So a year of President Trump in office has passed.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Saelune:
Ever see an authoritarian government that wasnt bigoted and right wing? And no, Nazis having 'socialist' in their names doesnt make them left-wing or even socialists.

Bigotry and right-wing go hand in hand. As left/right is really a scale, further right, more bigoted, further left, less. Any bigotry in any 'left-wing' group, is really some right-wing influence that should probably be removed.

As many left-wing critics of hers like to point out, Hillary is not really that left-wing, but compaired to Republicans, she very much is.

Ooh, vast swathes of 20th Century Russian history? Cambodia?

Your scale is wrong. The further you go to either extreme, the higher the chance of nutjobs. It generally just changes the groups being targetted - think of the anti-elitism inherent in the more extreme forms of wealth redistribution, the frequently cropping up anti-semitism (stemming from the Jews = rich stereotype), and, like Gethsemani notes, the in-fighting between similar groups.

evilthecat:
The funny thing is, a lot of "socialists" are also literally anarchists. Heck, I think if I had to pin myself down I am literally an anarchist, I am also literally a socialist. An anarchic paradise with no rules, of course, wouldn't be a paradise at all, but that's because authority isn't just something wielded by the state, is it. The idea that being anti-authoritarian simply means being anti-state is exactly why libetarianism makes no sense to anyone who has experienced genuine persecution.

Socialists, or at least all the ones I come across, completely rely on a well-running, large, state, with enforced rules. It may be different rules being enforced than those that the other wing would be after, but you need them. Because before the state enforced things like workers rights, for instance, things were shit.

Think also about the various taxes and levies intended to wean people towards behaving healthily. It is the state indirectly using its authority to influence peoples lives. It may not be as overtly intrusive as a ban, but it has similar ultimate effects.

Agema:
Authoritarianism is based on the idea of hierarchy and submission to appropriate authority. This is not the same thing as the state overseeing economic production instead of private ownership. Not least because - in theory at least - the underlying rationale of state ownership is empowerment of the general populace: now everyone shares the power as equal controllers of the government, rather than power being in the hands of an aristocratic / plutocratic elite. In practice, of course, Communism ended up very different.

Secondly, the concept of state ownership has only over been one side of socialism. On the other you have the concept of direct worker ownership (e.g. co-operatives) or even a stateless society (anarchism). And indeed, the theoretical intended end point even of Communism was the withering away of the state after it had set up the means for a self-sustaining society.

Yes, but Communism is only one aspect of left wing philosophy. Generally people are a lot more moderate than worldwide revolution, these days. And given how far we have moved on since Karl Marx's time, it's virtually impossible to even conceive such a system retaining the current standard of living - think healthcare supply chains.

Socialism requires the enforcement of ground rules to maintain the rights of the people. Because companies will attempt to infringe them. It requires the enforcement of rules on the populace to prevent the infringement of the rights of others.

I'm not saying that socialism must be authoritarian to be sustaining, I am saying that it is not not authoritarian just because you've placed it on the left of a particular arbitrary vague scale. And personally, I don't believe that a more authoritarian society is a bad thing, if the appropriate checks and balances are in place to stop lone individuals fucking everything up. Obviously, somewhere like the US would be a bad place to try it out, because they really need to work on some cultural aspects of US society first.

Honestly who the fuck are the dems gonna put up for 2020? If it's fucking Clinton again might as well give Trump seven more years.

Zontar:
, I was referring to the repeated studies over the past few years that indicate that Gen Z is pretty damn libertarian.

Then link them

Whitbane:
Honestly who the fuck are the dems gonna put up for 2020? If it's fucking Clinton again might as well give Trump seven more years.

From what I heard.....Oprah Winfrey.

undeadsuitor:

Zontar:
, I was referring to the repeated studies over the past few years that indicate that Gen Z is pretty damn libertarian.

Then link them

Just some of the ones he's probably referring to. Not sure how valid they are.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#2ee2693f7878

Samtemdo8:

Whitbane:
Honestly who the fuck are the dems gonna put up for 2020? If it's fucking Clinton again might as well give Trump seven more years.

From what I heard.....Oprah Winfrey.

Kanye West also threw his hat in the ring a while back. Which, if either of those even make it on the ticket...

Hey, Canadians. How is it up there? Mind an immigrant from a shithole country?

thebobmaster:

Samtemdo8:

Whitbane:
Honestly who the fuck are the dems gonna put up for 2020? If it's fucking Clinton again might as well give Trump seven more years.

From what I heard.....Oprah Winfrey.

Kanye West also threw his hat in the ring a while back. Which, if either of those even make it on the ticket...

Hey, Canadians. How is it up there? Mind an immigrant from a shithole country?

After Trump got in office....I wouldn't be surprised if Oprah ran and won.

bastardofmelbourne:

So...if you're not working off the Hispanic Heritage Foundation study, what are you working off? Do you have another source I can look at? Do you care to address the findings in the study that I linked?

I don't have the source directly I'm affraid (didn't bother to save it at the time) but I did find this article from Forbes talking about it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#2889f10d7878

As others have pointed out Gen Z is pretty economically conservative and small government when compared to generations before it at that age. This is likely going to see a shift in both wings of politics as it means the left won't have as much of its traditional youth base and the right will be having a dramatic shift in who their support comes from and what that base wants them to do.

inu-kun:
I don't get your point, do you want to argue that Communists were never antisemitic? Because history says otherwise:

I'm arguing that the comparison is ludicrous reaching, and I don't understand why you're doing it..

inu-kun:
And trying to argue that Communism can't be anti semitic because Jews supported it is as logical as saying that Fascism is not anti semitic, because guess what, there were Jews that supported that idea as Fascism at its core is blind to ethnic/religeous affiliation and only cares if you are a "patriot", not unlike Communism.

Hahaha.. no.

Fascism was never blind to ethnic or religious affiliation. Fascism opposed any form of self-conscious division within the national "body", be it religious, ethnic or due to any other factor. Fascism explicitly rejected any kind of concept of human equality or equivalence. So sure, some forms of early fascism were not explicitly anti-Semitic in the same way as German national socialism (although, as mentioned, German national socialism would ultimately come to be the dominant form of fascism and eventually all fascist movements incorporated anti-semitism as a core doctrine) but in order to be a "good Jew" under fascism, a person had to reject Jewish tradition in favour of national tradition, since tradition under fascism was what defined a group or society.

Again. These things are not the same. Why are you so desperate to believe that they are the same? What exactly necessitates this kind of absurd reaching?

inu-kun:
Edit: And in general you miss my point that both extremes are bigoted to make a bigot measuring contest. There are other groups that are getting hated besides Jews on both sides.

Again though. They are not the same.

There are people on the far left who are prejudiced against LGBT people. There are even a few people on the far left who are prejudiced against certain forms of LGBT people (particularly trans people) for ideological reasons. However, there are also many, many more LGBT people on the far left than there are even on the moderate right, because at the core of leftist belief is a progressive ideological statement of human equality. That statement may not always be realised, people may go to great lengths to justify exceptions and reasons why it's okay to hate certain types of people, but "moderates" do that too. Humans do not always live up to their own ideological principles, or subscribe to "pure" versions of their own ideological principles.

But on the far right, bigotry and prejudice are not simply the result of human variety and frailty, or of cultural baggage which they've failed to overcome. Bigotry and prejudice literally is the core of far right belief. It is the actual reason why people are drawn to that ideology in the first place, because they do not believe that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, they do not believe in the possibility of any kind of utopian society, save perhaps one which has been "purified" of the taint of anything or anyone who is different, wrong or decadent.

They do not deserve your misguided attempt to humanize them by imbuing them with some kind of secretly decent intent.

Zontar:
I don't have the source directly I'm affraid (didn't bother to save it at the time) but I did find this article from Forbes talking about it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#2889f10d7878

As others have pointed out Gen Z is pretty economically conservative and small government when compared to generations before it at that age. This is likely going to see a shift in both wings of politics as it means the left won't have as much of its traditional youth base and the right will be having a dramatic shift in who their support comes from and what that base wants them to do.

OK, thanks.

It pretty much falls in line with what I thought. There's two points made in that article: that Gen Z is fiscally conservative, which I agree with and which the surveys support, and that they appear slightly more socially conservative than millennials, which I do not necessarily agree with and with which the surveys are unhelpful. The survey question cited on that point is "do you describe your views on [transgender rights/gay marriage/marijuana legalisation/tattoos] as liberal, moderate or conservative," and the article relates that 59% described their views as moderate or conservative, as opposed to 83% of millennials who described their views as liberal.

But I suspect that "moderate," for a Gen Z child, is a baby boomer's "liberal." Social norms around same-sex marriage and marijuana legalisation have genuinely shifted. It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether gay people deserved to get married was a red-hot topic in US culture; the legalisation of same-sex marriage has had the effect of normalising it to the point where the debate is now over whether bakeries are legally obliged to sell wedding cakes to gay couples. Transgender rights are suddenly an issue because it's only within the last decade that anyone is even talking about transgendered people.

I would prefer if the survey asked more concrete questions, such as "do you support this stance on [issue]", so I could say this for sure, but I think the best way of assessing these statistics is that Gen Z is less socially liberal than millennials, but not socially conservative the way my generation would understand it. Like, there's going to be backlash against the whole social justice movement and the millennial norms surrounding public shaming and empty virtue signalling, the same way my generation had backlash against the 80s and the 80s had backlash against the 60s. But that backlash doesn't mean that Gen Z is whole-hog into Trump's particular mix of far-right rhetoric and corporatist policy. It just means they'll be closer to the centre than their parents were. And as I said, their biggest defining trait is that they really don't care about voting. Which is a bad sign for everybody.

Their voting impact won't be felt until the mid-2020s, mind, at which point we'll all be talking about Generation Z+. Like, if I had to predict the next decade or two of US politics - and I'm no goddamn Nostradamus - I'd say there's definitely going to be a power shift towards the Democrats in 2018 and 2020 (at this point, the Democrats could nominate a baked ham for President and still beat Trump) followed by the usual post-victory backlash, starting in congressional elections in the mid-2020s and leading to another power shift in 2024 or 2028. At which point, the 2024/28 candidate is most likely to be a moderate Republican in the Marco Rubio vein.

But this is all me spitballing. Who knows; maybe Trump will go to war with North Korea and you'll all be dead.

Catnip1024:
Socialists, or at least all the ones I come across, completely rely on a well-running, large, state, with enforced rules.

Libetarians, or at least all the ones I come across, completely rely on a well-running, large family/church/community/corporation, with enforced rules. In any functional society there have to be enforced rules, there have to be certain limits on liberty so that me doing what I want doesn't infringe on the ability of others to do what they want.

See, the relationship between authority and liberty isn't always a particularly straightforward opposition. There's a lovely quote from a very horrible movie which goes "We fascists are the only true anarchists ... the one true anarchy is that of power." If we define "anti-authoritarian" as wanting the ability to do whatever you want, to not follow any rules, then that quote holds disturbingly true. These "anti-authoritarians" will be people whose only objective is to sieze as much power as possible so that they can do whatever they want without having to be mindful of anyone else. Absolute freedom for one person is slavery for everyone else.

Socialism is, at its core, the belief that people should not be oppressed by their neighbours simply because their neighbours are rich. Yes, in a sense this implies authority, it implies that some force has the ability to dictate the economic behaviour of individuals so they aren't using their money to enslave and oppress their fellow citizens. The state is useful in this sense because the state, hypothetically, has a responsibility to its citizens, it exists for their benefit, whereas a company only exists for the benefit of its shareholders, a church only exists for the benefit of God, and a family (for most of history) exists only for the benefit of its male head.

But the goal of Marxist socialism and left anarchism is, paradoxically, the elimination of the state altogether, along with all coercive or authoritarian elements of society. The ultimate ideal is a "free associating community", that is to say a community in which there is no compulsion, where everyone receives what they need and is required to do nothing in return. The ideal is that even work should be optional, that noone should be compelled by the threat of having access to important resources cut off if they don't do their stint in the milking shed. Heck, the ideal is that work should be set up to be rewarding to those who do it, not to exploit the maximum productivity out of before they wear out and die. It is a utopian idea, and like all utopian ideas I don't personally believe it is possible in any literal sense, but it works as an ideal because it is something better than what currently exists, at least for those who haven't rolled a natural 20 and ended up on the top.

The ideal of an "anti-authoritarian" society can never be to "eliminate all power", because eliminating all power just creates a power vacuum which someone will fill. Small government means big family, it means big church, it means big corporation. The goal of an anti-authoritarian society must be to work towards an ethic of equal power, where every level of authority is accountable to all its members equally regardless of their wealth or other personal attributes. That is, I think, a pretty necessarily socialist objective.

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
I don't get your point, do you want to argue that Communists were never antisemitic? Because history says otherwise:

I'm arguing that the comparison is ludicrous reaching, and I don't understand why you're doing it..

Because history?

inu-kun:
And trying to argue that Communism can't be anti semitic because Jews supported it is as logical as saying that Fascism is not anti semitic, because guess what, there were Jews that supported that idea as Fascism at its core is blind to ethnic/religeous affiliation and only cares if you are a "patriot", not unlike Communism.

Hahaha.. no.

Fascism was never blind to ethnic or religious affiliation. Fascism opposed any form of self-conscious division within the national "body", be it religious, ethnic or due to any other factor. Fascism explicitly rejected any kind of concept of human equality or equivalence. So sure, some forms of early fascism were not explicitly anti-Semitic in the same way as German national socialism (although, as mentioned, German national socialism would ultimately come to be the dominant form of fascism and eventually all fascist movements incorporated anti-semitism as a core doctrine) but in order to be a "good Jew" under fascism, a person had to reject Jewish tradition in favour of national tradition, since tradition under fascism was what defined a group or society.

Again. These things are not the same. Why are you so desperate to believe that they are the same? What exactly necessitates this kind of absurd reaching?

It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you even know what Socialism and Communism is, because the phrase "Religion is the opium of the people" is not constributed to a Fascist. Your entire argument is completely blind that Communism is exactly the same, truely a horseshoe theory masterpiece.

inu-kun:
Edit: And in general you miss my point that both extremes are bigoted to make a bigot measuring contest. There are other groups that are getting hated besides Jews on both sides.

Again though. They are not the same.

There are people on the far left who are prejudiced against LGBT people. There are even a few people on the far left who are prejudiced against certain forms of LGBT people (particularly trans people) for ideological reasons. However, there are also many, many more LGBT people on the far left than there are even on the moderate right, because at the core of leftist belief is a progressive ideological statement of human equality. That statement may not always be realised, people may go to great lengths to justify exceptions and reasons why it's okay to hate certain types of people, but "moderates" do that too. Humans do not always live up to their own ideological principles, or subscribe to "pure" versions of their own ideological principles.

But on the far right, bigotry and prejudice are not simply the result of human variety and frailty, or of cultural baggage which they've failed to overcome. Bigotry and prejudice literally is the core of far right belief. It is the actual reason why people are drawn to that ideology in the first place, because they do not believe that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, they do not believe in the possibility of any kind of utopian society, save perhaps one which has been "purified" of the taint of anything or anyone who is different, wrong or decadent.

They do not deserve your misguided attempt to humanize them by imbuing them with some kind of secretly decent intent.

Besides the fact that bigotry doesn't only apply to LGBT (for example racism towards the "norm", hatred of males or hatred of rich people) with multitude of examples. Or the fact that you decide that there is a single existing far right and nothing else besides it. Your argument is basically "we don't describe ourselves as bigoted thus we aren't bigoted" about the most wrong argument possible.

And apperantly you decide that humanizing people that murdered hundreds of millions is the correct thing.

inu-kun:

It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you even know what Socialism and Communism is, because the phrase "Religion is the opium of the people" is not constributed to a Fascist. Your entire argument is completely blind that Communism is exactly the same, truely a horseshoe theory masterpiece.

Except it is not. You are way out of your league here so I'll keep it simple:
Fascism, as Evil points outs, is opposed to any self-conscious division of the national body. If you are a Swede you are a Swede. To also consider yourself a worker, a christian or any other identification that would put you in a subgroup is bad. It is bad because it weakens the will of the people, which should always be focused on putting the nation first and making the nation strong. The nation must be strong because it will, invariably, struggle against other nations for its' very survival. In Fascism the subgroups are irrelevant because the individual is irrelevant unless the individual contributes to the strength of the nation.

Communism and Socialism also rejects some of these subgroups. Religion, for example, was seen as a way to pacify the workers (hence opiate of the masses, in the sense that opiates are sedatives) and keep them from rising up to claim what they were owed. However, Communism is internationalist at its' core, it rejects the idea of nations in the first place and considers everything but class and political ideology to be meaningless. Not bad, as the Fascists do, but meaningless in that the only thing that matters is the workers' struggles and the communist ideology that drives that struggle.

I don't know how exactly you figure that fascism and communism are the same. In the end one's a nationalist ideology that stresses the importance of how every nation is unique and must struggle against other nations as ultimately only the strongest will endure. The other is internationalist and believes that the only struggle worth consideration is the workers' struggle for freedom from capitalist oppression, everything else are mirages created by the bourgeoisie to distract workers from this fact. They are both collectivist and focused on struggle, but that's also were the similarities end.

So Oprah Winfrey isn't running for President in 2020?

Gethsemani:

inu-kun:

It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you even know what Socialism and Communism is, because the phrase "Religion is the opium of the people" is not constributed to a Fascist. Your entire argument is completely blind that Communism is exactly the same, truely a horseshoe theory masterpiece.

Except it is not. You are way out of your league here so I'll keep it simple:
Fascism, as Evil points outs, is opposed to any self-conscious division of the national body. If you are a Swede you are a Swede. To also consider yourself a worker, a christian or any other identification that would put you in a subgroup is bad. It is bad because it weakens the will of the people, which should always be focused on putting the nation first and making the nation strong. The nation must be strong because it will, invariably, struggle against other nations for its' very survival. In Fascism the subgroups are irrelevant because the individual is irrelevant unless the individual contributes to the strength of the nation.

Communism and Socialism also rejects some of these subgroups. Religion, for example, was seen as a way to pacify the workers (hence opiate of the masses, in the sense that opiates are sedatives) and keep them from rising up to claim what they were owed. However, Communism is internationalist at its' core, it rejects the idea of nations in the first place and considers everything but class and political ideology to be meaningless. Not bad, as the Fascists do, but meaningless in that the only thing that matters is the workers' struggles and the communist ideology that drives that struggle.

I don't know how exactly you figure that fascism and communism are the same. In the end one's a nationalist ideology that stresses the importance of how every nation is unique and must struggle against other nations as ultimately only the strongest will endure. The other is internationalist and believes that the only struggle worth consideration is the workers' struggle for freedom from capitalist oppression, everything else are mirages created by the bourgeoisie to distract workers from this fact. They are both collectivist and focused on struggle, but that's also were the similarities end.

I never said that fascism and communism are the same, but the specific bolded part of "opposed any form of self-conscious division within the national "body"" is exactly the same and will absolutely result in outright bigotry against religeous people (or those stirring from the "right" religion). In general, both Communism and Fascism (or really, all collectivist politics) are against individuality as it is a deviance.

inu-kun:

I never said that fascism and communism are the same, but the specific bolded part of "opposed any form of self-conscious division within the national "body"" is exactly the same and will absolutely result in outright bigotry against religeous people (or those stirring from the "right" religion). In general, both Communism and Fascism (or really, all collectivist politics) are against individuality as it is a deviance.

You literally said: "Your entire argument is completely blind that Communism is exactly the same, truely a horseshoe theory masterpiece.". Your argument also falls flat in that Communism refuses to accept the idea of a National body to begin with and actually encourages division within nations, specifically along class lines. They are not the same and while certain outcomes of their policies might be similar, that's not the same thing as being same or identical.

A communist will look at a Jew (as an example, could be a Christian or an intellectual or whoever) and ask "are you a worker?", a fascist will look at a Jew and deport them (at their most merciful) because the Jew is a weakness within the National body that can not be allowed to exist. These are inherently different things: Communism is inclusive, it allows everyone who's a worker or supports the worker's revolution, because the end goal is international communism. Fascism is exclusive, it wants everyone who is not of the nation's people removed because they will weaken the nation, because the end goal is a strong nation able to overcome other nations in the inevitable struggle for dominance between nations.

Their mutual disregard for the individual does not mean they will both consider the individual the same way.

Gethsemani:

inu-kun:

I never said that fascism and communism are the same, but the specific bolded part of "opposed any form of self-conscious division within the national "body"" is exactly the same and will absolutely result in outright bigotry against religeous people (or those stirring from the "right" religion). In general, both Communism and Fascism (or really, all collectivist politics) are against individuality as it is a deviance.

You literally said: "Your entire argument is completely blind that Communism is exactly the same, truely a horseshoe theory masterpiece.". Your argument also falls flat in that Communism refuses to accept the idea of a National body to begin with and actually encourages division within nations, specifically along class lines. They are not the same and while certain outcomes of their policies might be similar, that's not the same thing as being same or identical.

A communist will look at a Jew (as an example, could be a Christian or an intellectual or whoever) and ask "are you a worker?", a fascist will look at a Jew and deport them (at their most merciful) because the Jew is a weakness within the National body that can not be allowed to exist. These are inherently different things: Communism is inclusive, it allows everyone who's a worker or supports the worker's revolution, because the end goal is international communism. Fascism is exclusive, it wants everyone who is not of the nation's people removed because they will weaken the nation, because the end goal is a strong nation able to overcome other nations in the inevitable struggle for dominance between nations.

Their mutual disregard for the individual does not mean they will both consider the individual the same way.

If you failed to notice I bolded a part the blame falls on you, and the "National body" is semantics as the Communist country will also not accept religion.

If one of the very founders of the idea regards religion as a harmful drug AND in general religion is a division amongst people then the idea that Communism itself will be inclusive to religions is a false mantra to feel better. Going about that one will "only" outlaw practice of religion while the other deport you is just a game of who sucks more.

In other news, another senior diplomat has resigned, citing that he is unable to serve under Trump. Seems the decision was made before the shithole fiasco, but the timing is appropriate.

inu-kun:

If you failed to notice I bolded a part the blame falls on you, and the "National body" is semantics as the Communist country will also not accept religion.

I did notice the bolded part, which is why I specifically called it out. Are you even reading what I'm writing?

inu-kun:
If one of the very founders of the idea regards religion as a harmful drug AND in general religion is a division amongst people then the idea that Communism itself will be inclusive to religions is a false mantra to feel better. Going about that one will "only" outlaw practice of religion while the other deport you is just a game of who sucks more.

Sure, but discussing degrees is very much politics. Especially when the degrees look like this:
A communist will think you have a character flaw or weakness for being religious. That does not make you an enemy of the commune or international, it only makes you another victim of the bourgeoisie (who uses religion as an opiate of the masses, remember?). To the communist you are not the enemy if you're Jewish, you're a victim of a conspiracy against you and you can likely be redeemed.
To the fascist, you're an enemy of the state. Your religion makes you a weakness that must be purged from the nation because you might hold your religious beliefs above your dedication to the nation and the people. You can't be redeemed because even the fact that you once believed means you still might and all diverging religion is dangerous to the nation.

This is not a conventional game of who sucks more. One person thinks you are a victim and can help you (though you might not want the help), the other considers you an enemy and wants to do you harm. There's a radical difference here that you are trying to downplay in order to create a false equivalence. All it does is show how little you understand both fascism and communism as political ideologies.

inu-kun:
It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you even know what Socialism and Communism is, because the phrase "Religion is the opium of the people" is not constributed to a Fascist.

Sure, it doesn't. Let me quote a fascist though.

The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.

That was Mussolini.. or more likely it was Giovanni Gentile ghostwriting for Mussolini.

Note the phrasing, a spiritual society. Not "many" spiritual societies, not plural spiritual societies. There is only one spiritual society, and that society is the fascist state. To be a Jew in the fascist state is not a problem because Judaism is a reactionary religious ideology designed to oppress the workers, it's a problem because spiritual division within the fascist state cannot be tolerated. Anyone "different" is an enemy. That is the very literal nature of fascism.

Not that anyone cares what the Doctrine of Fascism said, because Italian fascism basically stopped mattering around the point the pact of steel was signed. You won't find many modern neo-Nazis or far right figures outside of Italy who have even bothered to read it. You'll find plenty who have read Mein Kampf. In the end, only one member of the Italian regime (Balbo) opposed the imposition of anti-semitic racial laws. He warned his peers that, "you will all wind up shining the shoes of the Germans!" He didn't live long enough to see Italian Jews deported en masse to the death camps, but suffice to say history proved him right.

They are not the same. Not even in a purely ideological sense, let alone in reality.

inu-kun:
Besides the fact that bigotry doesn't only apply to LGBT (for example racism towards the "norm", hatred of males or hatred of rich people) with multitude of examples.

Oh no, not the dreaded hatred of males!!!

Okay, see, there have been and still are women who actually do hate men, who do consider men to be inherently toxic and irredeemable. One common trend amongst such women is that they have often endured things which you or I could not imagine, such as prolonged sexual abuse. Most grew up in an explicitly patriarchal society where they were routinely mistreated by men, who had both formal and informal protections against any consequences of abusing women, most were told repeatedly that this was normal and just part of being a woman.

So what did those women do?

Oh right, literally nothing.

I mean, Valerie Solanas will come up here, but she was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who shot several male friends of hers (because she had male friends, she by all accounts could not hold together a coherent sense of who she was or what she believed) over a disagreement regarding a script she had written. For the most part, what has this fearsome misandry ammounted to? Nothing. Zilch. It has no consequence to anyone unless they specifically go looking for it.

That's because women who hate men generally express this hatred by wanting to live free from men, by trying to avoid having men in their lives, because they perceive a need to protect themselves from men and the best way to do that is by being as far away from them as possible. Ironically, the only people who are in any way genuinely threatened by these women are transwomen.

What do men who hate women do? How do they percieve the people they hate? What are their objectives?

Oh, right..

This is the difference between "prejudice with power" and "prejudice without power" and why we make that distinction.

Hating people who oppress you, who literally want to kill you, who threaten your existence every day while you can do nothing to stop them is not a bad thing. It's the appropriate response. The sheer logical leaps to which you will go to justify hating huge international swathes of people who have an infinitesimally small chance of posing a threat to you should make this laughably clear. It is correct to hate men when they persecute women, it is correct to hate rich people when they exploit the poor. It is correct to hate these behaviours and to work towards forcing them to change. It is not correct to hate Jews because you imagine that they rape Aryan women to spread their bastard seed among the pure races. These are not the same thing, they are not equivalent.

inu-kun:

It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you even know what Socialism and Communism is, because the phrase "Religion is the opium of the people" is not constributed to a Fascist.

You got the quote wrong, and the sentence itself doesn't even make sense (do you mean "attributed"?)

In light of how little effort you've made to understand what you're talking about, why would we trust this? You've shown time and again that you're not willing to distinguish between Socialism and Communism, and seem convinced that they're the same thing.

Gethsemani:

inu-kun:

If you failed to notice I bolded a part the blame falls on you, and the "National body" is semantics as the Communist country will also not accept religion.

I did notice the bolded part, which is why I specifically called it out. Are you even reading what I'm writing?

Yes and I still don't understand what you're on about, you try to argue that in having altered categories it's completely different and that it's technically not a "country" but a terriroty. Does it matter if I want to murder group A or group B to being a bigot?

Edit: In case that common logic is dead (won't surprise me by this point) by saying they are exactly the same I'm not saying literally they are one to one the same but are similar to the point that a word swap in their ideology will be the same. be free to talk about moving the goal posts.

inu-kun:
If one of the very founders of the idea regards religion as a harmful drug AND in general religion is a division amongst people then the idea that Communism itself will be inclusive to religions is a false mantra to feel better. Going about that one will "only" outlaw practice of religion while the other deport you is just a game of who sucks more.

Sure, but discussing degrees is very much politics. Especially when the degrees look like this:
A communist will think you have a character flaw or weakness for being religious. That does not make you an enemy of the commune or international, it only makes you another victim of the bourgeoisie (who uses religion as an opiate of the masses, remember?). To the communist you are not the enemy if you're Jewish, you're a victim of a conspiracy against you and you can likely be redeemed.
To the fascist, you're an enemy of the state. Your religion makes you a weakness that must be purged from the nation because you might hold your religious beliefs above your dedication to the nation and the people. You can't be redeemed because even the fact that you once believed means you still might and all diverging religion is dangerous to the nation.

This is not a conventional game of who sucks more. One person thinks you are a victim and can help you (though you might not want the help), the other considers you an enemy and wants to do you harm. There's a radical difference here that you are trying to downplay in order to create a false equivalence. All it does is show how little you understand both fascism and communism as political ideologies.

Or you know, the communist will send me to a rehabilitation facility for being religeous, execution if I try to motivate others to be religeous and I don't even have the luxury of running away, surely this is much better than a Fascist regime.
You are trying to play it as an imaginary utopia completely disregarding how people act, which is a common trait of people supporting this ideology.

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you even know what Socialism and Communism is, because the phrase "Religion is the opium of the people" is not constributed to a Fascist.

Sure, it doesn't. Let me quote a fascist though.

The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.

That was Mussolini.. or more likely it was Giovanni Gentile ghostwriting for Mussolini.

Note the phrasing, a spiritual society. Not "many" spiritual societies, not plural spiritual societies. There is only one spiritual society, and that society is the fascist state. To be a Jew in the fascist state is not a problem because Judaism is a reactionary religious ideology designed to oppress the workers, it's a problem because spiritual division within the fascist state cannot be tolerated. Anyone "different" is an enemy. That is the very literal nature of fascism.

Not that anyone cares what the Doctrine of Fascism said, because Italian fascism basically stopped mattering around the point the pact of steel was signed. You won't find many modern neo-Nazis or far right figures outside of Italy who have even bothered to read it. You'll find plenty who have read Mein Kampf. In the end, only one member of the Italian regime (Balbo) opposed the imposition of anti-semitic racial laws. He warned his peers that, "you will all wind up shining the shoes of the Germans!" He didn't live long enough to see Italian Jews deported en masse to the death camps, but suffice to say history proved him right.

They are not the same. Not even in a purely ideological sense, let alone in reality.

Whatsaboutism to the rescue! Let's ignore the accusation by talking about how the others were also hateful! Because Jews were treated so well in soviet Russia. Anyways see my talk with Gethsemani.

inu-kun:
Besides the fact that bigotry doesn't only apply to LGBT (for example racism towards the "norm", hatred of males or hatred of rich people) with multitude of examples.

Oh no, not the dreaded hatred of males!!!

Okay, see, there have been and still are women who actually do hate men, who do consider men to be inherently toxic and irredeemable. One common trend amongst such women is that they have often endured things which you or I could not imagine, such as prolonged sexual abuse. Most grew up in an explicitly patriarchal society where they were routinely mistreated by men, who had both formal and informal protections against any consequences of abusing women, most were told repeatedly that this was normal and just part of being a woman.

So what did those women do?

Oh right, literally nothing.

I mean, Valerie Solanas will come up here, but she was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who shot several male friends of hers (because she had male friends, she by all accounts could not hold together a coherent sense of who she was or what she believed) over a disagreement regarding a script she had written. For the most part, what has this fearsome misandry ammounted to? Nothing. Zilch. It has no consequence to anyone unless they specifically go looking for it.

That's because women who hate men generally express this hatred by wanting to live free from men, by trying to avoid having men in their lives, because they perceive a need to protect themselves from men and the best way to do that is by being as far away from them as possible. Ironically, the only people who are in any way genuinely threatened by these women are transwomen.

What do men who hate women do? How do they percieve the people they hate? What are their objectives?

Oh, right..

This is the difference between "prejudice with power" and "prejudice without power" and why we make that distinction.

Hating people who oppress you, who literally want to kill you, who threaten your existence every day while you can do nothing to stop them is not a bad thing. It's the appropriate response. The sheer logical leaps to which you will go to justify hating huge international swathes of people who have an infinitesimally small chance of posing a threat to you should make this laughably clear. It is correct to hate men when they persecute women, it is correct to hate rich people when they exploit the poor. It is not correct to hate these behaviours and to work towards forcing them to change. It is not correct to hate Jews because you imagine that they rape Aryan women to spread their bastard seed among the pure races. These are not the same thing, they are not equivalent.

Gotta love that justification for bigotry.

inu-kun:

Gotta love that justification for bigotry.

Gotta love the complete and utter lack of nuance and reply to any of the points made in the post you replied to.

erttheking:

inu-kun:

Gotta love that justification for bigotry.

Gotta love the complete and utter lack of nuance and reply to any of the points made in the post you replied to.

There us no nuance, either I'm arguing with someone who is so blind to the implications of hating huge swaths of people because a tiny amount did something wrong or someone who actually think that all males and rich people are guilty and should be prosecuted.

Anyways I see I'm getting dogpiled (once again) for "daring" to break the echo chamber, so I'll take my leave.

inu-kun:

Whatsaboutism to the rescue! Let's ignore the accusation by talking about how the others were also hateful! Because Jews were treated so well in soviet Russia. Anyways see my talk with Gethsemani.

You were the one who brought up Fascism in the first place. You made several historically inaccurate claims about it, and then accuse others of "whataboutism" when they dispute what you said?

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:

Gotta love that justification for bigotry.

Gotta love the complete and utter lack of nuance and reply to any of the points made in the post you replied to.

There us no nuance, either I'm arguing with someone who is so blind to the implications of hating huge swaths of people because a tiny amount did something wrong or someone who actually think that all males and rich people are guilty and should be prosecuted.

Anyways I see I'm getting dogpiled (once again) for "daring" to break the echo chamber, so I'll take my leave.

You know, I'm not exactly feeling sympathy for your attempt to throw out the victim card here, particularly since I remember the bizarre amount of mental gymnastics you went through in order to claim I was sexist because I thought women should do what they wanted to do. Because that's what you do. You don't address arguments, you just find a label you can throw at the person you're arguing so you don't have to address anything they say, so that, in your mind, you can declare yourself the winner by default.

And thinking all males should be prosecuted? Congrats, you're officially making shit up. You do that a lot too. Flat out lie about what people are saying.

Yeah, really not feeling like you're the victim. If your definition of breaking the echo chamber is lying and not addressing arguments, I have to ask, what exactly are you bringing to the table? Being contrarian to a bunch of people who generally agree on something isn't a virtue if you don't bring up valid points to oppose their general agreement.

inu-kun:

Or you know, the communist will send me to a rehabilitation facility for being religeous, execution if I try to motivate others to be religeous and I don't even have the luxury of running away, surely this is much better than a Fascist regime.
You are trying to play it as an imaginary utopia completely disregarding how people act, which is a common trait of people supporting this ideology.

No, I am discussing the ideological reasons behind Communism and Fascisms dislike of religion, since you claimed the two were the same. I've repeatedly pointed out how that is not the case and your only counter-point so far is to suggest that Communists could be just as bad as Fascists because "human nature". While not untrue, it holds no weight in an argument about the ideological stance on religion.

inu-kun:
Whatsaboutism to the rescue! Let's ignore the accusation by talking about how the others were also hateful! Because Jews were treated so well in soviet Russia. Anyways see my talk with Gethsemani.

The irony of this statement is that the Bolsheviks attracted quite a lot of Jewish people prior to Stalin's power grab, because the Bolsheviks were one of the few political groups in Russia at the time that did not discriminate based on religion. That's why so many prominent people in Lenin's inner circle were Jewish or of Jewish ancestry. The anti-semitism in the USSR only took of under Stalin because Stalin was a virulent anti-semite and pushed his desire to discriminate Jewish people through to become public doctrine. After Stalin's death, the USSR toned down the anti-semitism markedly and were quite generous in allowing Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, which is pretty benign considering that pretty much no one else was allowed to leave the USSR.

Which is all a roundabout way of saying that, once again, you don't know the history you are talking about.

inu-kun:
Whatsaboutism to the rescue! Let's ignore the accusation by talking about how the others were also hateful!

So yeah, do you remember how this started out?

You made a pretty basic horseshoe theory argument by arguing that the far right and far left are the same because they both hate people. The example you used was antisemitism, which is fair enough. The problem is, your example of "communist antisemitism" was actually a fascist argument invented by the Nazis, which somewhat undermines your point.

But whoops, now the goalposts have moved. Now the argument isn't literally about whether "communists" are inherently anti-semitic, or even that they are more anti-semitic than other people. Now the argument is over whether they can be antisemitic. Of course, this still doesn't actually make them the same, does it. People from across the political spectrum can be anti-Semitic. Anti-semitism is deeply, deeply ingrained into the cultural fabric of many countries. In Germany and Russia it was a peculiar national obsession long before Hitler or Stalin were even born. For many Jewish Marxist writers who escaped the holocaust, what is terrifying about it is not that it happened, but how easily it could happen again anywhere.

Or, if you won't believe those people.. maybe try Theodor Herzl (or any of the early Zionists). Find out what he thought about the treatment of Jews in "civilized" countries with "moderate" democratic governments, like France. Then consider Ze'ev Jabotinsky out in what was then the Russian Empire, surrounded by the pogroms and anti-Jewish riots. How is this different? How is any of it different? There is no point on the political spectrum free from antisemitism. There is no place in the world free from antisemitism. This isn't a horseshoe, it's a flat line..

But of course, now the goalposts have to move again. See, Marx once said that religion was the opiate of the masses, and this means that the far left are invariably anti-semitic because Judaism is a religion, you know. Of course, Marx was very obviously talking about Protestantism, which is why Weber wrote The Protestant Ethic partly as a criticism of Marx' ideas about religion. I mean, Marx' argument does not fundamentally make sense when applied to Judaism at all, but never mind, let's assume it can be despite the vast evidence to the contrary. The question still remains unanswered. How exactly does this make the "far left" and the "far right" the same? That's what we've been talking about, not religion and whether it's bad, not whether Stalin was a decent dude or not (I'll get to him) but the fact that this kind of casual horseshoe theory simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

See, there is one instance and one instance only where horseshoe theory actually works, and that is when comparing Nazi Germany to the USSR specifically under Stalin. But that's not because the left and the right are actually the same or can be ideologically unified, it's because Hitler and Stalin were very similar in terms of their beliefs and ideas. This is, of course, obvious to literally everyone. It's how the Molotov Ribbentrop pact happened. Both sought to merge collectivism with nationalism, both sought to compromise strategically between the reactionary elements in their own countries while also claiming to be establishing a new order. This isn't some kind of union of left and right, it's a basic example of revisionism and pragmatism at work. Stalin is not a popular figure on the far left. He killed a lot of important socialist figures, thinkers and writers. Hitler, on the other hand, is a very popular figure on the far right. Probably the most central figure, in fact. Milo Yiannopoulis never posed with a copy of The Doctrine of Fascism.

inu-kun:
Gotta love that justification for bigotry.

Call me when you're not whining about Muslims trying to blow you up and how this totally justifies persecuting them..

I mean, I can tell you with an incredibly high degree of certainty, if anyone ever does attack you, hurt you or blow you up (or me, for that matter) the chances are they will be male. Do you think I should ignore this, do you think I should treat it as coincidental.. because that sounds a bit politically correct, doesn't it..

But I for one do ignore it. I ignore it every day, I make the conscious effort to speak to and interact with men as if they're people and not the berserk, psychotically abusive, congenitally toxic half-people which statistics might suggest they are. I don't do this out of charity, I do it because I know that some men are worth the effort. That's a core part of what I believe, that everyone could be worth the effort and everyone deserves a chance to be.

Which brings me back to my main point. What has the dreaded misandreee ever actually done to hurt you, beyond demanding that you not hurt others and/or pointing out that you do?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here