I'll just stereotype away and assume you posted this in response to my post:Galt wrote:
#johnwilkesboothisanationalhero
1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.TomViolenz wrote:I'll just stereotype away and assume you posted this in response to my post:Galt wrote:
#johnwilkesboothisanationalhero
1: How did he enslave the whole union (honestly I don't even know what you are refering to)
2: Does this "enslavement" you are talking about in any way make the quote I posted less true or less important?
It all probably sounds very convincing in your head, but it does not to your readers. It's all just rehashed conjecture to me. In addition you talk down to me, like you imagine yourself sitting on a high horse (hint: you are not). I will not engage in a serious discussion with people, who can not conform to social convention enough, to treat the others opinion with respect.Funk N. Furter wrote:Yes, but I have already posted plenty on the subject. You have just ignored it, so what's the point? I would just be repeating myself. Also, you have been very rude at times for no reason, which further diminishes any motivation for me to engage with you.TomViolenz wrote:
I had posted a quite snarky response to your post last night, Abletons system seems to have swallowed it. I'm glad it did. I don't want to communicate on this level, not even with you.
But: Why don't you try to rescue the reputation as a political thinker that you seem to have of yourself, by addressing what it is I'm mistaken on, where my ignorance lies and point to some facts, or at least well thought out opinions, that may make me reconsider?! This one liner just furthers insignificant forum wars. Something you often complain about.
If you want my frank opinion, as an experienced Marxist, trained by the best Marxist organisation in the world, your posts rate about 1/10 for political awareness.
I have explained to Myra over and over that he is wrong to throw words like 'fascism' and 'military dictatorship' around. Anybody who knows anything about politics would dismiss this as utter nonsense.
To make things even worse you join in, yet say that "the whole socialist capitalist crap discussion here is totally irrelevant", which makes any discussion with you impossible. 'Socialist capitalist discussion' is as relevant as apples are to apple pie. Fascism is a tool of capitalism, used to smash socialism. And what the hell is 'global fascism' supposed to be? Fascism is extreme nationalism. You talk about 'democracies' as if they are something concrete like shoes. 'Democracies don't do stuff like this' - what democracies don't do it? You mean something real or a concept? What you mean is 'democracies shouldn't do stuff like this'. I have already told you that a bourgeois democracy can also be called a bourgeois dictatorship. These definitions have been thrashed out over 150 years by the greatest political minds that ever existed. A democracy can be a dictatorship, I have already spelled out why it is accurate to use these two seemingly contradictory terms. No need to make up your own definition.
1: So it's this whole "the socialist world is supressing our right to disenfranchise others" thing, gotcha...Galt wrote: 1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.
2. Not everything is about you.
1. No, it's what I said.TomViolenz wrote:1: So it's this whole "the socialist world is supressing our right to disenfranchise others" thing, gotcha...Galt wrote: 1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.
2. Not everything is about you.
2:
Thank you for a more civil tone.Funk N. Furter wrote:It's not just in my head though is it? It's a huge chunk of the world's population. Karl Marx was voted the greatest thinker of the last 1000 years by BBC viewers. Lenin and Trotsky ran the Russian revolution. It's not conjecture at all. None of it is conjecture. My definition of fascism is an accurate description and analysis of actual fascism. Fascism is the name Mussolini gave to his politics, later adopted by the Nazis. Mussolini wrote the document 'Doctrine of Facism'.http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... solini.htmTomViolenz wrote:It all probably sounds very convincing in your head, but it does not to your readers. It's all just rehashed conjecture to me. In addition you talk down to me, like you imagine yourself sitting on a high horse (hint: you are not). I will not engage in a serious discussion with people, who can not conform to social convention enough, to treat the others opinion with respect.Funk N. Furter wrote:
Yes, but I have already posted plenty on the subject. You have just ignored it, so what's the point? I would just be repeating myself. Also, you have been very rude at times for no reason, which further diminishes any motivation for me to engage with you.
If you want my frank opinion, as an experienced Marxist, trained by the best Marxist organisation in the world, your posts rate about 1/10 for political awareness.
I have explained to Myra over and over that he is wrong to throw words like 'fascism' and 'military dictatorship' around. Anybody who knows anything about politics would dismiss this as utter nonsense.
To make things even worse you join in, yet say that "the whole socialist capitalist crap discussion here is totally irrelevant", which makes any discussion with you impossible. 'Socialist capitalist discussion' is as relevant as apples are to apple pie. Fascism is a tool of capitalism, used to smash socialism. And what the hell is 'global fascism' supposed to be? Fascism is extreme nationalism. You talk about 'democracies' as if they are something concrete like shoes. 'Democracies don't do stuff like this' - what democracies don't do it? You mean something real or a concept? What you mean is 'democracies shouldn't do stuff like this'. I have already told you that a bourgeois democracy can also be called a bourgeois dictatorship. These definitions have been thrashed out over 150 years by the greatest political minds that ever existed. A democracy can be a dictatorship, I have already spelled out why it is accurate to use these two seemingly contradictory terms. No need to make up your own definition.
For a definition of Fascism, I think my post quoting myrnovas picture is a pretty good guide. No socialist antagonist necessary to form it.
Here in this short document you will see that his central attack is against socialism, for example:
"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism..."
It is not conjecture that the Nazis were funded by big business, both German and American.
Trotkys writings during the rise of the Nazis can all be read here
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/
Trotsky was the greatest writer on the subject. He warned of the dangers years ahead, when the Nazis were still small. For example in 1931 he wrote:
"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."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... 310825.htm
Again in 1931:
"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."
"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!"
Now it might have been conjecture in 1931, but he was proved horribly right, wasn't he? Now it's a fact that the first thing the Nazis did was to crush the German workers movement. By May 1933 they had their leaders in concentration camps.
There are no concentration camps for workers leaders in America.
Don't talk to me about respect. You're the one who said that Myyrnova and I are "both are annoying as hell and that every thread in the Lounge sooner, rather than later starts to be about them. Attention seekers that they are".
But I'm not interested in discussing that. I'm interested, maybe, in discussing your statements about 'global fascism' and so on. If I talk down to you, it's simply because I have 30 years experience with the best Marxist tendency in the world, and you are writing like a 15 year old boy who just discovered the internet.
Tell you what, you show me how fascism, an extreme form of nationalism, could be global.
You explain to me why you want to use the same term that historians use for the Nazis for America. America was fighting the fascists up to 1945. At what point did it become fascist itself? How come nobody else thinks that America is fascist, or a military dictatorship, or both, as you do?
Why are socialism and capitalism irrelevant? Fascism was a tool used by the capitalists to smash socialism, so why are they irrelevant?
You've had ample time throughout this thread to debate these issues, but you don't do you? Instead you prefer a blanket statement that avoids the actual debate.
But you are aware of the fact that a right of secession does not exist in any nation state? One could even say it is a defining element of one to not have it.Galt wrote:1. No, it's what I said.TomViolenz wrote:1: So it's this whole "the socialist world is supressing our right to disenfranchise others" thing, gotcha...Galt wrote: 1. Revoked the individual states' right to secession.
2. Not everything is about you.
2:
It does really not matter. You are now simply a stranger on the internet that I happen to despise. I will not let this cloud my opinion of the discussions taking place here. So please don't let that stop you from responding to the contents of my posts.Funk N. Furter wrote:I have no idea what you are referring to. I treat everyone properly so I assume you either got the wrong end of the stick or imagined something.TomViolenz wrote: because of the way you behaved towards me quite a while ago
nice one. i myself use an action cam, without viewer.earthloop wrote:http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploa ... f-lens.jpg
A. Read more history—the right to sucession was a given until it was actually tested, just as it is currently a given in the EU (I'd be very curious to see what happens when states start dropping out of that union too).TomViolenz wrote:But you are aware of the fact that a right of secession does not exist in any nation state? One could even say it is a defining element of one to not have it.
Further, you know why the limitation of state rights needed to be instituted?! Because they used those state rights to justify Slavery and later segregation.
I don't want to lump you in with the bigots, but when you hear many people advocate for state rights, it is often in the vein of suppressing rights of minorities or illegal immigrants.
I don't think anything in your post refutes my definition. You are implying that only because the first time the Fascist system was implemented it was done in the manner your historic examples describe, that this is the way Fascism should be defined. I disagree. (Just think the thing from the other perspective: Socialism and Comunism were adversary ideologies to Fascism. That doesn't mean those different methods of distributing resources and political power can only exist if Fascism exists first).Funk N. Furter wrote:You were taught wrong then. Hitler got into power by suppressing the workers movement. The last election was not a fair one. Workers parties were not allowed to campaign, and the terror had already started. After 'winning' the 1933 elections, the first thing the Nazis did was to round up the workers leaders and put them in concentration camps. The German workers were crushed. This was the historic role of the Nazis. They were doing the job German capitalism expected of them. This was what the Nazis had promised they would do, in private talks and secret letters to industrialists. German capitalism (and American) placed them in power for this purpose. After 1933, American capitalists increased their investments in Germany by 50%.TomViolenz wrote:
Definition of Fascism:
When I was in school (east germany) we learned of course that Fascism is the great adversary of Socialism, but not that this adversarial role is its defining factor.
You say "but not that this adversarial role is its defining factor" but Mussolini said "After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies..." Are you telling me you know what fascism is better than the man who invented it?
1: the EU is not a nation state (yet?) But how impossible it is made to seccede can be wittnessed with the whole Greece fiasko.Galt wrote:A. Read more history—the right to sucession was a given until it was actually tested, just as it is currently a given in the EU (I'd be very curious to see what happens when states start dropping out of that union too).TomViolenz wrote:But you are aware of the fact that a right of secession does not exist in any nation state? One could even say it is a defining element of one to not have it.
Further, you know why the limitation of state rights needed to be instituted?! Because they used those state rights to justify Slavery and later segregation.
I don't want to lump you in with the bigots, but when you hear many people advocate for state rights, it is often in the vein of suppressing rights of minorities or illegal immigrants.
B. Sure, you believe that people should only be allowed rights so long as they use them 'properly'. Unfortunately for you, this is simply not how rights work.
