You haven't said one thing of substance here.
Mixes source material? That is a nonsensical criticism.
Contextualization? You failed to make any coherent argument.
Assumptions? Yes. I've made some assumptions about you. Most of them you haven't denied, so I read that as my assumptions are largely correct.
My arguments have been clear and sourced. The problem here is that you know you're wrong on these points but can't admit it.
How to debate with you when any source material, as you reference, is not accurate due to circumstantial context. Then later, using source documents to support your points of view against circumstantial context? You have to chose an epistemology or else the argument is not internally coherent.
No, no, no. You don't get to declare source material "not accurate due to circumstantial context." That's an evasion. You have to demonstrate how it is out of context. My epistemology is fine and coherent. Your declaring it not so does not make it not so. The problem is that I do have source material and you do not. That's a disingenuous attempt to evade your problem.
I have defined fascism. I have let Hitler himself define what national socialism is. I have defined socialism. Find a Nazi who repudiates "private property." Find a socialist who doesn't. Communism is state ownership of production. You are attempting to side step the idea of ownership by using the word "control." As Hitler said, the state only "controls" the means of production in exceptional cases. As an authoritarian dictatorship, the state has ultimate power to do whatever, even compel corporations to produce what the Dictator demands. But the state does not own the means of production. The means of production still engage in capitalism, the acquiring of capital for the capitalist class. That is fundamentally not capitalism.
Modern parties likely do not believe the same ideologies. This is true of GOP and Dem. Modern GOP is ~ classic liberalism. Modern Dem ~ classic socialism / borderline fascism.
This is absolutely not true. First, the GOP is no long a neoliberal party. They have become a party of interventionism under Trump, via his protectionist policies, overwhelmingly supported by the GOP.
The Democratic Party has been a neoliberal party since Clinton, notoriously so. The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans in the level of mitigation they are willing to adopt to soften the blow for American workers. Democrats are willing to support more intervention than GOP, but they both support some and under Trump, GOP supports more than Dems now. The last Democrat to champion protectionism was Dick Gephardt and he lost hard.
Neither party per se is "fascist." Neither party believes in an absolute leader. And, besides, socialism and fascism are utterly different (as I have demonstrated with no rebuttal from you), so the Democrats can't be both. There are elements in the Democratic Party that are democratic socialist which is very much socialism lite, mostly advocating more regulation of capitalism and maybe some support for very limited publicly owned industry, but probably in the US that would be zero.
You have been living in some alternative reality where you have swallowed all these right-wing revisionisms whole. It's like Orwell's Newspeak. War is Peace. Fascism is Socialism. You're very confused.
Here's another example of that right-wing revisionism that I see a lot: The US is not a democracy because the word "democracy" doesn't appear in the Constitution. It is a Republic. The problem is that the term democracy is inclusive of the term Republic. Republics are representative democracies. They're just a type of democracy in which the people delegate their vote to an elected representative.
The problem with US representative democracy is that our system allows for legalized bribery, so the representatives don't really represent "we, the people" but mostly corporate or special interests that can inundate them with money and reward with lucrative lobbying jobs after they leave office. That's what makes democracy in the US a farce. But, if you read the anarchists like I said, you'd find that Bakunin predicted this:
Representative democracy, however, harmonizes marvelously with the capitalist economic system. This new statist system, basing itself on the alleged sovereignty of the so-called will of the people, as supposedly expressed by their alleged representatives in mock popular assemblies, incorporates the two principal and necessary conditions for the progress of capitalism: state centralization, and the actual submission of the sovereign people to the intellectual governing minority, who, while claiming to represent the people, unfailingly exploits them.
Agree that corporatism is a special case of anarchism, was using it as an example implementation of how hierarchies do emerge within that form of "governance"
That isn't anarchy. Anarchy is literally without hierarchy.
I've studied plenty of history and encourage you to take a look at the relationship between socialism, communism, and fascism. This is basically a continuum of increasing government control and involvement in people's personal lives.
None of this response addresses my argument. (Just for the record, and it doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, but you brought up the fact that you've studied a lot of history. I have a history degree + 45 hours of grad school--all but thesis--in political science).
Your dichotomy of Left and Right being about the degree of government control over people is overly simplistic. You need to think about this as a Euclidean plane, with one axis being social control over lives vs the other being economic control. In fact, there's an interesting test you can take. Here. I took it just now. I'll share mine if you share yours. Nazis fall on the right both economically (right authoritarian) and socially. Stalinists are left authoritarian. True, Nazis are less right economically than Stalinists are left.
If there are two unifying characteristics of socialism and communism of all stripes they are:
- Elimination of private property
- Leveling of economic classes, both in terms of political power as well as social welfare.
If there is a third plank of socialism it is internationalism, also explicitly rejected by the Nazis.
The Nazis adopted none of these main tenets of socialism. How can they be socialists if they rejected the main tenets of socialism?. Let's ask Hitler what he meant by "socialism":
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.'
So Hitler basically redefined the word "socialist" to mean the "common weal" and "patriotic." This is not what any socialist considers socialism. So, sure, by Hitler's made up definition of socialism, they were socialist. But they were not socialist by the terms that all other socialists accept: repudiation of private property, elimination of social classes and economic hierarchy, and internationalism.
Find me a Nazi embracing those main tenets of socialism. So far you have failed to do that.
The enlarged roll of the state is characteristic of leftist ideologies.
It's not about the size of the state. If it were about the size of the state, Bill Clinton would be the most right-wing president in modern times. Reagan would be a leftist. Bush (W) would be leftist. But that's absurd. It's an absurd measure of left vs right.
Anarchism being further to the right of corporatism suggests that self assembled corporate entities emerge as governing authorities.
You are talking about Anarcho-capitalism, not classical anarchism which argues that worker collectives would naturally emerge centered on democratic decision-making, not private "corporate entities."
In classical Anarchism (again, see Bakunin, in particular), "ownership" of land will essentially be abolished. You cannot have a non-hierarchical society with owners and workers. In any system of private ownership, some people must be compelled to work, rather than voluntarily joining an association or collective. That's the main point of actual Anarchism as opposed so called Anarch-capitalism (which is actually just radical Libertarianism).
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this with you further. But please, present evidence of any Nazi anywhere at anytime repudiating private property, social hierarchy, or nationalism. It's impossible. Naziism fails to meet the three most important tenets of socialism.
More of Hitler's "socialist" views:
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
"If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men."
You do not understand fascism if you think it's far left. What do you think "left" and "right" mean? Anarchism is far left. Anarchism means without hierarchy. An-archy. Without hierarchy. It's socialist, but without coercive government to enforce it. It also has no government to enforce "property rights" because in anarchy you don't have property rights as there is no private property.
Read the anarchists. Kropotkin, Bakunin.
Fascism is authoritarian corporatism whereby property remains in private hands (show me a fascist who argued otherwise) but both capitalists and labor were controlled by the Authoritarian, because under fascism there is one ruler.
If you can show me a fascist who believed in the primary principle of socialism, that the means of production should be in the hands of workers, not the capitalist, then I will grant you the point. You won't be able to. Fascists themselves believed they were creating a middle ground between capitalism and socialism, maintaining private property but with state direction of production.
You've fallen for false right-wing revisionism. You don't get to just rewrite definitions because it suits your sensibilities. What anarchism is was defined by anarchists. What fascism is was defined by fascists. Read them.
At my job I get paid about 74,000, which is probably a lot more than you get on your SSI check. But I'd support you getting more.
But, no, I have a real job and that real job keeps me busy and I don't have time for discussion boards. I was motivated to post last time because of the Buffalo shooting. Or maybe Ulvalde. I don't remember. Then this latest shooting motivated me to think about this discussion again. That's all.
And look, I'm not one to say, let's take away all the guns. I have guns of my own. I am speaking out against this radical right movement spreading nonsense like replacement theory, which is motivating people, many of them with mental illness, to go out and shoot people.
But I also do believe that the radical right is direct threat to social order and the Constitution. Adherence to the Constitution is what maintains social order in this country. I have a family, kids. I don't want the social order broken down and society run by a bunch of right wing thugs.
If we are supporters of the Constitution, if we are opposed to theocracy (or White Christian rule), if we don't want right-wing militia thugs patrolling our neighborhoods and raping our daughters, we need to take care of them now. I, for one, am armed. I'm ready to take up arms against them.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about "white christian men?" It doesn't. Christ, Christian, God, none of those words are in the constitution.
Article VI: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Doesn't sound like it's a government for "Christian men."
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Nope. Not describing a Christian state.
The USA is not a theocracy as much as you would like it to be.
For example, I'll assert that a super majority of racism, acts of violence, and vandalism are caused by leftist other directly or via subterfuge.
I'm talking specifically about mass shootings of innocent people, such as the Buffalo shooter. This latest guy, too, was a racist. How many of these guys are on the 4chan boards? Quite a few.
I'm not saying that crimes haven't been committed by the left or by Black supremacist groups as well, such as the Black Israelites and the New Black Panther Party. I believe in the latter case, they target police officers. Everyone of them should also be taken out. I think one guy claimed to be Antifa, but there just aren't multiple examples of mass shooters claiming to be Antifa or leftists.
The assertion that a "super majority of racism, acts of violence, and violence are caused by leftist other [sic] directly or via subterfuge" is simply not measurable (how do you measure vandalism caused by subterfuge? Can you cite an example of that?
Again: I'm talking about mass killings that target schools, churches, supermarkets, 4th of July parades, etc that are motivated the spread of right-wing ideologies. The most cowardly of actions. Killing unarmed defenseless people. There's definitely a disproportionate number that are demonstrably motivated by the radical, fascist, white supremacist right.
Sources? From what I know he literally said this:
"Call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you,"
Weird thing for a Communist to say. And if he was pushed by an informant, we need to see evidence of that before we can make the claim. If you have that evidence, I'd be glad to look it over and if it checks out, adopt your view of this. Infiltrators and informants are used by the government all the time, against both the left and the right. I know this. But knowing that it happens doesn't mean it happens in all cases. The Unabomber wasn't pushed by an informant, for example. I don't think Timothy McVeigh was either.
The Ukrainian government isn't a Nazi government. Even the once Nazi Azov battalion was essentially de-Nazified when it was absorbed into the Ukrainian security forces.
Even so, a lot of people here support Nazis, right? So is there division between Nazi supporters and Putin supporters?
Putin is the head of a kleptocracy that denies any rights to the opposition. I do not see how that fits in with anyone's world view who values freedom.
I am OK with Nazi's my friend.
Nazis care nothing about your individual liberty. They care nothing about your freedom. Nazism is the opposite of that. If what you want is to be free and defend your liberty, supporting Nazis isn't the way to go. You think you can say what you want under a Nazi regime? Think again.
hgem stealing and harvesting our Energies.
This is fantasy claptrap. There is no "stealing of our Energies." Tell me how you source that fantastical claim.
They made this an "Energy transfer" harvest system. Why you think you get a certificate of birth? a Social #???? We are cattle friend.
What "'energy transfer' harvest system?" Please elucidate. How does it work?
We need a certificate of birth and a social security number to prove our citizenship, to pay taxes (you think there are no taxes under Naziism? Think again, brother, difference is, you can't vote out the people imposing the tax), to receive benefits (like half the people on this board are receiving SSI. Social Security Insurance.
And we are literally allowing "Them" to harvest us. We are ALLOWING this.
Brother, come back down to Earth. There is no "THEM" here. We're all just people. Nobody's harvesting energies. Is this some cult teaching?
Look, I'm being dismissive. I shouldn't be so dismissive. Let me say this. Please demonstrate this theory of yours that some undefined "they" are harvesting our energies.
And u are pissed about a bubba fat ass white boy.
I'm mad about bubba fat ass white boy killing kids in a school or this latest dude killing people at a parade. All motivated by fantasies from 8chan or somewhere (here?).
Fuck the Governments, We do not NEED to be lead.
I believe we need Government to organize society in a fair way. I'm not saying government isn't corrupt, it always is. So we need safeguards against that corruption. In the US, corruption is basically legalized. But we, as the voters, have the ability to do something about it. The problem is that the elites that control us keep us divided so we can't do that. They have conservatives and liberals fighting over abortion or gun rights while they are literally sucking us dry. Our resources, the resources we produce through our work, not our energies or whatever. I don't know. I don't understand your position about energies.
We are so much more powerful than we are allowed to know.
I agree with you on this.
Nope. They regularly gather all in one place with their guns.
Nazis, first. Elites second. Half the people here are just run by half the elites, just like Dem supporters are run by the other half. Look at all the people backing Trump? Trump is just one of the elites. He's a pied piper. He could give a shit about regular people.
As much as we might hate elites, Nazis are just the stormtroopers for a complete elite takeover. Nazis don't care about anyone's right to bear arms or free speech or anything else. Take out the Nazis because they're armed component of absolute tyranny.
No offense, mate, but when I watch that video, I don't see anybody dying. Just people collapsing, not unknown in sports played in the heat.
Just under that one, there's one about a tennis player collapsing and it clearly says from heat-related illness.
We need documented facts that a vaccine caused the death of someone, not a suspicion that someone collapsed because they took the jab.
And you think you aren't? If you think you aren't, then you aren't stopping to analyze your biases.
I've laid out arguments and you don't dispute any facts or even analysis of those facts. That's just being intellectually dishonest with yourself. You can't respond so you reach for some other nonsense criticism like "mixing sources," or "contextualization."
Sources are important, so if there is a problem with a source, then lay out that problem. If there is a problem with the context in which I use a source, then what is it? You made those claims. It's up to you to defend them. If I am "clearly motivated to adopt a particular agenda" then show how that is true.
I guarantee that I can show you are motivated by rightwing political expediencies to adopt the arguments you've put forth. You want to distance the radical right from Naziism so you claim Naziism is some kind of leftist socialism. You ignore the basics of socialism (repudiation of private property, rejection of social hierarchy) and rest your argument on a vague "more or less government." When I challenge that with concrete examples of how you are clearly wrong (Reagan would be far more leftwing than Clinton, for example), you don't have a response. Why not? If you are not "clearly motivated to adopt a particular agenda," why can't you just admit that Nazism lacks the specific characteristics that define what socialism is (repudiation of private property, rejection of social and economic hierarchy)? Lacking those two basic features of the definition of socialism--just about anybody's definition of socialism--it cannot be said that Nazism is socialism. It's not.
As it stands, it's irrational to reject my argument because you haven't offered a counterargument.
I'm not politically motivated to adopt any of this. Stalin was clearly communist and I absolutely reject Stalinism and Leninism. Those were leftist theoreticians (repudiation of private property, although they just established a bureaucratic hierarchy in place of the traditional social hierarchy). I have no problem repudiating them.
I am not being politically motivated when I set straight your misguided notion of anarchy (an-archy--without hierarchy) by quoting anarchists as to what they believed. (Read Murray Bookchin's Post-scarcity Anarchy, for example.)
Libertarianism is what you mean when you refer to rightwing anarchism. Libertarians are not opposed to hierarchy and, in fact, argue it is necessary and in a free society reflects the individual talents of people, in that talented people rise to the top, less talented sink to the bottom. They only want government in so far as that government protects the social and economic private property-based hierarchy that anarchists totally repudiate.
I welcome your thoughts on this.