|Submited on :||Mon, 15th of Apr 2019 - 07:45:27 AM|
|Post ID :||bddbpf|
|Post Name :||t3_bddbpf|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_311h1|
"Right-wingers support treason because they're all fucking traitors. I hope every last one of you rancid scumbags die today, screaming. Fuck you all to hell."
Why only muslims always "have" a big "problem" i.e. TERRORATTACKS in western societies. Quite different to other religions in the west like Shintos, Hindus, Buddists, Jews, Taoists, Sikhs, Bahai etc. Seems like everyone can get along only Muslims cause problems. Maybe Islam is the problem?
Or we could not commit homicide.
Yes because you don’t sound fascistic at all wanting to dehumanise & kill people who’s political opinions you don’t like
That's not the definition of fascism.
Never said it was the definition, but it is a strong value of most facist governments if you haven’t noticed
That doesn't mean that everyone that wants to kill a certain group of people based on their political views is a fascist, especially if those political views are perceived as very bad - e.g. how many people perceive fascists.
I disagree with the idea that ancaps and neoliberals are necessarily crypto-fascists. I think that crypto-fascism does exist, but most often under the names of alt-right, white nationalism, and identitarianism.
Cryptofascists: I can't prove they're fascist so just trust me when I label them as such without any evidence
holy shit, yikes.
Ask Ernst Thälmann and the Soviets what happens when you focus on the ‘crypto-fascists’ before the actual fascists.
Answer: You get von Hindenburg elected, thrown in jail for 11 years and then shot by Hitler.
Other Answer: You make a treaty with the Nazis before they backstab you and attack you and make it all the way to Stalingrad.
Yeah, but also fuck gonked out psychopaths who see "crypto-fascists" everywhere like an actual fascist piece of shit sees "jewish conspiracy" everywhere
the "yeah but" argument there. Crypto-fascists exist. They may not even know they are fascists, because they're submerged in layers of irony and memes, but anyone who supports people like Lauren Southern for example is a crypto-fascist if they're not an outright nazi.
This is literally the exact rhetoric that was used to justify the detention and torture of my family in Suriname and the killings of many others. None of my family were even right-wing, they just questioned socialism and were branded as fascists. Your comment sounds exactly like the radio broadcasts.
The kafka trap there. Yeah, the fuckers exist but I sure hell know neoliberals aren't one of them. That kind of logic is meant to expand to remove dissidents. A wind up to fucking Mao policies. It's disgusting totalitarian non-sense. You sure you ain't the crypto-fascist here, buddy?
I feel like you missed the horrific center piece to this whole thread. This was a blood thirsty leftist that had extended a fucking casus belli on neoliberals for supposedly being crypto-fascists. Neoliberals. I want someone to tell me without splitting hairs how in the hell the people with open borders as one of their cornerstone policies are fucking crypto-fascists? Tell me, who provided people like this psychopath in the OP the ability to give judgement like this? Your party won't just know to do better, and the proof is right here. They act like they want to protect the proletariat until one of them diverges from the political line, then they get branded as a undesirable and removed. Maybe the comparison irks you because it's just about damn near the same thing in operation.
The fact of the matter is the OP is in the center of this post, and the person before you was defending them, and now so are you by moving the goalposts. The thing is, I never correlated leftists to a whole other party like you are doing with conservatives and neo-nazis. I spoke of leftists alone. Hard end self describing leftists. If you want to tell me that people in the leftist party aren't flush with views similar with OP's, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you full of crap. I have only been talking about fringe extremists.
Maybe if you want these "both sides" of crypto-fascists and leftists to stop looking the same maybe you should ask them to tone down on the bloodthirsty calls for landlord heads. Do some self reflection and maybe spend less time pissed off with the people who are trying to cut down on creating undesirables to pin their problems on to ultimately remove and kill, and look back at the people that want to attach themselves to your party, then make a class of undesirables to pin their problems on to ultimately remove and kill.
Movements are defined by those who identify with them. You cannot have a movement made up of people who do not know they are part of it unless you're using some sort of comic-book style mind control. I understand that conspiracy theories to explain what would otherwise be an unpredictable, directionless world can be comforting, but you really shouldn't ignore reality like this.
Wow very brave and original opinion bud
sure but don't kill them
once you're a nazi, you don't deserve empathy. Nazis don't have empathy for anyone else who isn't like them, why should I have it for them.
This is why. Not everyone is irredeemable.
That's good, but only a few get out of that cult. And those few end up being harrassed. Just because a few can get out of it (which, "it" is being a fascist and advocating for the deaths of millions of people, which is not something you're born with, you grow to hate all of those innocent people and you choose to associate yourself publicly with them), doesn't mean all of them can be "saved." Which they'd be "saved" from their own choices.
Why do you wanna defend nazis though?
Because underneath all the hate and disgust, they're just as 'human' as you or I, and you or I are just as capable as being exactly like them under different circumstances. I'm not excusing their actions by any means, don't get me wrong, I revile them as much as you, but I think being absolutist about it will only lead to even more death and hatred. When looking at Neo-Nazis, you can't fight with fire, you have to show them that their entire world-view is warped and corrupted by being the better person and not treating them like they would treat you, because that only justifies their world-view in their eyes.
Now, with that said, fuck the unrepentant ones. I hope they rot in jail because the "justice" system in the US is worse than death.
I agree. You can only do so much, and some of them have their hatred so ingrained that any outreach will only be met with hatred and violence.
Because you aren't a nazi?
were the British, Americans and Russians nazis because they fought the nazis?
They didn't fight the nazis for being nazis but for threatening to take over the world. Look i agree what the nazis did is inexcusable and glorifying it today is more than just shitty but people can change. Even nazis can be good persons deep down. Maybe they slipped into that ifeology through a personal crisis or something. Maybe they can be helped out again. Some empathy is never wrong.
Look i agree what the nazis did is inexcusable and glorifying it today is more than just shitty but
This is literally doing nazi apologism. If you came to the conclusion that racial and sexual minorities are to blame for all your problems living in a western country where you've had access to history books that tell you what happened to the nazis, you deserve the same outcome.
You can't "forgive and accept" the person that's threatening your life. Only someone who wouldn't lose anything if the nazis took over would comment something like that.
I never said to forgive and accept. I said don't kill them, treat them like humans and try to change their minds. Don't stoop to their level.
They didn't fight the nazis for being nazis but for threatening to take over the world
So for being Nazis.
So, what then? Gulags?
It's preemptively saving lives.
I want to know how people just come up with these names.
"Okay, what's the next political group--*rolls dice* neo, *spins wheel* crypto *clicks the random wiki article generator* hyposmocoma filicivora."
Being a communist doesn’t require you to be a bad person, being a Nazi does. What is it with the false equivalence between those two I keep hearing people throw around?
I think the problem that communism faces is that the original idea was you needed a violent revolution. This violent revolution leeds to a power vacuum, where the most powerful person in the revolution takes power. Thus no communism. If we go towards communism through socialism it might work.
That's a good point. The frustrating thing is that the violent revolution was never a central part of the philosophy, just a means to an end.
Being a nazi requires you to be brainwashed (and probably being in a difficult situation prior to that). Sure the chance of you being a total piece of shit increase a LOT if you are a Nazi, but there are good people. There is a movie about a nazi ambassador who saved civilians in china, i don't remember the name though.
Nazis aren't cartoon villains. They can choose to do good things the same as anyone else. That doesn't change the fact that they also chose to be Nazis. They chose to serve that ideology and everything it means. They might not have had another good or easy choice, but there is a always a choice.
Right, I'll rephrase that. The tenets of Nazism are fundamentally bad, those of communism aren't. Of course it's possible decent people get misguided, and it's also possible to be a bad person and a communist at the same time.
I think all the failures communism has had show that its tenets are fundamentally bad, not necesairily in a moral way, which is a matter of opinion, but definetly in a qualitative way, in the sense that it results in dictatorship and lower living standards.
I think a better word is "unfeasible" instead of "bad". Still, being in favour of communist ideals isn't bad (unlike what the OP of this thread implied), while being in favour of Nazi ideals is bad.
I also said this in my original comment here, but the false equivalence drawn between communism and Nazism are really problematic.
Also, full disclosure: I'm not a communist, should anyone think that.
They are fundamentally bad. I’ll admit the founding goal of “everyone works to lift each other up” is great, but the way it wants to go about it by abolishing private ownership and state appropriation is just sanctioned theft. Not only that, it’s a one way ticket to dictatorships and collapse.
Stalinism and Maoism certainly did, but there’s all kinds of non-authoritarian political ideologies on the left, from democratic socialism to anarcho-communism. It’s not all failed dictatorships.
Yes but the problem is that when you abolish private property rights you get a situation where a portion of people will not want to give up their private property. So the only available remedy is to confiscate and imprison those who seek to maintain private property, because you have declared it illegal.
So now you are essentially imprisoning those who don't agree with you. In a free society, if you want to start a commune where you have communal ownership etc you can and nobody will stop you. In a communist society, if you want to do the opposite the only available remedy is imprisoning those people because you have declared individual economic success illegal, even when it harms nobody.
The ultimate goal of communism is not to abolish private property, but private ownership of capital goods.
I’m just going to quote Wikipedia on private property:
Private property can be either personal property (consumption goods) or capital goods.
And on capital goods:
A capital good (also called complex products and systems or (CoPS)) is a durable good that is used in the production of goods or services .Capital goods are one of the three types of producer goods, the other two being land and labour. The three are also known collectively as "primary factors of production”
Sorry to be pedantic, but it’s an important distinction to make.
As for the imprisonment thing, now you’re talking implementation rather than theory. State socialism is one way of doing things, but that doesn’t always go to plan. I wonder if the anarcho-communists have any better ideas.
Edit: also democratic socialism aims to fix the issues with state socialism.
State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself. It is often used interchangeably with state capitalism in reference to the economic systems of Marxist–Leninist states such as the Soviet Union to highlight the role of state planning in these economies, with the critics of said system referring to it more commonly as "state capitalism". Libertarian and democratic socialists claim that these states had only a limited number of socialist characteristics. However, Marxist–Leninists maintain that workers in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states had genuine control over the means of production through institutions such as trade unions.State socialism is held in contrast with libertarian socialism, which rejects the view that socialism can be constructed by using existing state institutions or by governmental policies.
Anarcho-communism (also known as anarchist communism, free communism, stateless communism, libertarian communism and communist anarchism) is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour and private property (while retaining respect for personal property, along with collectively-owned items, goods and services) in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy (among communes, participatory democracy), cooperativism, equal distribution of valuables, and a horizontal network of workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".Some forms of anarchist communism, such as insurrectionary anarchism, are strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual freedom. Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French Revolution, but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International. The theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin took importance later as it expanded and developed pro-organizationalist and insurrectionary anti-organizationalist sections. To date, the best-known examples of an anarchist communist society (i.e.
Communism seems to be more succesful the less of it there is.
Stalin turning the USSR into an industrial military superpower?
Ah yes the success story of the USSR
Common ownership refers to holding the assets of an organization, enterprise or community indivisibly rather than in the names of the individual members or groups of members as common property.
Forms of common ownership exist in every economic system. Common ownership of the means of production is a central goal of communist political movements as it is seen as a necessary democratic mechanism for the creation and continued function of a communist society. Advocates make a distinction between collective ownership and common property as the former refers to property owned jointly by agreement of a set of colleagues, such as producer cooperatives, whereas the latter refers to assets that are completely open for access, such as a public park freely available to everyone.
Means of production
In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods) are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services. In the terminology of classical economics, the means of production are the "factors of production" minus financial and human capital.
The social means of production are capital goods and assets that require organized collective labor effort, as opposed to individual effort, to operate on.
Capitalism kills far more and for nothing but short term profit of the already wealthy.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
The tenets of Communism call for the violent execution of the bourgeois... which includes anyone the movement leaders determine to be a threat to the revolution
I want to emphasise that I don’t agree with it, but that’s a means to an end and not a tenet.
Depends on the type. Marx actually opposed violence even in support of a revolution. Lenin however was much more trigger happy to say the least...
Yes, let’s look at the kill counts of countries not following a lot of the actual principles and let’s compare them to the kill count of a guy who 1. was in power of a smaller country than the total of the communist countries 2. was in power for a shorter time 3. committed fucking genocide.
That’ll surely prove the tenets of communism is bad, and not that the people in power of communist countries were either bad people (and, honestly, not real communists) or at least severely misinformed (thinking of the cricket plague in China). Plus, you can avoid talking about the actual ideals! Great discussion!
“ItS nOt ReAl CoMmUnISM”
Gulags were re-education camps where people were killed and taught that “wrong think” is bad as well as starved to death.
Honestly I don’t even debate with communists, wealth redistribution and mass egalitarianism is evil. I’ll see you in the civil war and show you what my work boots taste like you pathetic unemployed hippy.
Lol, I’m not even a communist, my man. But apparently stating the tenets of communism are fundamentally better must make me one in your eyes.
As for the rest of your comment, you’re clearly just an edgelord who fancies himself to be a badass lol. Not really worth my - or anyone’s - time.
Right, you're a communist sympathizer. "Tenets" of communism are not fundamentally better than anything, they are wrong and evil in the first place. Forcefully taking the property of other people you deem "enemies" is ALWAYS wrong. Communism scenario was tried in my home country of Russia, and they were doing it "by the book", at least in the beginning. Go read how many people died. You have to be an imbecile to try and defend it.
The tenet is no private ownership, the means to that end is taking other’s property. The tenet has some merit, that way to achieve it hasn’t.
Ask the Czech citizens who were ruled by both, they saw them as the same. Source- family immigrated from there, thanks gramps.
But they don’t teach that at whatever horse shit university you go to, you gigantic pussy
The 100 million dead would like a word with you about your very misguided views of communism.
in a communist society, what happens to those who are disabled, whether mentally or physically? what happens to those who cannot work for some reason or another?
i imagine they'd kill disabled people just like nazis would, right?
Not if they actually organise their society by communist ideals.
has that ever happened? ideals mean nothing when they're not practiced
it's like saying "i love animals" but not being vegan, words mean nothing without action
"A couple of pseudo-communist countries were (and are) bad, so I'm not even going to talk about the ideals and the people believing in them." It's way worse when a person believes in Nazi ideals than when they believe in communist ideals, and your criticism dodges that point completely.
Also, as far as caring for handicapped people is concerned (and as far as I'm aware) they're pretty good in Cuba, a communist country.
so you admit a society has never been good for people when driven by communist ideals 🤔
nazi ideals are definitely horrible but let's not pretend ideals make communism okay lol
You clearly missed the part about Cuba caring for their disabled citizens, which you conveniently ignored. If you're going to be that dishonest I don't care to have a conversation with you.
does it care for its disabled citizens any better than capitalist countries? you provided no information and said "as far as you're aware" which really is not at all definitive
What I meant is “everything I know about it confirms that, and I know nothing to the contrary”. Also, I haven’t seen you prove a single claim you’ve made.
There is no across the board treatment of disabled citizens by “capitalist countries.”
In some capitalist countries they have social programs to care for the disabled, like the US (this is essentially not capitalism though as it is a social program).
Then there are capitalist countries like the DRC where you work until you die. That is if warlords haven’t killed you before your twenties.
You can’t just say “capitalist countries” and expect them to all be the same.
Cuba threw gay people in concentration camps and jails political dissidents. Sorry I don't see them as a beacon of political freedom.
I don't glorify Cuba and I wouldn't want to live there at all, but it does counter his point about no communist country taking care of their handicapped people. That's all there is to it.
"A couple"?! Really. Only a couple countries have practiced bad forms of communism? And please, let's call it a day on this "no true communist" bs. When pretty much every successful communist country has done some horrible human rights abuses, there's a trend.
Nah dude, there just weren't that many communist countries (if you count the USSR as one big country). That is to say that flawed implementations of communism "only" failed a couple of times because communism wasn't implemented in that many countries.
It's actually a pretty long list, even excluding the USSR states
Damn, I completely forgot Africa used to have a couple of communist countries. Don't think the fact they failed proves too much tho.
A Communist state (sometimes referred to as Marxist–Leninist state or workers' state) is a state that is administered and governed by a single party, guided by Marxist–Leninist philosophy.
There have been several instances of Communist states with functioning political participation processes involving several other non-party organisations, such as trade unions, factory committees and direct democratic participation. The term "Communist state" is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries. However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as Socialist or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism.Communist states are typically administered by a single, centralised party apparatus, although some provide the impression of multiple political parties but these are all solely in control by that centralised party.
No? Communists nowadays advocate for programs that help disabled people.
that's great, but do a significant number of them actually contribute to helping disabled people?
From the communist party in the UK: "The Communist Party is guided by the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism and its members are united in working for the achievement of socialism. Believing that socialism can be attained only by the will and action of the majority of the people, led by the working class, the Party shall: [...] (c) work for the removal of all discrimination based on race, colour, sex or religion, sexual orientation, age and disability;"
there's also this article: "Communism: The real movement to abolish disability" https://libcom.org/library/communism-real-movement-abolish-disability
also "Marxism and disability": http://isj.org.uk/marxism-and-disability/
Do you know who actually advocates for eugenics? Not Communists nowadays.
okay, and how many members of this party actually do things to help disabled people, rather than just talk about it?
Raising awareness is action in a capitalist world that doesn't usually recognise disabled people as people. So talking about it does help people.
Also I doubt you've read any of that or paid attention to any of it because you replied immediately.
yeah, our world totally doesn't see disabled people as people. you're right. makes sense
I skimmed quickly and it looks like they're just talking about what they believe, not what they actually do
for "pragmatic" reasons instead of hateful ones, but then you have to ask if that's actually better when they both result in a corpse
Judging by this post, commies seem to want to exterminate neo-liberals, ancaps and "crypto-fascists". (aka anyone who disagrees with the commies)
Judging by this post, that guy seems to want to exterminate neo-liberals, ancaps and "crypto-fascists".
(aka anyone who disagrees with the commies)
FTFY. Taking idiots who are part of a group you disagree with and pretending they represent that entire group is idiotic, dishonest or both.
Idk I hangout on far left subreddits, and these aren't uncommon ideas. Tankies will be tankies
Removing my property and right to religion (yes) does make you a bad person.
They're bad for the same reasons, therefore equivalent.
I don’t know man even Stalin was far better than Hitler.
He had a better moustache, I'll give you that.
communism requires the seizure of property and an authoritarian state
EDIT: read some of your later comments. nazis were pretty much founded on hatred for bankers because the economy was fucked (most bankers are jews, thats still true today) and resentment for all the handicaps put on them by the treaties.
compare "eject the guys who ruined our economy, protect ourselves from gay treaties" to "steal and distribute property so that everyone can live comfortably." both can be seen as noble, but neither ended noble.
Because every last communist state to ever exist has eliminated democracy, cracked down on independent thought, f*cked over millions, and thrown everyone they don't like into death camps, much like every fascist state. Being a communist absolutely requires you to be a bad person, unless you've never once studied the history of the movement.
See this comment, he put it very well.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Every utopian movement will go the way of fascism and communism-its inevitable.
What the fuck are you on about lmao? You’re saying every movement trying to better the future will lead to both fascism and communism - fundamentally incompatible political systems.
No, I'm saying every utopian movement will go the way of fascism and communism-quite similar systems from the perspective of those in the death camps. Movements that better the future include everything from environmentalist groups to basically every revolutionary group ever; utopian movements are groups which believe that a literal, not metaphorical, utopia is achievable, and thus any and all actions in pursuit of it are justified. Every murderous extremist ideology in history has its roots in utopianism. All of them. "We'll have utopia if we kill all the Jews and create lebensraum!" "We'll have utopia if we kill all the bourgeoisie and create a dictatorship of the proletariat!" "We'll have utopia if we kill all the infidels and create a new Caliphate!". Utopianism is stupid, communism is cancer, stop defending it.
The basic assumption you make is that everyone striving for a utopia is totalitarian, which is just untrue. You posit it as a fact and move on.
Because it is. They may not start off that way, but if they ever get into power that's what happens. A utopian state cannot be accomplished without massive societal upheaval, a complete shift in the way people think and act. And you can't change that through government without totalitarianism. I've got a list 20+ communist countries that tried that, if you're still gonna defend those murderers.
Guys I found Angela Davis's alt account.
"YAS QUEEN SLAY" is a fitting tag
Happy Cake Day?
lmao the fuckin YAS QUEEN SLAY flair
Nazis do deserve to die.
There's always someone who's still here despite having zero self awareness.
There's always someone here defending nazis
Yeah, because it was only real, actual, card carrying Nazis mentioned in the original post, and its also 100% acceptable to wish death on people. I take it back-this is negative self-awareness. There is now less total self-awareness in the world than there was before you made your comment.
here sir is your nazi card make sure not to lose it
Do neoliberals, ancaps and "crypto-Fascists" also deserve to die?
sure, why not
Dude. "Sure, why not" should never be your response to a question with as much magnitude as who is deserving of death.
Is there anyone on the right half of the political compass who you don't think deserves death?
This dues a commie, I guarantee it