Who are the Fascists?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Btw, if you google "was a socialist and anarchist" - with the quotes - you'll see examples of many people who were both.

They are not mutually exclusive and in fact neatly intertwine.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

I am beginning to think you are a troll.

If you are being sincere, please try and be a bit more nuanced in your understanding of these systems.

Anarchy is not chaos, by definition.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Go read that, check the sources, upgrade your understanding, and then come back and use your new found knowledge to have a mature and rational conversation.

We can wait.

The only troll it is you for calling me a troll for no reason other than we have a difference in opinion...

I know EXACTLY what anarchism is. In anarchism you want no government, and everything is "voluntary" and you do what you want... EVERYONE has a different idea on what they want. There are people out there whose idea of being happy is to casue harm to others. Since there is no government and there are no laws in anarchism. In anarchism you opose ALL authority, hence it would lead to chaos...

Read and understand what anarchism will lead to before you start claiming it is so great...

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious


Btw, if you google "was a socialist and anarchist" - with the quotes - you'll see examples of many people who were both.

They are not mutually exclusive and in fact neatly intertwine.

Not really, they are just very confused individuals. Camilo cienfuegos was supposedly a socialist/anarchist, yet he sided with communists.

In socialism there is some order, and authority, while in anarchism there is no order, or love for authority. Socialism has some set of rules that must exist, meanwhile in anarchism there are no set rules, everything is voluntary...

How exactly do they "neatly intertwine"?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Sorry no.

I, and others, have repeatedly responded to you, in detail, and you have repeatedly either ignored he responses an continued to post inaccurate nonsense, or have acknowledged the responses and then simply dont respond to them in a meaningful way.

And you have repeatedly made factually inaccurate and ill-informed statements.

This is the behaviour of a troll.

I on the other hand have repeatedly and calmly laid out the holes in your misinformation and propaganda.

I do not call you a troll lightly or randomly, but based on numerous interactions and on your unwillingness to have an honest and rational discussion.

Now, to your "point". You claim, erroneously, that economic and political systems can be described by what an individual assumes their "outcome" will be, and that that is a meaningful way to have a discussion about politic and economic ideology. In fact, you go further and insinuate that that is he only rational way to define ideologies.

This is brutally and wholly inaccurate.

It is also, quite obviously, a revisionist attempt to justiy your sloppy use of language and overly simplistic understanding of the basic ideas you are trying to discuss.

Originally posted by ANOK
...
Social programs are the result of the artificial scarcity of resources caused by capitalism. In a worker controlled economy production would be increased to meet needs.

How is socialism alive and well? Where are the people working towards workers ownership? There is some socialism, as in there are some worker owned companies, but there is no socialism in government. Government supports capitalism, period.

Partially agree with you, social programs does not equal to socialism.

However, "worker owned companies" which you call socialism, ALSO MAKE MONEY... And according to your definition making money = capitalism...

Second, yes there can be socialism in government... centralization of power, and centralization of the economy = socialism... Remember that there are MANY branches to socialism...

A "worker controlled economy" is not perfect, and in such a "worker controlled economy" would be the same as corporations now doing what is best for the stakeholders/shareholders... IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME, except that people working on that corporation/company are the owners of that company. They are STILL making money which would make them "capitalists" according to YOUR definition...

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
....
And you have repeatedly made factually inaccurate and ill-informed statements.

This is the behaviour of a troll.

I on the other hand have repeatedly and calmly laid out the holes in your misinformation and propaganda.

I do not call you a troll lightly or randomly, but based on numerous interactions and on your unwillingness to have an honest and rational discussion.
...

Oooh, so posting facts to YOU is "factually inaccurate and ill-informed"... Really?... And not wanting to "BELIEVE" like you do makes me a troll?...

The only misinformation and propaganda has come from you and some others, and btw just because some of you have made more votes DOESN'T make you right, so learn to live with it...

I posted FACTS, and evidence to support EVERYTHING I said... You only made CLAIMS that what I am saying is wrong, and now you are calling me a troll for disagreeing with you...

Unless you have an intelligent argument, do not come here again making claims that I am wrong when I have posted evidence and facts corroborating EVERYTHING I said...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Again, your ignorance is showing.

Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Syndaclism are two well known examples or socialist anarchist "isms".

Socialism in NO WAY requires top-down leadership, central government, or central planning.

You can argue it does, but you'd be completely and utterly wrong.

Go google Libertarian Socialism before bothering to call me wrong.

Here, in fact I did the work for you.

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[5] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[6][7] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][8]

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Again, your ignorance is showing.

Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Syndaclism are two well known examples or socialist anarchist "isms".

Socialism in NO WAY requires top-down leadership, central government, or central planning.

You can argue it does, but you'd be completely and utterly wrong.

Go google Libertarian Socialism before bothering to call me wrong.

Again, your argument is that because some schmuck came out with an idea that idea must be true and work well... YOU are utterly wrong.

socialism is an economic system, as such economic system it NEEDS to have an organization, and as such it requires AUTHORITY.

Anarchists DESPISE AUTHORITY... How can both exist at the same time except in the minds of those who think it does?...

ANY group of people calling themselves anarchists but who have an organization that requires some authority are not anarchists...

It is the same as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who call themselves Republicans yet are the OPPOSITE to what true Republicanism is...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Ok, gonna call "troll" here.

You have repeatedly posted inaccurate information, unsupported by any links or proof to back them up.

An example is your repeated claim that anarchy and socialism can't coexist and are contradictory.

Where's the post you made showing that to be a fact??

Simply stating that your posting facts, because you believe your ignorant beliefs to be "truth" is not the same thing as posting a cogent and documented fact.

So yeah, you're trolling.

Or just hugely delusional.

Seriously, not in an insulting way, but seriously, you don't know what you're talking about.

You can't generate new definitions of well understood political and economic movements, and then expect people to either understand or agree with your spontaneous creations. The way conversation works is that we use agreed upon definitions of words and concepts to enchange ideas and discuss our houghts about these ideas/concepts. If you don't know the meaning of terms and use non-standard definitions, based on you instinct and nothing else, no one will be able to have a m,aningful conversation with you. This thread is an example of that.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You've just made a wildly inaccurate claim. Prove your not a troll by providing evidence for your assertions.

You claim to be stating facts. Prove it.

I am telling you, you are wrong. I posted links proving you are wrong.

Back up your assertions or admit your wrong.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Ok, gonna call "troll" here.

You have repeatedly posted inaccurate information, unsupported by any links or proof to back them up.

An example is your repeated claim that anarchy and socialism can't coexist and are contradictory.

Where's the post you made showing that to be a fact??
...

Again, the only troll here is you. You should know at least the simple definitions for socialism, and anarchism. I made my point with facts...

Fact number one...

What is socialism?...

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system...

Although it can also be a political system and not just an economic system.

What do economic systems require?...

An economic system is the combination of the various agencies, entities (or even sectors as described by some authors) that provide the economic structure that defines the social community. These agencies are joined by lines of trade and exchange along which goods, money etc. are continuously flowing. An example of such a system for a closed economy is shown in the flow-diagram. The economics system involves production, allocation of economic inputs, distribution of economic outputs, Landlords and land availability, households (earnings and expenditure consumption of goods and services in an economy), Capitalists, Banks (finance institutions) and Government. It is a set of institutions and their various social relations.

en.wikipedia.org...

As such an economic system requires an organization, and organizations require authority.

What is anarchism?

an·ar·chism

noun /ˈanərˌkizəm/ 

1.Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion

Link

Anarchism is the belief in the ABOLITION of all government, despising authority...

Hence you CAN'T have both socialism (as an economic or political system), and anarchy together...

Economies, and any political system requires some form of authority, otherwise it is but chaos.

Mod note:

As with most discussions on political ideologies, when it gets right down to the nitty gritty, the name-calling inevitably begins.

Please don't go there.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ColCurious
In Germany however, fascism is clearly defined as extreme rightwing and we oughta know, we have experienced fascism first-hand and had to review our history with it very thoroughly.
We also had socialism/communism, wich is clearly defined as extreme leftwing.

Yeah, You oughta know, but you obviously don't...

Do you even know what political system Hitler implemented?... It wasn't rightwing, it was leftwing and known as National SOCIALISM...

Of course I know what system Hitler enforced. I live in Germany and had to study this topic for 3 years back in school in advanced history class.

Do YOU know how the NS-ideology evolved and changed from its origins in the 1890's to the 1930's? What happened from Naumann, to Rathenau, to Rosenberg?
Do you know about the fierce in-fighting withing the NSDAP in the 1920's and how "Nationaler Sozialismus" (National Socialism) and "Nationalsozialismus" (Nazism) were ideologically sharply separated from each other? Do you even understand the difference?

You're insulting others as being dumbed down and uneducated, yet you are the one who is uneducated on the matter, or incapable of understanding linguistic distinctions.
I'd suggest you stay on topics you are knowledgeable about. European history is obviously not one of them.

reply to post by ColCurious


Oh really? so because there are differences in Hitler's National Socialism it doesn't make it socialism?...

Do YOU even understand that there are MANY different branches of socialism?...

Don't be claiming I know not the history of Europe when I lived there for 10 years and studied there.

Hitler was a socialist, despite him wanting different things than other socialists...

There are many branches of socialism because different people have wanted, or want different forms of socialism. The fact that there are SOME differences does not make them any less socialist...

Heck, another example of "in-fighting" between socialists was Lenin, Stalin, and Trosky. Stalin wanted national communism, and Lenin wanted international communism. Stalin, as well as other socialists and communists, went so far as to seek the death of other communists like Trosky because their ideas on communism were different from his own and he saw that as a threat...

Hitler, and his NAZIs were the same. They wanted their own version of National Socialism, which differs from other versions of socialism. Because there were differences Hitler saw the other versions of socialism which had some power as a threat... But that didn't make Hitler any less socialist than he was...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Again, you are wrong. Woefully wrong. Anarchism is not chaos, collectivism doesn't have a leader, but is not chaos. Libertarian Socialism is a leadership-free collectivist system with a socialist economy. Workers control the means of production and no formal state or leadership. It is but one example of a very real combination of anarchy, as a means of organising society, and socialism, as a means or translating work into benefit, for the workers, in essence.

You claim that combination is impossible, by definition, hut that's because you are making # up. There is no definition of socialism that requires a state, a top-down hierarchy, etc, and no definition of the political system of anarchy that is "chaos". In fact, the very accurate description you posted of anarchy calls it a way to organise society. Organisation is not chaos.

You're again making unsubstantiated claims and not showing any evidence.

Again.

For the nth time.

It should ALSO be pointed out that the NAZI party was a FAR RIGHT party.

Nazi ideology denounced many political and economic ideologies and systems as being associated with parasitical Jewry, such as: capitalism, democracy, the Enlightenment, industrialisation, liberalism, Marxism, parliamentary politics, and trade unionism.

That is NOT the beliefs of any liberal or leftist.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Again, you are wrong. Woefully wrong. Anarchism is not chaos, collectivism doesn't have a leader, but is not chaos. Libertarian Socialism is a leadership-free collectivist system with a socialist economy. Workers control the means of production and no formal state or leadership. It is but one example of a very real combination of anarchy, as a means of organising society, and socialism, as a means or translating work into benefit, for the workers, in essence.
....

Oh really?... and do tell me, why is it that every time "collectivism" has been tried it has become nothing but a dictatorship?...

And please don't be so naive to claim "it hasn't been tried"... YES IT HAS... U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by ColCurious

 

Hitler was a socialist, despite him wanting different things than other socialists...

So you really are incapable of understanding the linguistic distinction and you don't know the historical context.
That was my point. You don't have the merits to call others uneducated when you spew such nonesense.
Get back to the library and study again... until then I can't take you seriously anymore.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
It should ALSO be pointed out that the NAZI party was a FAR RIGHT party.

Nazi ideology denounced many political and economic ideologies and systems as being associated with parasitical Jewry, such as: capitalism, democracy, the Enlightenment, industrialisation, liberalism, Marxism, parliamentary politics, and trade unionism.

That is NOT the beliefs of any liberal or leftist.

AGAIN...

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
...

Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.

THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST -
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
...

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Oh yeah...it sounds VERY rightwing....

Should we look at the 25 points of the NSDAP Program?...

I'm sure this has already been said but "fascism" is a fairly useless word. These days, when most people use that word what they really mean is "totalitarianism" - as in, the act of not tolerating different people, beliefs, races or ideologies. As Orwell said, "fascism" essentially just means "bullying".

I was at a patriotic march on Sunday where left-wing activists hurled abuse at us, calling us "fascists" (and throwing bottles), because they did not like us expressing our love of nation. Ironic huh!