Musicians no longer socially relevant?

[TomViolenz]

I thought my previous post was clear enough, but let me try again.
Fascism:
-The economical power is in the hands of very few. Be they multi national cooperations or oligarchs in favor of the leaders (could be the "communist" party, the ruling elite (US), the President (Putin) or the oil interest in Arab countries (the Sheiks)
-This economical elite is controling the civil/military leadership
-The rule of law is heavily distorted or subverted. (For the US through secret laws, secret courts with only one side being able to argue their case, very powerful inteligence organizations that are NOT controlled by a parlament)
-A secret prison/camp sytem outside of the rule of law is established. Torture is just another method of interogation
-The Military is the (or one of the) biggest and most influential sectors in society
-the masses are heavily influenced by propaganda in mass media, often openly, somtimes more subtly incited to hatred of others
-the freedom of the press is supressed or subverted
-as far as elections are still held, they are designed to change nothing of importance.

Fascism is a socio-economic system, just as other socio-economic systems it can stand on its own.

Ah, so all countries are fascist, and always have been. I see.

Certainly not.
But I do think that quite a few military dictatorships in history should be considered Fascist, even though they didn't call themselves that. If you go back to feudal times though the term looses its meaning, because economocal and political power were not separated yet. So while many a king might be considered a Fascist dictator if you look just at a few of the bullet points, the fact that he already had all powers (economical/political/military) in his hands, makes this classification meaningless.

For the rest of your posts, I'd like to point out that you seem to have climed back up on your high horse AND that you just start to repeat things you already said over and over. Arguments don't get more convincing just because you keep repeating them.

[TomViolenz]

Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. What do you propose, given the situation at the time, he should have done if he wanted to stop slavery (not that was actually why he did it, but that's a different topic)
And considering that the US had hardly an Army worth mentioning befor WWI, I find the thing with them being a militarry dictatorship since then to be pure hyperbole.

I do not believe that it was his job to stop the slavery, just as I do not believe that the US has any business "exporting democracy". Not that I believe that is their purpose either.

Well let's aggree to disagree then.
And I think if the US were a country exporting democracy (they came pretty close to this ideal in Europe after WW II), I would actually welcome that.
"Exporting democracy" has just gotten a bad name, because the US sullied the term.

[Galt]

"Randomly blowing up children would be fine, if only it were effective." - Trotsky

You're going to try to duck this, but if the question of efficiency is Trotsky's only qualm with terrorism, as he EXPLICITLY says it is, then the above line is logically implied.

Which makes Trotsky a sick fuck.

Trollt, that is not what Troytsky said, is it? He tirelessly fought against terrorism, as you know, so your argument is completely stupid. Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant non-argument? Over and over and over like a broken record. You just make yourself sound stupid.

Observe:

Q. "Mr T., what do you think of terrorism?"
A. "I'd be for it, if it were effective!"
Q. "So.... killing children?"
A. "Yup, that's all good dog."

Since FnF has confirmed the first Q and A here, and the second follow logically from the second, FnF has effectively confirmed that Trotsky was for killing children. Which makes him a sick fuck.

FnF is now trying to salvage the reputation of his lord and master by trying to smear mine. Typical left-wing tactics.

[Galt]

Well let's aggree to disagree then.
And I think if the US were a country exporting democracy (they came pretty close to this ideal in Europe after WW II), I would actually welcome that.
"Exporting democracy" has just gotten a bad name, because the US sullied the term.

Agreed. I'm old-skool American, as in "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none". Which unfortunately precludes political colonialism.

I realise that for many, this stance renders me quite nutty.

[rote fahne]

the tragedy of trotsky is that he knew it all, but didn't change anything. that's real sad.

[TomViolenz]

Well let's aggree to disagree then.
And I think if the US were a country exporting democracy (they came pretty close to this ideal in Europe after WW II), I would actually welcome that.
"Exporting democracy" has just gotten a bad name, because the US sullied the term.

Agreed. I'm old-skool American, as in "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none". Which unfortunately precludes political colonialism.

I realise that for many, this stance renders me quite nutty.

I'm not sure I would think that bringing democracy necessarily needs to be viewed as colonialism. We Germans of later generations didn't see it this way. On the other hand, when you observe how subservient our government reacts in the moment to US policy, you may have a point...

PS: And I don't find the view nutty just because I don't agree with it, there is sound reasoning that can lead to this opinion.

[TomViolenz]

Why do you insist on constantly quoting that advocate of terrorism? Do you not realise that he is little more than a joke to the good folk here. Even über-socialsit The Finn tsk-tsks at his name. You don't see me quoting Any Rand every two posts, not because I don't agree with her (although I don't), but also because as far as these discussions are concerned, her words bear no weight. You're only hurting your ability to make a persuasive argument. Tsk-fucking-tsk.

I would add to this, that the quote does not even make a good point regarding the topic being discussed. It's just a historical observation. It might be correct (as it was), but it does nothing to show that Fascism is dependent on Socialism existing IMO.

Well he was correct about that, and correct about this....

Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades.
Leon Trotsky
For a Workers’ United Front
Against Fascism
(December 1931)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... 311208.htm

and this...

Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!
same source

and this...

The mistakes of the German Communist Party on the question of the plebiscite are among those which will become clearer as time passes, and will finally enter into the textbooks of revolutionary strategy as an example of what should not be done.

Leon Trotsky
Against National Communism!
(Lessons of the “Red Referendum”)
(August 1931)

and this...

What Is Concealed Behind Hitler’s Stratagem?

His calculations are quite simple and obvious: he wants to lull his antagonists with the long-run perspective of the parliamentary growth of the Nazis in order to catch them napping and to deal them a deathblow at the right moment

same source

and this

"It is possible to imagine without difficulty what awaits the Jews at the mere outbreak of the future world war. But even without war the next development of world reaction signifies with certainty the physical extermination of the Jews
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... jewish.htm ."

He was right about the fascists, right about the destruction of the organisations of the German working class, right about the war, right about the holocaust. Just like he had been right about the Russian revolution and Stalinism.

When someone is right about the most important events of the 20th century, in advance, when everyone else gets everything tragically wrong, at a cost of tens and indeed hundreds of millions of lives, only the ignorant or the stupid ignore and dismiss him.

None of your quotes shows it's necessary for Socialism to exist in order for Fascism to exist.
But I stop this thread of discussion for me. I made my points clear. You want to talk about the past, because you are invested so much into its ideologies, while the world right now is edging ever closer to Fascism; that's your decision. For me it's totally irrelevant.
Anybody else willing to discuss the rise of Fascism in the world TODAY is very welcome to present their arguments

[H20nly]

When someone is right about the most important events of the 20th century, in advance, when everyone else gets everything tragically wrong, at a cost of tens and indeed hundreds of millions of lives, only the ignorant or the stupid ignore and dismiss him.

"i know, right?"

[scott nathaniel]

None of your quotes shows it's necessary for Socialism to exist in order for Fascism to exist.

Socialism does have to 'exist' for Fascism to 'exist' in the sense that the 'bogeyman' has to 'exist' in order to justify one looking under the bed each night. Without a bogeyman, any attempt at coercing a political system upon a population will fail.

[TomViolenz]

None of your quotes shows it's necessary for Socialism to exist in order for Fascism to exist.

Socialism does have to 'exist' for Fascism to 'exist' in the sense that the 'bogeyman' has to 'exist' in order to justify one looking under the bed each night. Without a bogeyman, any attempt at coercing a political system upon a population will fail.

Well in todays world terrorism and the scary Muslims seem to do nicely, don't you think?!

[H20nly]

it's not working on me. i'm not afraid of Islam or Muslims.

i'm going to need something more terrifying.

[scott nathaniel]

None of your quotes shows it's necessary for Socialism to exist in order for Fascism to exist.

Socialism does have to 'exist' for Fascism to 'exist' in the sense that the 'bogeyman' has to 'exist' in order to justify one looking under the bed each night. Without a bogeyman, any attempt at coercing a political system upon a population will fail.

Well in todays world terrorism and the scary Muslims seem to do nicely, don't you think?!

That is my point. Every system has its bogeyman. And it doesn't matter how 'real' that bogeyman might be; all that matters is the insinuation. And it doesn't mean the bogeyman isn't real. The bogeyman is always real for someone.

[TomViolenz]

That is my point. Every system has its bogeyman. And it doesn't matter how 'real' that bogeyman might be; all that matters is the insinuation. And it doesn't mean the bogeyman isn't real. The bogeyman is always real for someone.

And my point is, that every oppressive system just needs a bogeyman.
If it's not Socialism, Fascism can go just as well with Muslims and terrorists.
The sad and ingeneous thing about the Terrorists is that they are no cedible thread at all, but our comfortable middle class asses in the west have become so easily frightend that a few guys with carpet knifes make us give away all our civil rights just to be "protected" from them. (Hint: You can't ever protect yourself from determined people commiting random act of violence (Definition of terror))
The ingenious part is (for the rulers of course), if you can't win against it, you will never have to stop fighting it and since with terrorist acts everybody is basically a suspect (but it always appears it's everybody else than me), you gain permission from the population to treat everyone like one.
Big brother in this case doesn't have to invent a new enemy like East Asia every few month anymore, he doesn't need to train all his propaganda on covincing everyone that they have been at war with East Asia since eternity, he just needs to say everthing we do is to protect you, but you can't know about what and how we do it.
If there is no new attack?! Great that's Big Brother working for you, if there is one: We need to curtail your rights even more because TERROR!!!.

[H20nly]

i just want to chime in on behalf of the millions of people he wanted to be murdered in the western hemisphere and say:

"fuck myrnova"


that is all.

[H20nly]