NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right. There's a poll. If you're confused about the whole socialist/non-socialist stuff then look into what the SPD and mensheviks have done when the revolution rolled around *glares at reformists*

Poll in one sec.

Scratch my nuts and laugh at the delusional teenagers in their Che Guevara t-shirts.

Revolution my arse. Keep dreaming.

Uh... not going to happen in this country, so "absolutely nothing" or "Not Applicable."

a) Be suprised
b) See whether there is a realistic chance of succeeding
c) See what we're going to have to do after the revolution
d) If it involves planning stuff, I'll oppose it
e) If it doesn't, I'll be even more suprised.

a) Be suprised
b) See whether there is a realistic chance of succeeding
c) See what we're going to have to do after the revolution
d) If it involves planning stuff, I'll oppose it
e) If it doesn't, I'll be even more suprised.
Good answer.

Use them for target practice.

Good answer.

Quite. I'm not one for revolutions, because they simply don't work very well... Especially with this system.

Ugh, Marxists.

Already 2 people want to kill me. Oh well, I saw that one coming.

Quite. I'm not one for revolutions, because they simply don't work very well... Especially with this system.

Ugh, Marxists.
True. Any ideology which proposes to end violence by instigating it has got some serious issues. Integrity? What's that?

I'd buy a LOT of guns, and distribute them among fellow capitalists, but for self-defense purposes only (i.e., don't shoot unless shot at).

Asking 'What will you do come the communist revoltuion?' is like asking 'What will you to do come Jesus Christ'? It's never going to happen, but a few people think it will.

Already 2 people want to kill me. Oh well, I saw that one coming.

Given that communists have a habit of increasing the size of the Church's book of martyrs, it's really nothing more than self-defense.

A Communist Revolution [assuming it were probable in this country] would be one of the few instances where I'd actually take to the streets and do something about it. As a general rule, I'm pretty nonconfrontational--I don't like to fuck with other people's things unless they fuck with mine first. That said, if a Communist movement gathered any steam in this country, I would fight vigorously until either we won, or I get killed.

This country will not become a Communist nation as long as I'm alive.

True. Any ideology which proposes to end violence by instigating it has got some serious issues. Integrity? What's that?

Yeah, tell me about it. Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists (you can also throw in Maoists and whatever-the-fuck-ists in with them, since so far they've all been revolutionaries and/or dictators) can all go fornicate themselves with an iron rod.

Yeah, tell me about it. Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists (you can also throw in Maoists and whatever-the-fuck-ists in with them, since so far they've all been revolutionaries and/or dictators) can all go fornicate themselves with an iron rod.

Oh sorry. Lets all go dress in black, get high and squat an abandoned flat in lewisham. Bleedin' anarchists.

Yeah, tell me about it. Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists (you can also throw in Maoists and whatever-the-fuck-ists in with them, since so far they've all been revolutionaries and/or dictators) can all go fornicate themselves with an iron rod.
They should all go hide behind their iron curtain.

Yeah, tell me about it. Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists (you can also throw in Maoists and whatever-the-fuck-ists in with them, since so far they've all been revolutionaries and/or dictators) can all go fornicate themselves with an iron rod.
You forgot Trotskyites; the Left's version of Neoconservatism.

You forgot Trotskyites; the Left's version of Neoconservatism.

Yeah, they're really "out there". Sometimes, you just wanna use that baseball bat you've been ignoring... :D

If I know the communists, they won't revolt, and if they do they'll be crushed by the evil capitalist pigs. Partly because the aforementioned porcine individuals tend to control the armies. :rolleyes:

If I know the communists, they won't revolt, and if they do they'll be crushed by the evil capitalist pigs. Partly because the aforementioned porcine individuals tend to control the armies. :rolleyes:
You're just jealous because we have armies.

You forgot Trotskyites; the Left's version of Neoconservatism.

Care to elaborate?

To answer this thread's question....

I think that will be my cue to wake up. I mean, come on, some nightmare's just aren't believable.

You forgot Trotskyites; the Left's version of Neoconservatism.

Most neoconservatives (such as Irving Kristol) are "ex"-Trotskyites.

I would look at the specifics of what their aims were, and if I found them agreeable with how I would want communism to be, I might fight with them. Otherwise, I would do nothing, and take advantage of whoever's system won.

Care to elaborate?

I think he's talking about radical intolerance, in which case he'd be 100% correct.

If I know the communists, they won't revolt, and if they do they'll be crushed by the evil capitalist pigs. Partly because the aforementioned porcine individuals tend to control the armies. :rolleyes:
Their vile armies of social mobility and economic freedom will be disabled by the rank scent of thousands of unwashed bodies (what is it with aggresive communists and bathing?). And then they shall fall under the might of long hair and Hot Topic clothing.

I think he's talking about radical intolerance, in which case he'd be 100% correct.
That and "spreading the word" everywhere, by force if necessary.

I think he's talking about radical intolerance, in which case he'd be 100% correct.

We've got a lot to be intolerant of- fascists (fight against us) conservatives (fight against us) liberals (fight against us) libertarians (fight against us) anarchists (fight against us) and reformists (fight against us)

That and "spreading the word" everywhere, by force if necessary.

Ugh. Much like the KKK.

We've got a lot to be intolerant of- fascists (fight against us) conservatives (fight against us) liberals (fight against us) libertarians (fight against us) anarchists (fight against us) and reformists (fight against us)

But, by being intolerant, you're pretty much contradicting your entire fucking idealogy.

I would bake a pie. And then eat it.

Afterwards I would check on the state of affairs of the whole revolution thing. I wouldn't really care about the eventual outcome until it actually came, and then if I didn't like how things had turned out I'd probably complain about it for a bit, then accept it grudgingly.

Then I might bake a cake. And also eat that.

Ugh. Much like the KKK.

So you, as a socialist, are honestly comparing trotskyists, a group that has consistantly criticised dictatorships and sought the spread of socialism by any means necessarry, to a group of violent racists like the KKK?

Not do anything but hope they win. I'm too unmotivated to participate in a revolution, but I'd be silently cheering it on.

So you, as a socialist, are honestly comparing trotskyists, a group that has consistantly criticised dictatorships and sought the spread of socialism by any means necessarry, to a group of violent racists like the KKK?

Yes, I am. Got a problem with it? You "spread Socialism by any means necessary"... Sounds a fucking lot like Fascism.

Yes, I am. Got a problem with it?
No problem.


Kronstadt was just! *flees*

Communist revolution? Errrr, that was tried already...and defeated. Not by capitalism, but by the fascists who used the ideal to create their power base. Cases in point: Kim Jong-Il (and his late father), the long-gone Stalin, Castro, and newly propped up Hugo Chavez, who's only real powerbase lies in his nation's oil deposits. As soon as those are gone, he'll probably end up a 3rd rate tin-pot dictator like above mentioned Castro and Jong-Il.

Communism is a nice ideal and all, but the only ones who have made anything near it work are a few communities in Israel (and like ones around the world, all tiny).

Point is, people are naturally greedy. It's in our genes. Long ago it was the caveman with the spear and bearskin and straw sleeping mat that survived and reproduced. We can see this materialism in our children, we have to teach them fair play and sharing and compassion.

Even then, we can watch what happens to any society when they are deprived of enough for everyone to eat. Do they all die together? No. Do some willingly starve for the good of others? No. They hack and slash and kill the competetion so that they can survive.

It is an animal instinct, and we are animals. Properly utilized, capitalism gives that drive purpose, and helps people on the whole do better. One may argue, "But what of the working poor? But what of the Proletariat!?!?" The answer is simple. Those living in capitalist societies do better then those living in others, including the pseudo-communist nations that often refer to the "communist revolution" and place worlds like "democratic" and "peoples" in their names.

Nothing but propaganda. At least in a free-market world, you know the corporations are lying to get you to buy.

If anyone here is of the opinion that communism is so great, I challenge them to go live in North Korea or Cuba for a year. See what enforced equal poverity under a dictator abusing the ideals you love so much is like. Then go and live in a commune in a capitalist nation, and learn why it only works on a small scale. I challenge you.

--------------

Where do I think the world is heading? Towards pure capitalism? No. Socialism seems to be the ticket. I agree that this should be the goal, though I disagree with exactly what is being socalized and how the system is being set up.

But then, like materialism, it isn't always a rational "we decide where we are going" thing, not consciously anyway. It is just a result of interest groups making laws in a bureaucracy without checks and balances. *sigh*

In short, I would argue that the question is not "What will you do come the communist revolution?" but rather, "Will you notice the socialization and stagnation of the world?"

Care to elaborate?
Many modern neoconservatives [as Lewrockwellia already pointed out] were Trotskyites in their youth, and some of the rhetoric shows through. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States) article describes this in passing detail, towards the bottom.

In fact, this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman) is often cited by modern neoconservatives [at least, the ones familiar with their own ideology] as a major influence. Neocons, like Trotskyites, believe that the worldwide acceptance of their ideas is a necessity for their success. For this reason, I view neoconservatism as an outgrowth of the Left, being that it was formed by a group of [possibly Jewish--there's some dispute over this] politicians who split from the Democratic Party in the '60s for their stance on Palestine.

Many modern neoconservatives [as Lewrockwellia already pointed out] were Trotskyites in their youth, and some of the rhetoric shows through. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States) article describes this in passing detail, towards the bottom.

In fact, this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman) is often cited by modern neoconservatives [at least, the ones familiar with their own ideology] as a major influence. Neocons, like Trotskyites, believe that the worldwide acceptance of their ideas is a necessity for their success. For this reason, I view neoconservatism as an outgrowth of the Left, being that it was formed by a group of [possibly Jewish--there's some dispute over this] politicians who split from the Democratic Party in the '60s for their stance on Palestine.

Oh my non-existant god. I can actually understand why you hate trotskyism now.

Thats fucking disturbing. Im gonna go piss on Shachtman's grave

Oh my non-existant god. I can actually understand why you hate trotskyism now.

Thats fucking disturbing. Im gonna go piss on Shachtman's grave
Good man. It's very disturbing, and it's one of the bigger reasons why I'm so hostile towards young left-wingers.

You're just jealous because we have armies.
You have armies? I'm shocked. I thought that was the government!

Here's an article on the Father of Neoconservatism, William Buckley: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard6.html

Good man. It's very disturbing, and it's one of the bigger reasons why I'm so hostile towards young left-wingers.

Well if there's one lesson we can take away from this it's that we should never deviate from the ortho-trot line. Come, Melkor, to the DegeneratedWorkersStatemobile

Well if there's one lesson we can take away from this it's that we should never deviate from the ortho-trot line. Come, Melkor, to the DegeneratedWorkersStatemobile
Damn! I thought, for a moment, that I might just goad you into coming around :p

Alas, you can't win them all, I suppose...

Damn! I thought, for a moment, that I might just goad you into coming around :p

Alas, you can't win them all, I suppose...

God there's this kid I know, I wouldn't be suprised if he's voting tory by the time he's 25. He knows shit all about Marxism and the other day made quite a racist remark (basically that we need immigrants to do shit jobs because white people are better than them). I don't want to be associated with that little political traincrash

What will you do come the communist revolution?

Go out and shoot a bunch of communist .

God there's this kid I know, I wouldn't be suprised if he's voting tory by the time he's 25. He knows shit all about Marxism and the other day made quite a racist remark (basically that we need immigrants to do shit jobs because white people are better than them). I don't want to be associated with that little political traincrash
This brings up a wonderful point.

I generally regard the party-line Trot hostility towards outside ideas [hence the Free Speech argument in your Manifesto thread] as bearing a disturbing resemblance to homophobia and other similar tendancies. The social authoritarians on the Left contend that racist ideas need to be done away with so that they don't spread. They're afraid of racists [or, more specifically, racist ideas] in much the same manner that homophobes fear gay men. This leads me to believe that a great many of them are, in fact, closet racists.

The bottom line here is that any anti-gay or anti-$RACE movement will expose its own stupidity within seconds of stating its platform. If the populace isn't rational enough to see this, they almost deserve the thrashing they'll inevitably be treated to as a result. The idea that these desires can [or even should] be supressed or done away with implies some sort of fear as to their ultimate legitimacy.

You have armies? I'm shocked. I thought that was the government!

Obviously you have never heard of militia.

The Trabant is one of the best arguments against communism ever .

Obviously you have never heard of militia.
I heard of it, but I thought it was just a myth.

The Trabant is one of the best arguments against communism ever .
http://autopixx.de/autobilder/bilder-615-getuneder-trabbi.html
http://autopixx.de/autobilder/bilder-616-cooler-trabbi.html
Oh yeah?

That's right. There's a poll. If you're confused about the whole socialist/non-socialist stuff then look into what the SPD and mensheviks have done when the revolution rolled around *glares at reformists*

I'm with you man! Socialist, and if it looked like it 1. had a good chance of succeeding, 2. wasnt' evil/dictatorial and 3. had an open position of power for yours truly... with some good career prospects if you know what I mean(yea I've got my eyes on the Premiership... so what?), I'm with you.

Okay...lets work together. We'll grab our Che Guevara tee-shirts and Kalashnikovs and split up. You go out and mobilize the masses! I'll send a telegram to the International Communist Conspiracy and tell them it's go-time. We haven't been infiltrating America, corrupting kids with sex, peace movements and heavy metal, working our way into key government positions and forming secret alliances with the French for nothing you know!
Reeeaaaddyyyy! Get Seeettt! Goooo!!

http://autopixx.de/autobilder/bilder-615-getuneder-trabbi.html
http://autopixx.de/autobilder/bilder-616-cooler-trabbi.html
Oh yeah?

A trabant RICER !! I love it !!:D Thank you !

I am not really sure what I would do if there was a communist revolution. Although I support a socialistic or communistic future, communist revolutions have a bad track record. I guess if the people wanted it to happen it would be ok, it also depends on who is leading it to. If George Washington was a lesser man, he very well could have made himself King of America. So it spends on the character of the people that are calling for revolution.

If I know the communists, they won't revolt, and if they do they'll be crushed by the evil capitalist pigs. Partly because the aforementioned porcine individuals tend to control the armies. :rolleyes:

It isn't as if armies haven't swapped sides during a revolution before you know ;)

We've got a lot to be intolerant of- fascists (fight against us) conservatives (fight against us) liberals (fight against us) libertarians (fight against us) anarchists (fight against us) and reformists (fight against us)

I think someone needs a hug.

I'll ask Santa for that pony I always wanted. Seems more likely that I'd finally get it.

It isn't as if armies haven't swapped sides during a revolution before you know ;)
Yeah, but they won't, because just how much are the socialists going to pay them? Huh? ;)

That's right. There's a poll. If you're confused about the whole socialist/non-socialist stuff then look into what the SPD and mensheviks have done when the revolution rolled around *glares at reformists*
I may be more of an anarcho-syndicalist than a true socialist, but I was raised in a socialist home and would work to aid the revolution, indirectly or through nonviolent means.

I'd make an excellent mole.

Yeah, but they won't, because just how much are the socialists going to pay them? Huh? ;)

There are more things to win then money.

There is a reason why dictotorial regimes try and make sure they treat the army well even if they treat everyone else like crap.

Fight with it for a better tomorrow.

I would bow to the inevitable, and start denouncing people as reactionaries and counter revolutionaries. Especially those I didn't like.

Then I would work towards become general secretary of the executive, so I could live in a big dacha and have sex with ballet dancers. Yay socialism.:p

I'd buy a LOT of guns, and distribute them among fellow capitalists, but for self-defense purposes only (i.e., don't shoot unless shot at).

How socialist of you - redistributing goods like that. Shouldn't a true capitalist expect his fellow capitalists to buy their own guns on the free market?

Fight it, of course!

Although we in Russia may get a Communist president some time in the 2010s... I've heard that some of our oligarchs are looking out for a good Communist now. :D

How socialist of you - redistributing goods like that. Shouldn't a true capitalist expect his fellow capitalists to buy their own guns on the free market?
Not if he thinks that he can gain more from giving them guns than the cost of the guns.

I'd be defending my house. Until I ran out of food. Then I'd go raid the revolutionaries as revenge for making trouble.

An anarchist revolution on the other hand, if I could trust the revolutionaries I'd be one of them.

I would become the leader of a Counter-Revolutionary Militia and train assassins to take out all the Commie Leaders. And fight it to no end. The inevitable revolution is no longer a valid concept.

I would become the leader of a Counter-Revolutionary Militia and train assassins to take out all the Commie Leaders. And fight it to no end. The inevitable revolution is no longer a valid concept.
You won't lead it if I'm still alive! :p

I'd be defending my house. Until I ran out of food. Then I'd go raid the revolutionaries as revenge for making trouble.

An anarchist revolution on the other hand, if I could trust the revolutionaries I'd be one of them.
How could anarchists have a revolution? violence is one person asserting their authority over another, surely....

What will you do come the communist revolution?

Wake up, and think "what a weird dream. glad the real world isn't like that"

I generally regard the party-line Trot hostility towards outside ideas [hence the Free Speech argument in your Manifesto thread]
You mean the one that's been changed to allow complete freedom of speech?


as bearing a disturbing resemblance to homophobia and other similar tendancies. The social authoritarians on the Left contend that racist ideas need to be done away with so that they don't spread. They're afraid of racists [or, more specifically, racist ideas] in much the same manner that homophobes fear gay men. This leads me to believe that a great many of them are, in fact, closet racists.
The reason we won't allow racism to spread is because it has proved so destructive, and because fascism is essentially capitalism with the gloves off. Trotsky did a nice little quote saying that fascism is capitalism vomiting all the relics of 13th century society up with it. The only racists I've met who have claimed to be communists have either been-
a) incredibly stupid and unread on Marxist theory so still cling on to several reactionary views. Same way that some left-liberals interested in joining the group Im in have clung onto their belief that we should vote for the lib dems.


The bottom line here is that any anti-gay or anti-$RACE movement will expose its own stupidity within seconds of stating its platform.
I know that, but they also use exaggerated (or plain made up) figures to try and prove that they're right, and without sufficient research I could certainly understand why people flal for them.
However, fascists don't just use speeches or debates to show their influence- they also rely on shows of power and just being seen as a voice of opposition to the current system which many workers see as flawed.


If the populace isn't rational enough to see this, they almost deserve the thrashing they'll inevitably be treated to as a result. The idea that these desires can [or even should] be supressed or done away with implies some sort of fear as to their ultimate legitimacy.
People deserve fascism? I know you're nothing but a ball of anger hidden in a mask but thats pretty damn harsh.

Also the key difference between hating fash and being a homophobe/misogynist/racist is that we dont hate them because of what they are but because of the choices they make. For example, a nazi would hate somebody because their mother was a jew, but we wouldn't hate somebody if their mother was a member of the BNP. We would hate them if they decided to start organising and aiding the fascists.

Why am I arguing with Melkor? God this is a bad idea.

Personally i would use the opertunity to settle old scores with people who have annoyed me.

But then i would be stuck with not a lot to do, i wonder if the new regime would need any CAt5 cabling done...


or more likely i would be in the wrong place at the wrong time and die messily and pointlessly

You won't lead it if I'm still alive! :p

Then I shall have to liquidate you.

It would depend a lot on the actually policies of the revolutionaries, really. I'd be more willing to support less authoritarian Marxists but not totalitarian ones.

Burn the red bastards

1. Open the windows.
2. Turn up my stereo really loud, and put the speakers in the windows.
3. Pull out my chest of pre-loaded 30-rd magazines (120 magazines) and my AR.
4. Stack the sandbags around my chosen firing position inside the house.
5. Start shooting anyone who I think is remotely socialist.

work against it as a revolution now will be utterly fruitless. people aren't ready yet.

1. Open the windows.
2. Turn up my stereo really loud, and put the speakers in the windows.
3. Pull out my chest of pre-loaded 30-rd magazines (120 magazines) and my AR.
4. Stack the sandbags around my chosen firing position inside the house.
5. Start shooting anyone who I think is remotely socialist.

Can i come and help?

Can i come and help?

As long as you don't take credit for my hits, yes you can.

Can i come and help?
You'll need to bring one of these...
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/M41.jpg

You'll need to bring one of these...
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/M41.jpg

Suits me, lets go red hunting

Out of all of the socialists on here, DHomme has the most rational and consistent views, he generally has logical points and rarely counters himself or his ideas. Yet there is no other poster whose ideology I disagree with more.

Being inconsistent because you can't match your morality with your rationality is a forgivable error. Being consistent by matching your rationality to immoral beliefs is not.

Work as a spy for whoever seems most likely to win and make sure that when it's all over I'm in a position to profit.

work against it as a revolution now will be utterly fruitless. people aren't ready yet.

I thought you were a pacifist :P

Also the point of a revolution is that it's done by the vanguard AND the people

Work as a spy for whoever seems most likely to win and make sure that when it's all over I'm in a position to profit.

That works until that 1 socialist out of 1000 figures you out and denounces you.

Of course, that might just be random luck, since they do that all the time at random, just to keep people on their toes.

How socialist of you - redistributing goods like that. Shouldn't a true capitalist expect his fellow capitalists to buy their own guns on the free market?

No, that's different. Socialists would steal the guns and distribute them.

I thought you were a pacifist :P

Also the point of a revolution is that it's done by the vanguard AND the people

But surely if one eliminates the "vanguard of the proletariat" then the revolution collapses since the proletariat itself is bereft of inclination and leadership.

But surely if one eliminates the "vanguard of the proletariat" then the revolution collapses since the proletariat itself is bereft of inclination and leadership.

Wasn't it Lenin who said that the proletariat is far too stupid to know what's good for it?

I simply love that kind of political arrogance. Makes Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi by comparison.

a) incredibly stupid and unread on Marxist theory so still cling on to several reactionary views. Same way that some left-liberals interested in joining the group Im in have clung onto their belief that we should vote for the lib dems.

There are a LOT of racist communists. Agostinho Neto, Sam Nujoma, Thabo Mbeki, Samora Machel, Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro...

Wasn't it Lenin who said that the proletariat is far too stupid to know what's good for it?

I simply love that kind of political arrogance. Makes Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi by comparison.

Indeed. Democratic centralism = Dictatorship

Communism is awful prior to the injetion of humanity, it merely becomes untenable afterwards.

Burn the red bastards

Amen, brother!

*Gives The blessed Chris a beer*

Amen, brother!

*Gives The blessed Chris a beer*

Thanks mate:)

never say the above in a general studies debate though it doesn't go down too well:p

That works until that 1 socialist out of 1000 figures you out and denounces you.

Of course, that might just be random luck, since they do that all the time at random, just to keep people on their toes.
It's not just to keep people on their toes. It's a great way to get rid of rivals.

There are a LOT of racist communists. Agostinho Neto, Sam Nujoma, Thabo Mbeki, Samora Machel, Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro...

Most of those guys aren't communists, many of them don't even claim to be socialists. In fact at least one has implemented numerous right-wing policies in his country. Your right-wing mind just means that you see anybody who makes even a couple of limitations on a free market as evil commies. It's also no suprise that all of those people come from an oppressed race.

And Castro? Desegregation was one of the first things he did when he came into power- how is he racist?

Indeed. Democratic centralism = Dictatorship


Care to elaborate on how a free and open debate followed by a solution which all parties agree to is a dictatorship?

You should have made this a public poll.

Boooooo....

Care to elaborate on how a free and open debate followed by a solution which all parties agree to is a dictatorship?

Name a country that has had any solution implemented to any problem - in which everyone agreed?

Usually, to get that kind of 100 percent agreement, you have to give some people a buckshot shampoo.

Care to elaborate on how a free and open debate followed by a solution which all parties agree to is a dictatorship?

Have you actually read any of Lenin's writings? Democratic centralism is the facade ereted around the manner in which Lenin administered the Bolshevik party. He and a cadre of revolutionary veterans made decisions in the interest of the party (every so often), and then compelled the party to adhere to their decrees unquestionably. A socialist revolution with Lenin as its pre-eminent revolutionary was, according to numerous contemporary historians, inexorably likely to remain a dctatorship of the proletariat indefinately, due to the authoritarian nature of Lenin himslef.

How could anarchists have a revolution? violence is one person asserting their authority over another, surely....


Anarchists have sex, don't they?

Most of those guys aren't communists, many of them don't even claim to be socialists. In fact at least one has implemented numerous right-wing policies in his country. Your right-wing mind just means that you see anybody who makes even a couple of limitations on a free market as evil commies. It's also no suprise that all of those people come from an oppressed race.

And Castro? Desegregation was one of the first things he did when he came into power- how is he racist?

They were all communists. Mozambique, Angola, and Nicaragua were one-party communist states (proxy opposition parties were grudgingly tolerated in Nicaragua, though). Mugabe is a communist. Thabo Mbeki is a "former" communist party member. Sam Nujoma led the Marxist terrorist group SWAPO. And Cuba wasn't segregated prior to Castro seizing power. In fact, Batista, his predecessor, was BLACK (actually mulatto, but still, he had black ancestry, and was the grandson of slaves).

Have you actually read any of Lenin's writings? Democratic centralism is the facade ereted around the manner in which Lenin administered the Bolshevik party. He and a cadre of revolutionary veterans made decisions in the interest of the party (every so often), and then compelled the party to adhere to their decrees unquestionably. A socialist revolution with Lenin as its pre-eminent revolutionary was, according to numerous contemporary historians, inexorably likely to remain a dctatorship of the proletariat indefinately, due to the authoritarian nature of Lenin himslef.

Shhh. DHomme is pretending to be a Trotskyite. Don't accuse him of being Lenin.

Now all we need is for me to impersonate Clodagh Rogers.

Indeed. Democratic centralism = Dictatorship

Totally Free Market => Monopoly=> Monarchy = Dictatorship

Shhh. DHomme is pretending to be a Trotskyite. Don't accuse him of being Lenin.

Now all we need is for me to impersonate Clodagh Rogers.

C'est pas un sketch, c'est tout un épisode de 26'! En résumé, c'est Micheal Palin (si je ne m'abuse) qui suite à un coup reçu sur la tête, se prend successivement et alternativement pour Clodagh Rogers et Trotsky. Tant est si bien qu'au bout du compte, il chante "Jack in the Box" devant le Comité Central à Moscou.

Revolution comme and I wanna go home, HEY!

Merci... oh! Maman. Ce n'est pas la belle Clodagh.

Mme. Brun: Quoi?

Gen.: C'est Trotsky le revolutionaire.

M. Brun: Trotsky!

Mme. Brun: Trotsky ne chante pas.

M. Brun: Un peu.

Mme. Brun: Mais pas professionalement. Tu penses de Lenin.

M. Brun: Lenin!! Quel chanteur: 'If I ruled the world'.

General: And now, Comrades, the greatest moment of a great day, the moment when I ask you to welcome the return of one of Russia's greatest heroes, creator of the Red Army, Lenin's greatest friend, Lev Davidovich Trotsky!

(DHomme appears looking as much like Trotsky as possible. He wears a uniform and has a beard and glasses. Pandemonium breaks out. He eventua1ly quietens them by raking his hands for silence.)

DHomme: Comrades. Bolsheviks. Friends of the Revolution. I have returned. (renewed cheering) The bloodstained shadow of Stalinist repression is past. I bring you the new light of Permanent Revolution. Comrades, I may once have been ousted from power, I may have been expelled from the party in 1927, I may have. been deported in 1926, but (sings) I'm just an old-fashioned girl wire an old-fashioned mind. (a certain amount of confusion is spreadiing among the audience and particularly the generals on the podium) Comrades, I don't want to destroy in order to build, I don't want a state founded on hate and division. (sings again) I want an old-fashioned house with an old-fashioned fence, and an old-fashioned millionaire.

Totally Free Market => Monopoly=> Monarchy = Dictatorship

Provide the historical precedent for the above, or is it merely conjecture?

The reason we won't allow racism to spread is because it has proved so destructive, and because fascism is essentially capitalism with the gloves off.

People privately holding racist attitudes isn't dangerous, nor is it dangerous for business people to act on them in their economic activities (denying sales and employment to people of the wrong race) except to their bottom line, and in that its their profit to give up.

Fascism is socialism with its gloves on. Anyone whos mind wasn't addled with communist horseshit can see that.

What is the real difference between socialism and fascism? Socialists totally destroy property rights, and therefore control everything. Fascists allow the appearance of private ownership, but exercise all the powers of ownership, and take all the rewards, and therefore control everything.

The Fascist approach is more bureaucratic, and is less likely to engender resistance (in fact most Fascist regimes had high levels of popular support for most of the time, from Mussolini to FDR).

"Capitalism with its gloves off" is in fact a lassaiz faire economy.

If you are open minded enough to watch a film, then look at this, it explains Socialism and Fascism: http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/ss05/ss05-Reisman.wmv

There are a LOT of racist communists. Agostinho Neto, Sam Nujoma, Thabo Mbeki, Samora Machel, Robert Mugabe, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro...

You can throw in Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and everyone who led the Soviet Union (and therefore suppressed the cultures of the Russia's colonies in the USSR)

People privately holding racist attitudes isn't dangerous, nor is it dangerous for business people to act on them in their economic activities (denying sales and employment to people of the wrong race) except to their bottom line, and in that its their profit to give up.

Fascism is socialism with its gloves on. Anyone whos mind wasn't addled with communist horseshit can see that.

What is the real difference between socialism and fascism? Socialists totally destroy property rights, and therefore control everything. Fascists allow the appearance of private ownership, but exercise all the powers of ownership, and take all the rewards, and therefore control everything.

The Fascist approach is more bureaucratic, and is less likely to engender resistance (in fact most Fascist regimes had high levels of popular support for most of the time, from Mussolini to FDR).

"Capitalism with its gloves off" is in fact a lassaiz faire economy.

If you are open minded enough to watch a film, then look at this, it explains Socialism and Fascism: http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/ss05/ss05-Reisman.wmv



You can throw in Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and everyone who led the Soviet Union (and therefore suppressed the cultures of the Russia's colonies in the USSR)

*Applause*

As always, well said, Disraeliland. :)

People privately holding racist attitudes isn't dangerous, nor is it dangerous for business people to act on them in their economic activities (denying sales and employment to people of the wrong race) except to their bottom line, and in that its their profit to give up.

Fascism is socialism with its gloves on. Anyone whos mind wasn't addled with communist horseshit can see that.

What is the real difference between socialism and fascism? Socialists totally destroy property rights, and therefore control everything. Fascists allow the appearance of private ownership, but exercise all the powers of ownership, and take all the rewards, and therefore control everything.

The Fascist approach is more bureaucratic, and is less likely to engender resistance (in fact most Fascist regimes had high levels of popular support for most of the time, from Mussolini to FDR).

"Capitalism with its gloves off" is in fact a lassaiz faire economy.

If you are open minded enough to watch a film, then look at this, it explains Socialism and Fascism: http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/ss05/ss05-Reisman.wmv



You can throw in Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and everyone who led the Soviet Union (and therefore suppressed the cultures of the Russia's colonies in the USSR)

Would you pelase stop beating to me to my points, stop being so damn quick. Welle expressed and imparted, however, pure genius.:)

Provide the historical precedent for the above, or is it merely conjecture?

Where is the historical precedent for E = mc2 ???

Some of us just see more clearly;)

Where is the historical precedent for E = mc2 ???

Some of us just see more clearly;)

So Imay surmise you have mathematical, irrefutable proof that the aforementioned political progression will occur? A free market engenders a middle class whose liberal sentiments and desire for political autonomy negate absolute monarchy, not facilitate it.

So Imay surmise you have mathematical, irrefutable proof that the aforementioned political progression will occur? A free market engenders a middle class whose liberal sentiments and desire for political autonomy negate absolute monarchy, not facilitate it.

Of course I have. Before you come off the hinges, note the 'totally' part of said progression. Is it the monopoly => monarchy part that you find hard to swallow? Or the Totally Free Market => Monopoly part?

Of course I have. Before you come off the hinges, note the 'totally' part of said progression. Is it the monopoly => monarchy part that you find hard to swallow? Or the Totally Free Market => Monopoly part?

monopoly does not lead to monarchy, although theoretically it ought to, the establishment does not afford even the monopoly such an ascent, anmd whilst I cannot deny that a totally free market leads to monopoly, I simply doubt that any monopoly ever acquires sufficient power to topple a government.

monopoly does not lead to monarchy, although theoretically it ought to, the establishment does not afford even the monopoly such an ascent, anmd whilst I cannot deny that a totally free market leads to monopoly, I simply doubt that any monopoly ever acquires sufficient power to topple a government.

Well, so do I actually. Sorry about the hijacking, I am off to start a thread...

Monopolies aren't a creature of the free market because economic competition is not necessarily eliminative. Monopolies are a creature of state intervention.

Monopolies aren't a creature of the free market because economic competition is not necessarily eliminative. Monopolies are a creature of state intervention.

I'm almost of the opinion that a state can intervene in a market merely by becoming a large customer. They don't even have to pass any laws - just write a huge contract.

Is that really intervention?

If one accepts (and most people do) that there are legitimate roles for the state in the maintenance of what some call "essential public goods", then the state must purchase goods and services to maintain "essential public goods".

Now, if the state engages in what one might call "fraudulent practices", like inflation, in order to pay for these goods and services, then that certainly is intervention, but only because of the fraud perpetrated.

States have enourmous arbitrary power in business through anti-trust laws,and a plethora of agencies which either directly own parts of the economy, or regulate.

This burden of government always favours large producers, if anyone tells you that state regulation will lead with "corporations" they need their head examined. The reason is that additional regulations impose an administrative burden. Large concerns already have a considerable administrative ability because of their size, there are also economies of scale. Small producers don't have these, no large offices, no massive administrative staff, often just the owner sitting at his desk. Likewise higher taxation favours larger producers by making enterprise less profitable. This will always affect small producers, and marginal producers who have less ability to take a profit reduction than large businesses.

The irony is that government attempts to restrict big business always have good results for big business and therefore fail. That failure gives cause to the next set of regulations.

The main area in which governments create monopolies is in labour markets, either a state monopoly, or a union monopoly.

Is that really intervention?

If one accepts (and most people do) that there are legitimate roles for the state in the maintenance of what some call "essential public goods", then the state must purchase goods and services to maintain "essential public goods".

Now, if the state engages in what one might call "fraudulent practices", like inflation, in order to pay for these goods and services, then that certainly is intervention, but only because of the fraud perpetrated.

States have enourmous arbitrary power in business through anti-trust laws,and a plethora of agencies which either directly own parts of the economy, or regulate.

This burden of government always favours large producers, if anyone tells you that state regulation will lead with "corporations" they need their head examined. The reason is that additional regulations impose an administrative burden. Large concerns already have a considerable administrative ability because of their size, there are also economies of scale. Small producers don't have these, no large offices, no massive administrative staff, often just the owner sitting at his desk. Likewise higher taxation favours larger producers by making enterprise less profitable. This will always affect small producers, and marginal producers who have less ability to take a profit reduction than large businesses.

The irony is that government attempts to restrict big business always have good results for big business and therefore fail. That failure gives cause to the next set of regulations.

The main area in which governments create monopolies is in labour markets, either a state monopoly, or a union monopoly.


The classic example in the US is the government's license for Oracle.

As a socialist, I would flee. Violence is unacceptable in a country which already is democratic, or even a slightly functioning democracy such as the U.S.

I suppose I would try to create some kind of hospice where others who flee can come, both non-capitalist and capitalist.

The reason we won't allow racism to spread is because it has proved so destructive, and because fascism is essentially capitalism with the gloves off. Trotsky did a nice little quote saying that fascism is capitalism vomiting all the relics of 13th century society up with it.
If I'm not allowed to blame the ideological faults of "practical" Communism , you can't turn around and lump fascism's failings in with capitalism. The state is every bit as an oppressive horror under fascism, only in a completely different way. Whereas Communists prefer to subsidize the result of your labor--or, specifically, your body, the Fascist seeks to direct your thought and control the contents of your mind--which I will admit is the greater of the two evils. Both ideologies engage in this behavior in order to "better" society; a dangerous utterance no matter what your politics.

The only racists I've met who have claimed to be communists have either been-
a) incredibly stupid and unread on Marxist theory so still cling on to several reactionary views. Same way that some left-liberals interested in joining the group Im in have clung onto their belief that we should vote for the lib dems.
Two things. One, you say they've "either been" and then fail to posit a second scenario.

Two, most racists I've met have been the same way. Also, I'm not talking so much about the racists themselves, but the people who are trying to take extreme measures to get rid of it; a process that will require not only a ridiculous amount of manpower--but a 1984 type police state. Maybe not with telescreens, but the same idea is there.

I know that, but they also use exaggerated (or plain made up) figures to try and prove that they're right, and without sufficient research I could certainly understand why people flal for them.
Everyone does that. Welcome to politics.

However, fascists don't just use speeches or debates to show their influence- they also rely on shows of power and just being seen as a voice of opposition to the current system which many workers see as flawed.
Really, now. Do you think the Neo-Nazi march in Toledo was a success? Sure they got a little bit of attention, but is the movement really gaining any steam as a result of this? I don't see us outlawing free speech. and I also don't see any major powerplays from the National Socialist movements.

People [i]deserve fascism? I know you're nothing but a ball of anger hidden in a mask but thats pretty damn harsh.
What happens when people make mistakes? They pay for them. It's how the universe works: reality--not 'God' or 'Society' or a faceless bereaucrat punishes people when they fuck up; at least in a rational society. When individuials are threatened by force, sometimes the wrong reaction can get them screwed. Society's consequences when confronted with--and react inappropriately to--fascism [or any other incarnation of force] are no different.

Also the key difference between hating fash and being a homophobe/misogynist/racist is that we dont hate them because of what they are but because of the choices they make. For example, a nazi would hate somebody because their mother was a jew, but we wouldn't hate somebody if their mother was a member of the BNP. We would hate them if they decided to start organising and aiding the fascists.
That doesn't make its psychological basis much different. It's not completely analgous in every conceivable sense, as I'm sure there are different elements at work and these elements probably differ from person to person. Still, the minor inaccuracies present in my example are less detrimental than most things we accept in life. The end result in either case is the same [e.g. the stripping away of basic freedoms and the setting of a dangerous precedent] and society will not benefit.

Why am I arguing with Melkor? God this is a bad idea.
Oh my yes.

I have to agree with Melkor. The best way of countering racism/homophobia, et al is allowing them to spew their idiocy and then countering them with facts.
Provided they aren't violent, of course.

It seems to me that government repression/censorship will only draw people to their cause. Censorship will make people wonder why the government has banned it. I know I am attracted to things that the government has banned, I'm sure other people are as well.
And repression will simply give them sympathy.

It also seems to me that the numerous anti-hate speech laws that have been passed in Europe have done nothing to stem the rise of fascist groups there. I realize that there are other things going, but I do wonder if it's contributed to it at all.

If I'm not allowed to blame the ideological faults of "practical" Communism , you can't turn around and lump fascism's failings in with capitalism. The state is every bit as an oppressive horror under fascism, only in a completely different way. Whereas Communists pefer to subsidize the result of your [i]labor--or, specifically, your body, the Fascist seeks to direct your thought and control the contents of your mind--which I will admit is the greater of the two evils. Both ideologies engage in this behavior in order to "better" society; a dangerous utterance no matter what your politics.
I didn't blame it on practical capitalism. I'm saying that by completely battering the left-wing and trade union movement as fascists have a tendency to do, they can effectively walk all over the workers and make a nation of slaves.


Two things. One, you say they've "either been" and then fail to posit a second scenario.

Sorry, I meant to say OR stalinists. and they're just fucked up.


Two, most racists I've met have been the same way. Also, I'm not talking so much about the racists themselves, but the people who are trying to take extreme measures to get rid of it; a process that will require not only a ridiculous amount of manpower--but a 1984 type police state. Maybe not with telescreens, but the same idea is there.

The way to get rid of racism is to get rid of organised racism from the state, from politics, from daily life. Simple as. It won't take some sort of thought police going round interrogating anybody accused of holding a reactionary view.


Everyone does that. Welcome to politics.

Fair enough, Im just saying this is ONE of the ways fascists gain power.


Really, now. Do you think the Neo-Nazi march in Toledo was a success? Sure they got a little bit of attention, but is the movement really gaining any steam as a result of this? I don't see us outlawing free speech. and I also don't see any major powerplays from the National Socialist movements.

No! It didn't work! And why not? Because they showed themselves as being little wusses hiding behind lines of police from the people they call subhuman. If we just let them keep marching without opposition though, you will see them increase in political power as isolated people will see them as a strong force they can combine with.


What happens when people make mistakes? They pay for them. It's how the universe works: reality--not 'God' or 'Society' or a faceless bereaucrat punishes people when they fuck up; at least in a rational society. When individuials are threatened by force, sometimes the wrong reaction can get them screwed. Society's consequences when confronted with--and react inappropriately to--fascism [or any other incarnation of force] are no different.
Im sorry but I dont think we can allow the fascists any chance to take control of a society- through democracy or through forceful means just so this karma of which you seem to be referring to can smack them in the face.


That doesn't make its psychological basis much different. It's not completely analgous in every conceivable sense, as I'm sure there are different elements at work and these elements probably differ from person to person. Still, the minor inaccuracies present in my example are less detrimental than most things we accept in life. The end result in either case is the same [e.g. the stripping away of basic freedoms and the setting of a dangerous precedent] and society will not benefit.
So society isn't made better when violent racists are cleared off the streets? Like it or not, they have a detrimental effect on the area which they propagandise (sp?) in. In south east London at the start of the 1990s the BNP had a major drive and race attacks increased by over 200 percent in just a few years. This is no coincidence. If we want a non-racist society then we have to get the organised racists off our streets.


Oh my yes.
You're going to kill me at some point in my life. I just know it.

I didn't blame it on practical capitalism. I'm saying that by completely battering the left-wing and trade union movement as fascists have a tendency to do, they can effectively walk all over the workers and make a nation of slaves.

One minute you talk about fascism, the next capitalism. They are not the same, or even similar.

Fascism is a derivative of socialism. Like communism (the other form of socialism, "social democrats" are not socialists, but only because they balk at the violence needed to introduce socialism, the economy under social democrats can be best described as a "hampered market", in that the prime motivator in the economy is private profit, but the state interferes cosiderably, unlike socialism where the prime motivation for production is state edict backed up by state force), it places the state in total control of the means of production, however unlike communism, it retains personal title over property. In fascist regimes, the powers that ownership brings (the right to exchange property, the right to control your property, the right to charge fees for the use of your property) are exercised by the state through various bureaucratic means.

This is sometimes supported by business for the same reason conservative parties do better when there is a physical threat to national security, namely the capitalists fall into the trap of giving up liberty in exchange for security.

Your implication that political violence is a speciality of fascists is grossly inaccurate. In Italy, between 1922 and 1940 (the year of Italy's entry to WW2, beginning with occupying a small element of France) there were 9 political executions in Italy, mostly Slovenian terrorists. Between 1940 and 1943 (the war years) there were 17.

In a communist country, that number of executions is about half an hours' work. The average current rate of executions in China (based on an approximate of 10000 a year) is just over 1.1 an hour. About 27 a day.

Political violence in Europe is primarily a creation of communists.

The way to get rid of racism is to get rid of organised racism from the state, from politics, from daily life. Simple as. It won't take some sort of thought police going round interrogating anybody accused of holding a reactionary view.

But the latter already happens, when someone makes a comment that implies that there is some difference between people of different races, they are castigated, and interrogated. So called "hate-crime" laws, and "hate-speech" laws are used by the state to criminalise thought. Even the basic premise of "hate-crime" laws is the effective criminalisation of thought, because they are based on the idea that a crime committed is worse when someone has a certain proscribed intent (for example the advocates of "hate-crime" laws will say that a murder committed out of racial hatred is worse than a murder committed for money, the only difference between the crimes is the thoughts of the criminal)

Going back to what said earlier, an example exists in Australia where a Professor pointed out that particular races, no matter where they settle, no matter what the government policies, no matter what the economic situation, will generally achieve (or not) to a similar extent everywhere. He used several examples, such as people of African decent ending up near the bottom no matter where they settle, or even in their homelands (which are the least prosperous and free of all the nations) while people from India generally do well when the emigrate.

The reaction to his remarks did not in any way address what he said, nor his scholastic methods. They condemned him for the conclusion he reached. They did not do this because his conclusion was wrong, if it was, they would have showed it through argument and evidence, they condemned it because it was inappropriate.

Leftist indoctrination has not so much created a "thought police" as a "thought militia".

The connection between fascism and racism is also tenuous. The racial theories of German National Socialists did not have their roots in any other fascist state, or group, they had their roots in theories posited by various Germans and Austrians in the late 19th, and early 20th centuries.

Mussolini's fascists certainly weren't racist. They were nationalist. There were many Jews in the Fascist Party, Mussolini even had a Jewish girlfriend!

Towards the late 1930's, the fascists did adopt some anti-Jewish measures, but at the time, Europe was picking sides, for and against Hitler. Mussolini chose Hitler, and thought some anti-Jewish measures would endear him to Hitler, but these measures were resisted, and not thoroughly carried out.

After Operation Torch, the Germans occupied Vichy France, and gave Italy the French Riveria. Anti-semitic French mobs in Nice attacked a Synagogue, and the Italian Carabinieri protected it. The Jewish community of Nice were so toughed by this that they raised money to help Italian civilian victims of Allied bombing.

Im sorry but I dont think we can allow the fascists any chance to take control of a society- through democracy or through forceful means just so this karma of which you seem to be referring to can smack them in the face.

The same should be applied to communists, with even greater emphasis because communism requires much more violence, and has worse results.

So society isn't made better when violent racists are cleared off the streets? Like it or not, they have a detrimental effect on the area which they propagandise (sp?) in. In south east London at the start of the 1990s the BNP had a major drive and race attacks increased by over 200 percent in just a few years. This is no coincidence. If we want a non-racist society then we have to get the organised racists off our streets.

Your talk of violent racists is a red-herring. They are already clearedd off the streets when they committ their violent acts, and punished for those acts.

You are talking about criminalising thought. It is that simple, and when thought is criminalised, all society is injured, even the people supposedly being "helped"

Monopolies aren't a creature of the free market because economic competition is not necessarily eliminative. Monopolies are a creature of state intervention.
nope.
market failures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failures#Noncompetition) - cos capitalism just ain't perfect

You managed to prove ... nothing. You didn't even make a retort.

If you made made some sort of statement as to why a monopoly can rise, and remain as a pure result of the market, then you might have said something.

You didn't even consider, or so far as I can tell, read what I had to say about regulation, taxation and marginal producers.

The barring of new entries in a market cannot be accomplished by market forces, only the state can assure this.

According to Ludwig von Mises, only a resource monopoly can theoretically arise on the free market (the reason I say theoretically is that such a monopoly requires the firm possessing it to have exclusive control of the only deposit of a certain resource on Earth, difficult, if not impossible to find in reality). Of course if the owner of such a monopoly used traditional monopolistic practices in his business, that would move the free market towards an alternative to the product, so really such a monopoly is dependent on state interference to keep it alive. The ways it can do this are regulaton and taxation, if the alternative is foreign then tariffs, quotas, and embargoes can be used, or a straight out restriction on the alternative product.

Other monopolies can arise from state interference such as central banking practices that fuel a boom-bust cycle, exclusive licence, and practices that keep out foreign competition (quotas, tariffs, and embargoes)

Here is an article which actually has something to say on the topic, unlike yours which merely has the word "monopoly" under the heading "Non-competition", without you providing any real justification for doing so.

http://www.lfb.com/index.php?action=help&helpfile=mnply.htm

Hope you find it good reading.

A free market engenders a middle class whose liberal sentiments and desire for political autonomy negate absolute monarchy, not facilitate it.
It does so now, but it did it much less in Marx's time. He had to go by what he saw when he drew his conclusions.
Whether or not Capitalism would have developed as it did without the influence that Marxists and their relative forces (Social Democrats, various Socialists, Labour Unions) had on it, we can't tell.

Monopolies aren't a creature of the free market because economic competition is not necessarily eliminative. Monopolies are a creature of state intervention.
You read "The Road to Serfdom", I take it?