Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

  1. #81
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    5,425

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The purpose of the repression perpetrated by both the Bolsheviks and the NSDAP was to secure and/or maintain and/or further the monopolization of power by their respective parties (or in some cases particular factions within said parties). This general observation is not falsified by appeals to ideological specifics; the responses of both parties to threats or perceived threats were, broadly speaking, functionally equivalent* (consider the comparable fates of Röhm and Trotsky, for instance). Notwithstanding, the claim that Hitler's opposition to unions was not an extension of his totalitarian attitude but merely a method by which the workers could be disenfranchised is self-refuting; a rejection of pluralism is a prerequisite of totalitarian governance.
    No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still remains an unsubstantiated, arbitrary assumption, which is also contradicted by the fact that the Nazis specifically targeted socialists, which strongly implies that their motivation was not only the pragmatic goal of maintaining their totalitarian regime. Of course, as already illustrated, but conveniently ignored, in the debate about the alleged similarities between Nazism and Communism, what should matter is the ideology and not the enfoced policy. As already explained exhaustively, Nazism advocated for:

    1. The eradication of Marxists, Judeo-Bolsheviks and generally everyone to the leftist, socialist spectrum.
    2. Lebensraum: The territorial conquest of eastern Europe, the genocide of the non-Aryan ethnicities (and not classes, pedantically speaking) and the extermination of Communists.
    3. The abolition of trade unions, blamed for undermining national unity.
    4. Profit-sharing, mercantilism and protectionism.
    5. Conservatism in social issues, like the place of women in the modern world.

    -and rejected the classification of society across different classes.

    All the above directly contradict the main principles of Marxism, including class warfare, syndicalism, internationalism, socialisation etc. Even if the Soviet Union followed a different policy, the above still disputes the narrative of ideologically equating Nazism with Communism. Presumably this is why mainstream academia actually agrees with that, with the exception of partisan literature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    TThe banal culture war rhetoric aside (fringe elements of the US political arena are not analogous to Hitler's Germany), the contemporary entity most worryingly comparable with the the Third Reich is red China*. It is an ultra-nationalist, totalitarian, increasingly militarist, expansionist and genocidal global power which pursues anticompetitive, state-controlled, corporatocratic economic policies. It is also (once again, not coincidentally) the international standard bearer of communism and the result of a century's worth of revolutionary "progress". One might say it almost single-handedly proves my thesis regarding the common Marxist ancestry of both fascism and communism.
    No idea what the century's worth revolutionary progress and the standard bearer of Communism are supposed to mean. To be honest, they sound like 4chan verbalisms without any tangible meaning. If these baroque terms aim at upsetting tankies and Soviet apologists, I suggest reading the history and the aftermath of the Sino-Soviet split. Orthodox Communists despise both China and Mao and Maoists despise Russia, other Communists and post-widow China. Legio's articles were certainly interesting, but I prefer that much more condensed and frank quote (the rest is als equally juicy):
    Quote Originally Posted by RCIT gems
    Furthermore, according to the positions of our organization, there is an allied axis which consists of Russia-China-Iran, under the overall guidance of the first, which is, in its essence, neo-Hitlerian (Neo-Nazi).
    ...
    A key role in the analysis of our organization is played by the concept of "productive sabotage." This is defined by our People's Party as the destruction of the productive capital in our motherland, through either the breaking down and closure of existing production units, often with “left” arguments (ecological, supposedly anti-capitalist, cultural, etc.) or by preventing the investments by the local and western bourgeoisie. This attributed -by our People's Party- to the relationship of the leaders of the left from 1956 on, and of the presidents and prime-ministers with the social-imperialism of Russia and Non-Maoist China. According to our People's Party, the current prime minister and founder of the governing party, was one of the best Russian, and probably Chinese as well, agents of all time.
    In the party's analysis, the Russians and their allies (the Neo-Nazi Axis of China/Iran) or agents in the country do this because Russia, China and Iran -as rogue imperialist states- are economically much weaker than western imperialism, and so, whatever productive capital cannot be controlled by it, must be damaged in order to economically and politically weaken a country and NATO, so as to subdue it. Direct or indirect relations with Russian/Chinese social imperialism, based on the start of their business or other information from their business process, should be attributed to large businessmen, who follow the orders of Beijing and Moscow.
    Anyway, as already established before, the persecution of the Uyghurs is as much a product of China's communist policies as her spectacular economic success (i.e. not at all). Even if it was, it's still a distraction from the fact that the modern tenents of a large portion of the right-wing spectrum, including extremists, but also more moderate ones (radical centrists?) shares a worryingly similar belief system to that expressed in the Mein Kamp, ranging from vitriolic attacks against intellectuals (manifested also in that discussion) to hostility to free-market, globalisation and decadent, liberal elites. Contrary to China and much more relevant to the topic, these are ideological and not policy similarities. Who knows how that may evolve?

  2. #82
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,048

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Guys, why "discussing" with people who post trolling comments (read: with agenda of history falsification and revisionist propaganda) all the way? Recommend, leave them alone in their bubble and not giving them a platform, spend your time for senseful purposes
    Last edited by DaVinci; October 29, 2020 at 04:15 AM.

  3. #83
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,313

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still remains an unsubstantiated, arbitrary assumption, which is also contradicted by the fact that the Nazis specifically targeted socialists, which strongly implies that their motivation was not only the pragmatic goal of maintaining their totalitarian regime.
    That the Bolsheviks and National Socialists both repressed opposition as a means of monopolizing power is neither unsubstantiated nor an arbitrary assumption; it is an established historical fact. Equally, and as your brief commentary on the Sino-Soviet split aptly, albeit inadvertently, illustrates, competing Marxist factions can be, and often are, vicious ideological opponents.

    Of course, as already illustrated, but conveniently ignored, in the debate about the alleged similarities between Nazism and Communism, what should matter is the ideology and not the enfoced policy.
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is no justification for privileging hypotheses above outcomes, even if you find them appealing.

    Notwithstanding, you appear to be arguing against a different thesis than was offered. The claim was not that Hitlerism and Soviet communism were the same; it was that the NSDAP's totalitarian, prophetic ideology which advanced the politics of resentment and violent, identity-based struggle was influenced by, if not modelled on, Marxian reasoning. That Hiterlism deviated from Marxism (all Marxian movements have significantly deviated from the theory) in that it reimagined class war along racial fault lines, has not been denied.

    For this reason, Soviet communism and National Socialism should be understood to be analogous in the same way that the Abrahamic religions are understood to be analogous; we can clearly differentiate between Islam, Christianity and Judaism whilst acknowledging that they are bound by common threads, themes and ancestry.

    As already explained exhaustively, Nazism advocated for:

    1. The eradication of Marxists, Judeo-Bolsheviks and generally everyone to the leftist, socialist spectrum.
    2. Lebensraum: The territorial conquest of eastern Europe, the genocide of the non-Aryan ethnicities (and not classes, pedantically speaking) and the extermination of Communists.
    3. The abolition of trade unions, blamed for undermining national unity.
    4. Profit-sharing, mercantilism and protectionism.
    5. Conservatism in social issues, like the place of women in the modern world.

    -and rejected the classification of society across different classes.
    These points have not been contested, nor do they undermine the arguments I have introduced.

    All the above directly contradict the main principles of Marxism, including class warfare, syndicalism, internationalism, socialisation etc. Even if the Soviet Union followed a different policy, the above still disputes the narrative of ideologically equating Nazism with Communism. Presumably this is why mainstream academia actually agrees with that, with the exception of partisan literature.
    As above, all attempts to apply Marxism (or aspects of it) have significantly deviated (both in theory and practice) from the prescribed formula (in large part because the ideology is itself a false prospectus). This was briefly alluded to previously with regard to Marxism's inapplicability to Russian society at the time of the revolution, though instances of communist imperialism, ethnic cleansing, attacks against underclass groups and/or autocratic governance also serve as evidence.

    No idea what the century's worth revolutionary progress and the standard bearer of Communism are supposed to mean. To be honest, they sound like 4chan verbalisms without any tangible meaning. If these baroque terms aim at upsetting tankies and Soviet apologists, I suggest reading the history and the aftermath of the Sino-Soviet split. Orthodox Communists despise both China and Mao and Maoists despise Russia, other Communists and post-widow China. Legio's articles were certainly interesting, but I prefer that much more condensed and frank quote (the rest is als equally juicy)
    It means that a century after the start of the revolution, China, the most visible (and powerful) communist entity on earth, is what Marxist-Leninism has to show for itself. That China has quietly drifted into a state of ultranationalist authoritarianism under the direction of a party which lead the Maoist revolution speaks only to the veracity of my claims about the similarities between National Socialism and communism (including with regard to the shared antecedent ideology); how else to explain the CPC's seamless slide into a political position which you claim to be diametrically opposed to the Marxist-Leninism it was founded to promulgate?

    Anyway, as already established before, the persecution of the Uyghurs is as much a product of China's communist policies as her spectacular economic success (i.e. not at all). Even if it was, it's still a distraction from the fact that the modern tenents of a large portion of the right-wing spectrum, including extremists, but also more moderate ones (radical centrists?) shares a worryingly similar belief system to that expressed in the Mein Kamp, ranging from vitriolic attacks against intellectuals (manifested also in that discussion) to hostility to free-market, globalisation and decadent, liberal elites. Contrary to China and much more relevant to the topic, these are ideological and not policy similarities. Who knows how that may evolve?
    You raised the issue of contemporary comparisons to the Third Reich:

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Overall, if we are to draw modern analogies...
    My mention of red China (which is plainly more analogous to Nazi Germany than fringe elements of the American political arena) is not a "distraction" from that topic.

    Even so, opposition to corporate America and its cynical identity "activism" corresponds more closely with Marxian principles than it does the far-right (one can scarcely claim a commitment to class solidarity if he lays down his objections to the hierarchy every time a multinational company uploads a rainbow avatar on Twitter.) The mention of "vitriolic attacks against the liberal elite" (which were ceaselessly promulgated by Marxist philosophy) serves only to illustrate the similarities between extremists on both wings of the political spectrum.

    That said, there is a point to be made that leftist radicals and hostile foreign actors view the petty ethnoreligious and cultural divisions encouraged by the aforementioned corporate activism as facilitating an Austro-Hungarian style destabilization of the US. The reality, of course, is that whilst so-called "woke capitalism" does polarize America and weaken her national unity, it does so in a manner which enables the corporate echelon (the bourgeoisie, if you will) and their Washington advocates to keep socialism on a little leash. The strategy of divide et impera, has lost none of its potency.

    Spoiler for Engels
    True, we shall have single acts of violence and even of brutality to report, but it must always be kept in mind that the social war is avowedly raging in England; and that, whereas it is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to conduct this war hypocritically, under the disguise of peace and even of philanthropy, the only help for the working-men consists in laying bare the true state of things and destroying this hypocrisy; that the most violent attacks of the workers upon the bourgeoisie and its servants are only the open, undisguised expression of that which the bourgeoisie perpetrates secretly, treacherously against the workers.

    Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels, 1845.


    Spoiler for Diversity vs. unionization
    Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, is using a heat map to track stores that may be at risk of unionization, according to report from Business Insider.

    The heat map apparently uses more than two dozen different metrics to track which Whole Foods stores may unionize. The heat map focuses on monitoring three main areas: “external risks,” “store risks,” and “team member sentiment,” according to Business Insider.

    Here are some examples of “store risks”:
    Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a “diversity index” that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers’ compensation claims, according to the documents.

    Whole Foods is reportedly using a heat map to track stores at risk of unionization, The Verge, Apr 20th.
    Last edited by Cope; October 30, 2020 at 02:44 PM.

  4. #84

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    @Abdülmecid I
    which is also contradicted by the fact that the Nazis specifically targeted socialists
    This was debunked many pages ago, Stalin and Lenin also targeted socialists.
    Lebensraum: The territorial conquest of eastern Europe, the genocide of the non-Aryan ethnicities (and not classes, pedantically speaking)
    1. China has its own Han Lebensraum as we speak.
    2. Killing people over race is just as bad as killing people over their class. Not to mention that Lenin and his cronies targeted Russian elites, which was very similar to what Germans did.
    The abolition of trade unions, blamed for undermining national unity.
    Haha, no. From wiki:
    During Lenin's rule, a resolution entitled About Party Unity had dissolved and banned any factions within the Party under the pretext that intra-Party discussions distract from "solving actual practical problems". This resolution radically shifted the balance in the notion "democratic centralism" from "democratic" to "centralism" and helped lay the groundwork for Joseph Stalin's future centrally planned economic policies.
    Lenin did the exact same thing.
    Profit-sharing, mercantilism and protectionism.
    NEP under Lenin, "artels" under Stalin.
    Conservatism in social issues, like the place of women in the modern world.
    Soviet policy on women workers was hardly stemming from desire to liberate "muh strong independent wahmen" from patriarchal oppression, but rather to have more cheap slave labor.
    Most socialist regimes were socially conservative to the same degree as the socialist regime under NSDAP. Pro-tip - homosexuality was a criminal offense in "progressive" USSR until it collapsed.

  5. #85
    alhoon's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    22,438

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Yes, killing persons based on class is as bad as killing persons based on race. It's different though. Makes of a different bad ideology.

    And no, it was never debunked that Nazis considered socialists and communists enemies of the nation (and rightfully so, as these ideologies wanted to abolish the notion of nation or put it in the 2nd seat) while Stalin and Lenin did not target socialists for being socialists, but targeted specific socialists because those specific socialists were "problematic" when it came to the vision for the world these two men wanted to implement.

    What China does is also not at all like what the Nazis did. They don't expand and eradicate people for the good of the superior Han Race, they are targeting a small group that has "undesirable" religious views. Uyghurs that are not muslims have nothing to fear.

    As for women for cheap slave labor, let's be done with the hyperbole. USSR didn't want cheap slave labor, they wanted cheap labor. Their view on women was different even if we accept your viewpoint that they did it solely to increase the workforce. And for the record, I don't accept that. I am just saying that no, that's also different from the Nazi point of view.

    That both commies and nazis in the 40s were conservatives doesn't make their ideologies similar.
    The court of Frederic the Great was also conservative but their ideology was quite different from Nazis and communism.
    DIE: Diversity, Inclusion, Equality (Pun on SJWs, I am not far-right)
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.

    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  6. #86
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,048

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    And again: "Nazism" belongs to Fascism. Fascism even does not "qualify" for 'ideology'. It's rather a 'state of affairs' or condition. It derives mainly from Conservatism, when it comes to 'ideology'. Politologically a kind of revolutionary Conservatism, culturally a right-extremist counter movement versus Modernism, in executive an ultra Nationalism with few (copy) social-revolutionary elements to take on the bandwagon (aka appeal to the masses; at the time as it appeared in Europe at least).

    Socialism is one ideology of the three existing ones (Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism), and is the other side of the spectrum within the ideological framework, and was the most progressive, the newest fancy stuff, thus "revolutionary" in 19th c. and 20th c.. Formerly (and parallel), Liberalism was kind of revolutionary, the emancipation versus Aristocracy/Monarchy and religious dogma, but it companied also with the status quo (Conservatism). Socialism built on all this experience and knowledges and aimed to break the existing class chains to free the masses. Communism as the ideal, aka worldwide Socialism. Marxism saw (sees) it coming quasi automatically over time, inevitable. Usually rejected as utopy. Leninism took (takes) action via a party for "revolution now". The occured Fascism was a reactionary movement versus all of that, but used (uses) what was opportune.

    Fascist regimes took (take) from everything a little bit, just what worked (works) best for the leader and his clique&supporters to get around to absolute power and control. And it always has the 'Us and Them' (in and out group) theme as main trait for mobilization. Erecting a fascist regime usually works best in crisis times (inner and/or outer enemies are quickly made up).

    This doesn't mean, that actual erected socialist regimes cannot have fascist elements, and of course vice versa. Dictatorships have their common traits.
    Last edited by DaVinci; November 01, 2020 at 01:55 PM.

  7. #87
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Civitate

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,037
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Where did Mussolini get his Fascist ideals from?
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    People want to be pandered to. That's really what identity politics is about.

  8. #88
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,901
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Lenin being a German spy is a conventional fact to everyone except for communists themselves, who still attempt to rekindle the old Soviet propaganda myth of October "revolution" being somehow organic and popular, despite the fact that shortly before October coup Lenin's party lost the elections.
    It is well-known that Lenin was arrested by the Germans early in WWI, and then released when his anti-tsarist position became known. The historical record shows that the Germans intentionally sent him back to Russia so sow internal discord and supported revolutionary activities in Russia, but that doesn’t make Lenin a spy working for the Germans. Lots of groups received American funding over the decades but that doesn’t make them American spies or even pro-American. They used each other. Nothing more. That's a far cry from being an agent of the German government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Lenin was very well alive when Battle of Warsaw happened. Its funny how you claim to have good knowledge of early USSR and just demonstrated that you were not even aware of Soviet invasion of Poland during Russian Civil War and actually used "but at least Soviets didn't try to take over Poland" as an argument unironically.

    Ideological differences are, as demonstrated above, subjective and irrelevant.
    Functionally both regimes were the same, which is the point.
    It’s not my fault Poland gets invaded so much! It was unclear to me which one you were referring to. The Soviet-Poland War was more of an accidental spillover during the Civil War and other turmoil in the region than anything. That whole region was a mess in the aftermath of the war. Unlike, you know, the other guys’ invasion.

    Sorry, but it seems likely we’ve been mostly talking past each other. I’ve been mainly arguing about ideological differences over here. I think that the ideologies are very relevant, especially since this began with you equating the two’s policies. I’ve said before that they’re methods are similar, but isn’t that true of any totalitarian country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Strategic and tactical ineptitude of Western Allies doesn't change the fact that by then end of 1941 German brass was well aware that they were in a very bad situation, as resources dwindled while Soviet war economy was relocated to the East out of reach of Luftwaffe. Its just that tactical defeats are more evident then strategic ones.
    I don’t think that a Soviet victory was seen as inevitable – if it even was inevitable. Regardless of how bad a move it was strategically, the Germans weren’t objectively losing in the Eastern front until 1943.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Notwithstanding, you appear to be arguing against a different thesis than was offered. The claim was not that Hitlerism and Soviet communism were the same; it was that the NSDAP's totalitarian, prophetic ideology which advanced the politics of resentment and violent, identity-based struggle was influenced by, if not modelled on, Marxian reasoning.
    I’m actually arguing against this:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Their policies being carbon copy of those of Vladimir Lenin.
    Being a little bit more kind and nuanced on the internet can go a long way.
    ---
    “Unfortunately, we’re all ‘someone else’ to someone else.”

  9. #89
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,313

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacifism View Post
    I’m actually arguing against this
    I am aware of that. My initial interjection into the conversation acknowledged the difference between National Socialism and Soviet communism (though you still wrongly accused me of "covering" for Heathen Hammer).

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Communism and national socialism were not "the same", but they were both expressions of revolutionary Marxism

  10. #90
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,048

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Where did Mussolini get his Fascist ideals from?
    Mussolini's philosopher guru was Giovanni Gentile. You can find info about the person for example here: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giovanni-Gentile

    Several writings about the subject Fascism* (and fascism*) can be found for example with this link (list): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...63460600655581
    ... includes also Mussolini's own author's work. Whereas this link goes mainly about the question "fascism and economic model?" ... and also "is fascism overall an ideology?".
    But the sources are rich of common scholarship about fascism in whole. So you can make yourself familiar with the subject.

    * a differentiation is made for the classic Fascism (Mussolini's Italy especially, as name giver) and fascism, the subject in whole as part of political science. I personally do not make such an "orthodox" differentiation (but mainly because in German language, a non-capital letter for substantives does not exist). And since for me, Mussolini's Fascism was also only express of a common fascist mentality of the time - and that is but timeless. We would have another term for that, if Mussolini's Fascism wasn't that placative. And there are also other terms, but just "fascism"-term family became a "winged" terminology.
    Last edited by DaVinci; November 03, 2020 at 07:43 AM.

  11. #91

    Default Re: Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    That the Bolsheviks and National Socialists both repressed opposition as a means of monopolizing power is neither unsubstantiated nor an arbitrary assumption; it is an established historical fact. Equally, and as your brief commentary on the Sino-Soviet split aptly, albeit inadvertently, illustrates, competing Marxist factions can be, and often are, vicious ideological opponents.
    And...?

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is no justification for privileging hypotheses above outcomes, even if you find them appealing.
    There is no justification for looking only at outcomes, and reverse engineering a hypotheses that entertains your ideological beliefs.

    Notwithstanding, you appear to be arguing against a different thesis than was offered. The claim was not that Hitlerism and Soviet communism were the same; it was that the NSDAP's totalitarian, prophetic ideology which advanced the politics of resentment and violent, identity-based struggle was influenced by, if not modelled on, Marxian reasoning. That Hiterlism deviated from Marxism (all Marxian movements have significantly deviated from the theory) in that it reimagined class war along racial fault lines, has not been denied.
    You claimed that Abdul's points about Nazism do not undermine your argument. Yet Abdul's argument described how Nazi principles explicitly denounce the core tenents of Marxist ideology, but this somehow means that Nazism is related to Marxism? I mean sure, insofar that Marxism is also related to Capitalism, derives from it, and seeks to establish a narrative that directly opposes Capitalism. Much in the same way that Nazism does with Marxism.

    As above, all attempts to apply Marxism (or aspects of it) have significantly deviated (both in theory and practice) from the prescribed formula (in large part because the ideology is itself a false prospectus). This was briefly alluded to previously with regard to Marxism's inapplicability to Russian society at the time of the revolution, though instances of communist imperialism, ethnic cleansing, attacks against underclass groups and/or autocratic governance also serve as evidence.
    Almost all Marxist ideologies seek to establish the same core principles originally outlined by Marxist literature. Which is what makes it distinctly different from Nazism, who's stated goals are objectively different.

    It means that a century after the start of the revolution, China, the most visible (and powerful) communist entity on earth, is what Marxist-Leninism has to show for itself. That China has quietly drifted into a state of ultranationalist authoritarianism under the direction of a party which lead the Maoist revolution speaks only to the veracity of my claims about the similarities between National Socialism and communism (including with regard to the shared antecedent ideology); how else to explain the CPC's seamless slide into a political position which you claim to be diametrically opposed to the Marxist-Leninism it was founded to promulgate?
    Are you insinuating that no Democracy has been ever involved in mass murder? Xenophobia? Ethnic cleansing? If they have, are they now communist regimes? How silly. The fact that China devolved into what it is, does not indicate that Marxism and Nazism/Fascism occupy similar ideological space. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, and so on, are not a property or Marxists or Fascists alone.

    My mention of red China (which is plainly more analogous to Nazi Germany than fringe elements of the American political arena) is not a "distraction" from that topic.
    Well it certainly hasn't raised a relevant point in this discussion.

    Even so, opposition to corporate America and its cynical identity "activism" corresponds more closely with Marxian principles than it does the far-right (one can scarcely claim a commitment to class solidarity if he lays down his objections to the hierarchy every time a multinational company uploads a rainbow avatar on Twitter.) The mention of "vitriolic attacks against the liberal elite" (which were ceaselessly promulgated by Marxist philosophy) serves only to illustrate the similarities between extremists on both wings of the political spectrum.
    Again. Censorship, not a uniquely Marxist.

    That said, there is a point to be made that leftist radicals and hostile foreign actors view the petty ethnoreligious and cultural divisions encouraged by the aforementioned corporate activism as facilitating an Austro-Hungarian style destabilization of the US. The reality, of course, is that whilst so-called "woke capitalism" does polarize America and weaken her national unity, it does so in a manner which enables the corporate echelon (the bourgeoisie, if you will) and their Washington advocates to keep socialism on a little leash. The strategy of divide et impera, has lost none of its potency.
    "Woke Capitalism" is simply a new term for a problem that has always been around, and while it may have a damaging effect on national unity, it is by no means the catalyst or the main driver. Indeed, today, rather than Twitter censoring the President, the President's own words and statements are what's truly damaging United States.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •