fascists in the mountians

You have a funny way of showing it.

Also, where do you live?

It is not that simple. Your concept of the state seems to automatically associate it with the American system. What about the All-Powerful state under Stalin? I would by no means call that a capitalist driven state - not in the slightest. It is better defined, as you perfectly put it in the latter part of your post.

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

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

Stalin ran it with a system called "Soviet Democracy". Here's more info, I gots to go.

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

above seem to be your key points


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

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

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

Socialism maybe, but communism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start here, it's not my responsibility to hold your hand through basic communism.

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

Well, here are my political compass results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic security means nothing without freedom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damn, sorry about the confusion.

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

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

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

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

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

Hitler changed his name.

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

he seems to have no real knowledge of logic. Lets leave him to his magical fantasy pixie land of rainbows and fairies where everyone is nice to each other, and nazis arent violent. :lol:

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

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

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

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

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

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

i told you he was a pro-cappie.

You choose your politics based on an internet poll?

Of course, but a the state does not equal oppression. The state can be a force that maintains and preserves freedom. But, of course, the Proletariat also play a role in the state - I do not see it as a seperation. The Proletariat is the main force in a society, and it is one of the regulating factors.

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

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

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


Agreed. I guess I just misunderstood what you meant.


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

No disagreement here.

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

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

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

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

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

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