in groups like the SD in Sweden, the BNP in Britain and the new VB in flanders would not consider themselves fascists and would beat up anyone who praised Hitler in a pub next to them.

The wheel has turned and fascism in western europe is finally dying out. "right populism" has almost completely taken its place and stolen its supporters.

Is it a new form of fascism? Possibly. But the people involved dont consider it such and consider it a completely unfounded smear when anti-fascists call them fascists.

I dont say this to excuse these groups, they are very nasty racist parties.

But as a form of analysis a new term is needed for these groups "crypto fascist" perhaps? I dunno.

Frost

12th September 2008, 18:54

By that single statement we can conclude that you are completely ignorant about marxism and communism in general...

Read my response to Random Precision then. By your statement I can conclude that you haven't paid much attention to the thread and are looking for conflict.

I did not say that killing is essential to Marxism. I merely said that stating that killing is central to Fascism is the same as an anti-Communist saying that killing opponents is central to its ideology.

as i said fascists are generally completely closed minded to the pardigm of racial superiority and inferiority, just as much as we are commited to our model of class basis.

If you swtiched the words "closed minded" and "commited" in your statement would the statement still be valid?

While i admit some fascists do recant, i dont think its worth entertaining them in the hope that one of the defectors that constitute the 0.09% of fascists will be the next lenin or che guevara.

I wasn't suggesting that anybody had to be the next Lenin, but if left thought is to be progressive, wouldn't you want to help your fellow man progress?

I was also not suggesting that you have to go on some crusade to try to talk to every fascist and attempt to convert them. My point was if you came across one it would probably be more progressive to defeat them through argument than fists.

You cant have a free speaking society and at the same time give free speech to those whose objective it is to take it away.

I think the Manic street preachers summed this up well in ''if you tolerate this...''

Has anybody said that? If you're going by your fallacy of history then why should a Marxist have any platform to put forth views?

the Manic Street Preachers are awesome. Very interesting that you brought up that song in this thread, if you know the story behind the title of it.

there are those that wish to remove the free speech of islamic extremists...

My point is that free speech is a false term in the Western context.

In light of who posesses the most hatred, the fact that you continue to pursue this matter shows how petty your line of thinking is.

I only pursue it because you bring up the same things I've already addressed in previous responses. I'm just wishing to clarify, that's all.

By the way, Jazzrat is male.

Yeah, that was my bad. I got a little distracted as I was writing my last post and meant to say "he/she" and "himself/herself" because I wasn't sure. My apologies.

why don't you do something more constructive with your life other than trolling? Trust me, you're not contributing anything new that hasnt already been discussed.

You totally ignored the point to cry troll. I could tell you to do something more constructive considering your need to respond to my posts despite them not being "anything new".

How would you even know if I was saying anything new considering that your points go on about things I have addressed before.

Dr Mindbender

13th September 2008, 22:13

Read my response to Random Precision then. By your statement I can conclude that you haven't paid much attention to the thread and are looking for conflict.
i'm sorry, i read your last reply to PR and i couldnt spot anything other than your continued brand of woolly fascist apologism. Try harder.

I did not say that killing is essential to Marxism. I merely said that stating that killing is central to Fascism is the same as an anti-Communist saying that killing opponents is central to its ideology.
If fascism's goal is the creation of a mono-ethnic nation, then eventually ethnic and social extermination will eventually become unavoidable. What of the offspring of mixed race relations without claim to residency in the other country? You cant deport them.

Then historically, fascists have indulged a rabid dislike and ambitions of removal against 'deviants' within it's own nation, such as career criminals, child molesters, the workshy, political dissidents, homosexuals and various other groups such as the disabled and the religiously inclined.

If not extermination/concentration camps what other means are there?

Communists have no equivalent need to engage in killing because there sole remit is the collective possesion of the means of production. In times of revolution, the spilling of blood only became necessary in the face of violent anti-revolutionary resistance.

If you swtiched the words "closed minded" and "commited" in your statement would the statement still be valid?
no, because the furtherance of the class system has no legitimacy on the grounds of it's failure to provide a blueprint away from our current course of mass starvation, war and general contempt for the disposessed.

what you are doing is very deceitful attypical of the liberal mindset in creating another false dichotomy of 'open mindedness vs class conciousness.'

Let me provide you with a analogy, say we are in a burning house, and in my panic i rush to grab a fire extinguisher, would i be 'closed minded' in blaming fires for our predicament?

In a world of abundance where such a minority control such a high proportion of goods, wealth and sustinance, the solution should be obvious.

I wasn't suggesting that anybody had to be the next Lenin, but if left thought is to be progressive, wouldn't you want to help your fellow man progress?
the planet and the international working class has too little time left for leftists to pander to these anti-humans.

I was also not suggesting that you have to go on some crusade to try to talk to every fascist and attempt to convert them. My point was if you came across one it would probably be more progressive to defeat them through argument than fists.
to be honest i'd rather not approach them at all but i know if push came to shove i would not come off worse.

Has anybody said that? If you're going by your fallacy of history then why should a Marxist have any platform to put forth views?
because marxism as a core ideaology has no ambitions of mass genocide.

In my sphere of experience, while centralists do not agree with marxist values there is no content within they would find as repugnant as the theories of fascism or national socialism.

You keep trying to tar fascism and marxism with the same 'nutcase' brush in order to score points for your liberal agenda but ultimately i think everyone here sees through it.

the Manic Street Preachers are awesome. Very interesting that you brought up that song in this thread, if you know the story behind the title of it.
according to wiki, it is a perspective of the anti-fascist struggle in Franco's Spain based on accounts written by Orwell.

I'm not sure what you were trying to imply there.

My point is that free speech is a false term in the Western context.
Then in whose context is it true? Considering that fascism as we understand it is a 'European/American phenomenon'.

I only pursue it because you bring up the same things I've already addressed in previous responses. I'm just wishing to clarify, that's all.
I had hoped i had already successfully debunked all your previous points.

Hopefully this time i have, otherwise i look forward to your reply.

Yeah, that was my bad. I got a little distracted as I was writing my last post and meant to say "he/she" and "himself/herself" because I wasn't sure. My apologies.
Apoligise to JZ, not to me!

:lol:

You totally ignored the point to cry troll. I could tell you to do something more constructive considering your need to respond to my posts despite them not being "anything new".

How would you even know if I was saying anything new considering that your points go on about things I have addressed before.

Look, the short and the tall of it is the 'no platform' policy is here to stay.

Frankly, if revleft ever abandons it i will leave the forum because to me it is core pillar which should not be abandoned.

If you don't like it, go and start up your own political forum where you can talk to fascists as much as you like.

Frost

19th September 2008, 23:09

i'm sorry, i read your last reply to PR and i couldnt spot anything other than your continued brand of woolly fascist apologism. Try harder.

Again, you resort to the "omg fascist!!!!11111" argument instead of reading the material. It doesn't seem like you read the link that was provided.

If fascism's goal is the creation of a mono-ethnic nation, then eventually ethnic and social extermination will eventually become unavoidable. What of the offspring of mixed race relations without claim to residency in the other country? You cant deport them.

If not extermination/concentration camps what other means are there?

What? You really think that the creation of a new nation-state would rely solely on mass killings? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to put forth child-bearing policies to give incentive for the "desired" ethnicity, race, etc. while limiting the rights of the undesired when it comes to marriage and procreation?

Besides even if ethnic-cleansing would occur, what about the claims of mass murdering trade unionists, socialists and other political opponents?

Then historically, fascists have indulged a rabid dislike and ambitions of removal against 'deviants' within it's own nation, such as career criminals, child molesters, the workshy, political dissidents, homosexuals and various other groups such as the disabled and the religiously inclined.

What's your point? This has happened countless times with different types of governments. I think it's a product of government rather than ideology.

Were things like gay rights really respected in the USSR? Marx and Engels themselves denounced homosexuality. Although it may not have relevance to ideology *as with fascism*, it has influence on policy. Stalin was quite homophobic and arguably anti-Semitic.

However, fascism itself has traditionally set up a moral framework based on religion, but I don't see where it says "throw gays in jail and/or shoot them". It's been a twisted product of fascist governments which have been similar to that of those that claim to be Marxist.

no, because the furtherance of the class system has no legitimacy on the grounds of it's failure to provide a blueprint away from our current course of mass starvation, war and general contempt for the disposessed.

What?

the planet and the international working class has too little time left for leftists to pander to these anti-humans.

That's what the left has been saying for years.

because marxism as a core ideaology has no ambitions of mass genocide.

Neither does Fascism if you read any of its literature. Or, rather, it has no less apparent ambition to kill for its goals than Marxism.

You keep trying to tar fascism and marxism with the same 'nutcase' brush in order to score points for your liberal agenda but ultimately i think everyone here sees through it.

It's because of your typical (although more articulate) commie response. Let me break down a typical commie response for you:

Communist: Fascism is so evil! Look how many people it's killed! Did you know that they'll kill you if you don't fit their ethnic/racial ideal? Look at that scumbag Hitler!
Other person: What about Stalin? Didn't he kill more people than Hitler? What about the Holomodor?

which will receive either one of these responses:

Communist: They needed to die because they were reactionaries. It was necessary for the advancement of the proletariat. Besides, it was largely overexaggerated.
-or-
Communist: Well, Stalin wasn't really a Communist. He was a horrible example of Communism and shouldn't be used. Lenin preferred Trotsky but that weasel Stalin twisted arms to rise to the top.

depending on the answer given the following response will follow:

#1: Nevertheless, mass killings would occur and have occurred whether or not a government has been called Fascist or Communist. Communism has only proven that it kills more enemies of the state than Fascism.
-or-
#2: Then wouldn't Hitler be just as bad as an example of Fascism as Stalin was for Communism? Neither Franco nor Castro went on death march campaigns, yet they've both been tied to names like Hitler and Stalin.

which the Communist will respond:

I can't believe you're defending fascism!!!! They want to kill you, don't you know?!! You just don't understand, I have no time for people like you.

It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure Book with the same Ending! :laugh: Oh, and saying I had a liberal agenda made me shudder. But I suppose a guy like Mill would appreciate what I had said :lol:

according to wiki, it is a perspective of the anti-fascist struggle in Franco's Spain based on accounts written by Orwell.

I'm not sure what you were trying to imply there.

Wasn't trying to imply anything. Just thought it was a cool piece of information that tied in with the conversation.

Then in whose context is it true? Considering that fascism as we understand it is a 'European/American phenomenon'.

I couldn't tell you. Then again, I couldn't tell you what started the big bang, but I'm pretty sure it happened. These arguments of free speech are just semantics.

I had hoped i had already successfully debunked all your previous points.

Hopefully this time i have, otherwise i look forward to your reply.

Still haven't convinced me, and judging by the new threads and posts that have been up the past few days I'd say I'm not alone in my criticisms of today's left. No, they aren't sockpuppet accounts, I'm not that desperate to make it seem like people agree with me:lol:

Sorry it took me kind of a long time to reply. I've been really busy with work and still trying to adjust to new weird hours so I've been doing a lot of work and a lot of sleeping and not nearly enough time at the pub.

cheers

Dr Mindbender

20th September 2008, 00:51

Again, you resort to the "omg fascist!!!!11111" argument instead of reading the material. It doesn't seem like you read the link that was provided.

no you misunderstood the context of my reply. I wasnt calling you a 'fascist', i was calling you a 'fascist apologist' which is entirely different.

What? You really think that the creation of a new nation-state would rely solely on mass killings?
within the fascist paradigm, killings would invariably form a large part of it's conception, yes.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to put forth child-bearing policies to give incentive for the "desired" ethnicity, race, etc. while limiting the rights of the undesired when it comes to marriage and procreation?
china already had child limiting laws but no-one was in a hurry to call it fascist.

limiting marriage and procreation rights has little meaning to homosexuals, who for the most part already have limited or no procreation or marriage rights under capitalism.
How exactly do you enforce this anyway? Compulsory sterilisation? Surely better to save the doctor's time 'aryan' taxpayers money and do away with them.

Taking into consideration previous experience you seem very naive simply to trust them that they wont opt for the holocaust 2.

Besides even if ethnic-cleansing would occur, what about the claims of mass murdering trade unionists, socialists and other political opponents?what about the claims?

I think you just added more weight to my argument.

What's your point? This has happened countless times with different types of governments. I think it's a product of government rather than ideology.
yes but only the fascists (more so the nazis admittedly) pursued their hatred with the sort of the level of vitriol that i am referring to.

No other ideology has come out and said ''we need to gas them all''.

Were things like gay rights really respected in the USSR? Marx and Engels themselves denounced homosexuality. Although it may not have relevance to ideology *as with fascism*, it has influence on policy. Stalin was quite homophobic and arguably anti-Semitic.
marx and engels were products of their time and era.

For all we know that was not their personal opinion but one they were forced into due to the general dogmatic sentiment of the age.

Stalin ill represents communism anyway thus not a valid example.

However, fascism itself has traditionally set up a moral framework based on religion, but I don't see where it says "throw gays in jail and/or shoot them". It's been a twisted product of fascist governments which have been similar to that of those that claim to be Marxist.
The problem is that fascism in the first place is ill defined as an ideology. There is no 'fascist manifesto' in the same vein as communism. The closest we have is 'mein kampf' but the opinion of most is that it represents national socialism, not fascism per se.

However if you look at previous examples of fascism, they have more or less shared these traits in common. I remain to be convinced otherwise until someone comes along with a blueprint for 'benevolent fascism' as though such a concept were possible.

What?

never mind.

That's what the left has been saying for years.
well i am re-iterating it.

Neither does Fascism if you read any of its literature. Or, rather, it has no less apparent ambition to kill for its goals than Marxism.
it has no 'moral obligation' not to kill for it's interests so why should we trust them?

It's because of your typical (although more articulate) commie response. Let me break down a typical commie response for you:
your continued pejoritive use of the word commie isnt doing the case for the continuation of your posting beyond OI any favours.

Just a friendly warning.

Communist: Fascism is so evil! Look how many people it's killed! Did you know that they'll kill you if you don't fit their ethnic/racial ideal? Look at that scumbag Hitler!
Other person: What about Stalin? Didn't he kill more people than Hitler? What about the Holomodor?

which will receive either one of these responses:

Communist: They needed to die because they were reactionaries. It was necessary for the advancement of the proletariat. Besides, it was largely overexaggerated.
-or-
Communist: Well, Stalin wasn't really a Communist. He was a horrible example of Communism and shouldn't be used. Lenin preferred Trotsky but that weasel Stalin twisted arms to rise to the top.

depending on the answer given the following response will follow:

#1: Nevertheless, mass killings would occur and have occurred whether or not a government has been called Fascist or Communist. Communism has only proven that it kills more enemies of the state than Fascism.
-or-
#2: Then wouldn't Hitler be just as bad as an example of Fascism as Stalin was for Communism? Neither Franco nor Castro went on death march campaigns, yet they've both been tied to names like Hitler and Stalin.

which the Communist will respond:

I can't believe you're defending fascism!!!! They want to kill you, don't you know?!! You just don't understand, I have no time for people like you.

It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure Book with the same Ending! :laugh: Oh, and saying I had a liberal agenda made me shudder. But I suppose a guy like Mill would appreciate what I had said :lol:
i'm sorry i was able to construe little from this 'essay' other than sarcastic hyperbole without much constructive value to the train of debate.

Wasn't trying to imply anything. Just thought it was a cool piece of information that tied in with the conversation.
meh.

Still haven't convinced me, and judging by the new threads and posts that have been up the past few days I'd say I'm not alone in my criticisms of today's left. No, they aren't sockpuppet accounts, I'm not that desperate to make it seem like people agree with me:lol:
Convieniently, the leftists you refer to are known among the rest of us as dickheads. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dickhead)

Sorry it took me kind of a long time to reply. I've been really busy with work and still trying to adjust to new weird hours so I've been doing a lot of work and a lot of sleeping and not nearly enough time at the pub.

your liver will thank you.

Frost

20th September 2008, 02:41

no you misunderstood the context of my reply. I wasnt calling you a 'fascist', i was calling you a 'fascist apologist' which is entirely different.

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I wouldn't say they are entirely different. I'm not sure what you're implying about me being an apologist.

within the fascist paradigm, killings would invariably form a large part of it's conception, yes.

Now my question is, does the paradigm of the individual necessarily represent the ideology that they claim to believe?

How exactly do you enforce this anyway? Compulsory sterilisation? Surely better to save the doctor's time 'aryan' taxpayers money and do away with them.

Taking into consideration previous experience you seem very naive simply to trust them that they wont opt for the holocaust 2.

Not necessarily. Minorities considered undesirable could still provide labour but if their children were sterilzed at birth then it would only take a generation to solve the problem. Not to say that sterilization is necessarily the solution, marriages within the state and reproduction laws could reach the goal. That is to say, if a complete mono-ethnic nation-state was the goal.

Again, we can't argue this "previous experience" stuff. My points are stricly based on ideology, and as I pointed out before, historical experience doesn't play in the far left's favour either.

what about the claims?

I think you just added more weight to my argument.

The ethnic-cleansing scenario was purely hypothetical and I in no way meant to imply that it was a result of ideology. My point beckons back to other posters' claims that fascists would mass murder any political opponents. You have only mentioned elimination based on ethnic and racial lines while there is a large bulk of individuals apparently at stake.

yes but only the fascists (more so the nazis admittedly) pursued their hatred with the sort of the level of vitriol that i am referring to.

No other ideology has come out and said ''we need to gas them all''.

Yes, the Nazis. That was my point exactly. Now to clarify, do Nazis represent all of Fascism? No. Nor does Pol Pot's regime represent all of Marxist views.

marx and engels were products of their time and era.

Talking about time and era, would it not be possible for Fascism to evolve based on those who would be on the forefront of that ideology?

I tend to avoid the whole "time and era" thing. It's been used too many times to justify things or beliefs that happened in the past which contradict current views.

For all we know that was not their personal opinion but one they were forced into due to the general dogmatic sentiment of the age.

Then why did they mention it?

Stalin ill represents communism anyway thus not a valid example.

Hitler ill represents Fascism thus not a valid example. Now do you understand what I've been trying to say?

The problem is that fascism in the first place is ill defined as an ideology. There is no 'fascist manifesto' in the same vein as communism. The closest we have is 'mein kampf' but the opinion of most is that it represents national socialism, not fascism per se.

I agree with that for the most part, the ideology of Fascism is a poorly defined one. However, going back to my post with PR, Mussolini did more or less define his take on things.

Mein Kampf is probably a bad example of ideology. It deals mainly with German National Socialism and the German Volk more than Fascism itself. Therefore, more exclusive in content. Between Mussolini and Hitler I would say that Mussolini was more of a real "Fascist" and his works are worth checking out regardless of what you believe. Mein Kampf is also a good read as well. Know thy enemy as the saying goes.

However if you look at previous examples of fascism, they have more or less shared these traits in common. I remain to be convinced otherwise until someone comes along with a blueprint for 'benevolent fascism' as though such a concept were possible.

Haha not sure if it'll happen. I'm not saying that ultra-nationalistic traits and very traditional values are varied within the ideology but going out and killing everybody is.

well i am re-iterating it.

Then obviously the far left has had many years to act differently towards these people than they do now. It also hurts the credibility of your statement.

it has no 'moral obligation' not to kill for it's interests so why should we trust them?

I don't see what you're getting at. I'm not saying you have to trust them, I'm providing a critique for the Marxist paradigm of Fascism as an ideology.

your continued pejoritive use of the word commie isnt doing the case for the continuation of your posting beyond OI any favours.

I didn't mean it to be a put down. Heck, I know that's what communists refer to each other as. It's even in one member's sig. What about those members that have "Commie Club Member" under their username? Or has the word become like the "n-word" in which some say it's only alright for Blacks to use it? I also don't see how me using the word twice constitutes as "continued use".

Well, if something like that gets me stuck in OI I suppose I can't discuss this any further haha.

i'm sorry i was able to construe little from this 'essay' other than sarcastic hyperbole without much constructive value to the train of debate.

Sarcastic? Very. However, with talking to a lot of Communists these are the typical responses of a lot, perhaps in different wording for most, but all the same. My main point I already stated above, everybody seems to walk into the "Stalin wasn't a good example". I am only asking for another argument than the typical rhetoric fallacy that plagues the left (as well as other political leanings/beliefs).

The problem is the double standard that the far left holds with the far right. When arguing, either side is more than eager to bring up history or jump to conclusions based on events when it's been proven that both sides are guilty of atrocites. Both sides demonize the other while making excuses for the historical analysis of their side.

Convieniently, the leftists you refer to are known among the rest of us as dickheads. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dickhead)

Haha pretty immature, but I laughed. I don't even want to go into the whole name-calling problem with the far left, but it is an issue that gives the impression that the far left are merely disgruntled teens going through a phase.

your liver will thank you.

Perhaps, yes. Thanks for the thought. I like this discussion the more it goes on. I look forward to a response, and I'll try to get on this site a bit more often to reply quicker.