CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[Huayna Capac357]

There is more inequality in Djibouti. Rich people live in Djibouti too. People in Djibouti, particularly in the city, see prosperity and good life just like people in Detroit. But the cycle of crime hasn't begun.

I get that, but I'd like to know what your opinion is. On the source of crime.

 

[Quackers]

When people start saying "Marxism never happend" and all that I turn off.

 

[RedRalph]

When people start saying "Marxism never happend" and all that I turn off.

Evidently you turn off before that, because no one has ever claimed 'Marxism' never happened.

 

[Quackers]

Cheezy Wiz has said it. I'm sure Huyana Capac thinks it. Anyway nothing to do with you yer IRSH MICK

 

[RedRalph]

Cheezy Wiz has said it. I'm sure Huyana Capac thinks it. Anyway nothing to do with you yer IRSH MICK

Neither of them has said that.

At least get yer quasi-slurs right, Micks are from the North, I'm a Paddy.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Cheezy Wiz has said it. I'm sure Huyana Capac thinks it. Anyway nothing to do with you yer IRSH MICK

Yes, I'm a mindless automaton that believes whatever Cheezy says...

 

[Quackers]

Neither of them has said that.

At least get yer quasi-slurs right, Micks are from the North, I'm a Paddy.

Plastic Paddy more like. If you were a real paddy you'd be to drunk too post on a forum.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Have you been reading this book Quacks?

 

[Quackers]

Have you been reading this book Quacks?

No.

 

[RedRalph]

Plastic Paddy more like. If you were a real paddy you'd be to drunk too post on a forum.

Again, you don't seem clear on your slurs. A plastic Paddy is an American with a dubious claim to Irish heritage...

 

[Merkinball]

I get that, but I'd like to know what your opinion is. On the source of crime.

Culture, how people view one another, and world view. Djibouti is a place where your elders are respected, education is valued, family is paramount necessary, cooperation is paramount and necessary. There is a genuine necessity for togetherness and understanding of it as well. People respect one another, they are taught from a very young age that violence is not an answer, no matter how inequal people are. People are taught from a young age that you should always give to people who are worse off than you on Thursdays. Children are taught that procreating before you are marrying is a bad decision. Girls are taught that marrying a guy that can't support a family is a bad decision.

It's basically the complete and total opposite of the culture, how people view one another, and the world view of America's urban poor, regardless of color. There are few differences between the rural poor and the urban poor, and that alone is how people view another and cooperate. There is much more cooperation and togetherness among rednecks than there is amongst inner city gangsters.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

So you'd say better education would help?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cheezy Wiz has said it.

I did? Interesting...

I'm sure Huyana Capac thinks it.

Based on what evidence? Cause he's an evil commie bastard?

Anyway nothing to do with you yer IRSH MICK

Racial slurs are no way to convince people of your position.

 

[Traitorfish]

At least get yer quasi-slurs right, Micks are from the North, I'm a Paddy.

I thought "Mick" just mean people of Irish Catholic descent in general, not particularly Northerners. Is that a particularly Irish thing, or am I just a bit confused about that?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Yeah, I'm sure Hitler tried to implement 'socialism' too.



How do you measure this "success"? In terms of trillions of dollars of bailout funds? In terms of persistent widespread poverty?



Wait. Where's my cue to laugh? Oh, I guess it's now - ho ho ho!

Now that it's out of the way, let me just say that I pity the square thinking that marks most bourgeois intellectuals. All you talk about is systems, as if everything falls neatly into different categories.

Here's some news that's not exactly news by now: the Soviet and Chinese systems were/are but forms of state capitalism, meant to fast-track both countries to an industrialised stage. But it seems some of you know that already. And, certainly, there are deep rooted problems with their philosophies and methods. But while you of the old world are content to argue endlessly about one system versus another, we talk about a living struggle. Socialism is struggle.

We are talking about justice as struggle. Read that, liberals.

Umm... how is that even remotely a reply to my first paragraph?

At your second response, well, no doubt that Capitalism, or the closest approximations of it man has achieved, has not been without its troubles. However the benefits of Capitalism have outweighed the perceived negatives.

If I were to accept the State Capitalism thesis that you put forward, then those countries would still be socialist, because they are trying to achieve an environment in which socialism can thrive or at the very least survive.

As to the rest of your last paragraph, well, the flaws and potential pratfalls for your definition of socialism are quite apparent to even the semi-educated.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Only anarchists and a few wacko Trots use that term.

I know, but I thought it would be funny

By your use of Wacko, I guess that you are in fact a Trotskyist?

 

[Gustave5436]

Soviet Union is capitalist?

State capitalist. "Capitalism" is a system wherein there are two classes: the propertied class, and the property-less producing class. In the Soviet Union, the propertied class was the State bureaucracy, whilst the disenfranchised laboring class was everyone else.

Only anarchists and a few wacko Trots use that term.

"Wacko Trot" is redundant.

Anyway, Trotsky referred to the USSR as a "degenerate workers' state." Since he had played such a big role in its formation (being responsible for Red war crimes etc.), it would have made him look bad to say that it was authoritarian/capitalist from the beginning.

The problem is that we haven't used milk yet. For the umpteenth time, it must begin in an industrialized, capitalist nation. That is why I keep saying that we've never tried socialism before. Its like you don't even read what I write! When Stalin thought he could create socialism in a non-industrialized nation by rushing through capitalist industrialization and expected to get similar results to having actually gone through the capitalist phase, he was wrong.

This is absolutely false. Free soviets sprouted up across Russia following the overthrow of the Czar, most of these in rural areas. The only reason these soviets failed to thrive in the long-term is because the so-called "Soviet Union" sent in the troops to crush these aforementioned free soviets, and institute their centralized bureaucracy (i.e. dictatorship over the proletariat) instead.

1) Russian revolution founded the Soviet Union - the Soviet Union collapsed. Isn't that the most damning indictment of a system of Government ever, it can't even sustain itself. Commuism is shown to be evil and it was defeated.

Republican government collapsed 4 times in France (3 if you don't count the transition from the pre-WWII to the post-WWII government). Therefore, the idea of the liberal republic must be four times as bad as the idea of Bolshevist dictatorship.

Not that I have any love for Bolshevist dictatorship, just that your logic is absolutely silly.

Why did this turn from a fascism thread into a marxism/socialism/who the hell even knows thread?

Because everyone hates fascists, but there are a few Marxists and libertarian socialists on the board who can argue with each other and the various ignorant capitalists.

 

[Quackers]

Republican government collapsed 4 times in France (3 if you don't count the transition from the pre-WWII to the post-WWII government). Therefore, the idea of the liberal republic must be four times as bad as the idea of Bolshevist dictatorship.

Not that I have any love for Bolshevist dictatorship, just that your logic is absolutely silly.

I wouldn't say that the Russians tried another Soviet Union when it collapsed. The French system didn't collapse it just did the old Thomas Jefferson of generational revolution

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Well, in the beginning, the USSR had real promise as at least a more egalitarian state.

Lenin, except of course for the Cheka, was a pretty good leader.

So I was argue that it was a workers' state in its earliest days. And then Stalin came along.

Not that I believe Trotsky would have been much different.

 

[aelf]

Umm... how is that even remotely a reply to my first paragraph?

It is, because those who understand socialism wouldn't make ridiculous claims that are comparable to saying that Hitler tried to implement socialism because his party was called National Socialist.

At your second response, well, no doubt that Capitalism, or the closest approximations of it man has achieved, has not been without its troubles. However the benefits of Capitalism have outweighed the perceived negative.

So what are these "benefits of Capitalism" that outweigh its "perceived" (as if they don't really exist, but merely perceived) negatives? If you mean benefits of industrialisation, surely you don't think that capitalism has a monopoly on that, do you?

If I were to accept the State Capitalism thesis that you put forward, then those countries would still be socialist, because they are trying to achieve an environment in which socialism can thrive or at the very least survive.

I'm still trying to make sense of this.

If you were fighting wars to bring peace for all time, would you call yourself a pacifist?

As to the rest of your last paragraph, well, the flaws and potential pratfalls for your definition of socialism are quite apparent to even the semi-educated.

Enlighten me, then. As far as I can see (perhaps I'm not even semi-educated), I'm not the one who is insisting on a penis-size competition between monolithic systems, pretending that such things exist. You were talking about flaws and "potential pratfalls"?