[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[aelf]

They didn't get here, the allies ended their ambitions - are you saying the allies weren't defending themselves?

Almost sounds like pre-emptive action.

Have you read anything I've posted so far? I can't tell if you're being serious here. Do you willingly misunderstand stuff or does it come naturally?

I thought about writing a serious reply but I don't know if this comment requires one

I read your response and gave mine - yes, seriously. It's up to you whether you want to look like you have nothing to follow up with.

 

[Hehehe]

I don't think the historical evidence for nazis not causing trouble is very strong.

But Adolf Hitler wasn't real Nazism. Real Nazism has never been tried (for some reason communists seem to think that this is a valid argument when defending a genocidal ideology)

 

[luiz]

Maoists also are always shut down when they try to organize. The only mainstream organization in American history that ever espoused Maoism was the Black Panther Party, which the government took extensive actions to destroy, even naming it the worst domestic terrorist threat while the KKK (a white supremacist organization) was actively lynching American citizens.

There's a funny pattern there, eh? All this talk about declaring Antifa a terrorist organization (even though they aren't an organization) while white supremacists are active across the country and are openly supported by the police, by media, and by the government.

The FBI and federal government in general were also instrumental in bringing down the kkk and other white supremacist groups.

But you're missing the bigger picture here. It's true that historically many far-left groups have had their free speech rights restricted. Which is why historically the left has favored free speech in the US. And it has gotten it - extremist speech is heavily protected in the US nowadays, including far left speech, whether you admit it or not. If you really do roll back these speech protections to go after a few hundred Nazis, you might regret it later.

 

[Hehehe]

I read your response and gave mine - yes, seriously. It's up to you whether you want to look like you have nothing follow up with.

I've said this in this thread over and over again. Words are not violence. Violence is violence. Nazi Germany was engaging in violence. I've never been 100% pacifist, I do approve violence in legitimate self-defence or defence of others

 

[inthesomeday]

But Adolf Hitler wasn't real Nazism. Real Nazism has never been tried (for some reason communists seem to think that this is a valid argument when defending a genocidal ideology)

The difference being that Communism is very specifically designed as stateless and every "Communist" society so far has been a state full of economic autocrats who had crony policies and were actually state capitalists. Meanwhile genocide is fundamental to the ideology of Nazism. Do you really not see a difference between the two ideologies? If so you should read some books, if you can. Not my responsibility to educate you when you have the resources all around you.

Edit: @luiz

How many times do I have to say that I will not ever regret restricting Nazi free speech? "The same arguments will be used against you" they have and will. And I don't even really argue for restricting their speech, moreso for accepting the morality of the expected responses.

Talk ---- get hit. If that ---- is genocidal racism, expect to get hit hard.

 

[Hehehe]

The difference being that Communism is very specifically designed as stateless and every "Communist" society so far has been a state full of economic autocrats who had crony policies and were actually state capitalists. Meanwhile genocide is fundamental to the ideology of Nazism. Do you really not see a difference between the two ideologies? If so you should read some books, if you can. Not my responsibility to educate you when you have the resources all around you.

I can only judge these ideologies based on the reality which they have produced. Namely the deaths of millions and millions of people. I can't judge communism based on your imaginary utopias because they only exist in your head. But from what I've seen and heard from you, I have no reason to think that your system would be much better than any of the historical communist regimes

 

[luiz]

Edit: @luiz

How many times do I have to say that I will not ever regret restricting Nazi free speech? "The same arguments will be used against you" they have and will. And I don't even really argue for restricting their speech, moreso for accepting the morality of the expected responses.

Talk ---- get hit. If that ---- is genocidal racism, expect to get hit hard.

Who gave you the authority to hit anyone, though? You seem to have a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

 

[warpus]

Maoists also are always shut down when they try to organize.

I really doubt that every Maoist group who tries to hold a rally always gets shut down. Maoism isn't inherently hateful or racist. Yeah, if the cops know that your group is, then yeah.. but if a bunch of moderate Maoists got together and tried to hold a rally, why would they get stopped?

I'm fine with that, but if hate speech laws are applied consistently, some SJWs will get in trouble too. Like that BLM leader from Toronto that was discussed on CFC some time ago.

At the end of the day Nazis in the US right now don't really represent a threat. If they did, things would be different. Same with communists or other violent groups.

BLM Canada are jerks but what can you do, technically white people are the majority in Canada and have never been persecuted here, so hate speech laws probably don't apply. Or maybe they do, I dunno. We don't quite know what to do with BLM up here tbh. The worst they do is block Pride parades, and the Pride movement seems to like BLM, so all in all nobody seems to care enough to do anything about it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've said this in this thread over and over again. Words are not violence. Violence is violence. Nazi Germany was engaging in violence. I've never been 100% pacifist, I do approve violence in legitimate self-defence or defence of others

I think what we need to work on here is your definition of "violence." A marching mob of angry men carrying weapons and torches is not "words." It has people concerned for their safety, and rightly so. It has people concerned for whether their homes will be set afire, and rightly so. To say "well, they haven't hurt anyone yet and haven't started any fires yet" in support of condemning people who stand up to them is, in my opinion, just flat wrong. I see no reason to ignore their obvious threat.

Who gave you the authority to hit anyone, though? You seem to have a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

And yet so much less inflated than yours.

 

[Hehehe]

I think what we need to work on here is your definition of "violence." A marching mob of angry men carrying weapons and torches is not "words." It has people concerned for their safety, and rightly so. It has people concerned for whether their homes will be set afire, and rightly so. To say "well, they haven't hurt anyone yet and haven't started any fires yet" in support of condemning people who stand up to them is, in my opinion, just flat wrong. I see no reason to ignore their obvious threat.

Personally, I don't want the kind of gun legislation here like the US has. But aside from that, sure, I don't agree with the mob, but I think we should let them march. I don't know how the system works in the US, but here they need a permit to hold a rally, and the police will cover it to make sure that they won't hurt anyone

 

[inthesomeday]

I can only judge these ideologies based on the reality which they have produced. Namely the deaths of millions and millions of people. I can't judge communism based on your imaginary utopias because they only exist in your head. But from what I've seen and heard from you, I have no reason to think that your system would be much better than any of the historical communist regimes

But when the actual systems that cause that reality are so utterly far removed from the essence of the ideology in question, can you even realistically make a connection to the ideology? The only real connection is that the people that did horrible things like force industrialization on a pre-industrial society and put Jewish people and homosexuals in labor camps liked to call themselves Communists. And I mean I understand that can be confusing but the Nazis called themselves socialists and everyone knows the party was purged of socialists in the 20s. Pretty similar story in the Soviet Union, believe it or not...

Who gave you the authority to hit anyone, though? You seem to have a rather inflated sense of self-importance.

Who gave that authority to the government? Or the military? If you say "why the people did of course" you have a very naive and misguided understanding of the workings of the US political system.

 

[Hehehe]

But when the actual systems that cause that reality are so utterly far removed from the essence of the ideology in question, can you even realistically make a connection to the ideology? The only real connection is that the people that did horrible things like force industrialization on a pre-industrial society and put Jewish people and homosexuals in labor camps liked to call themselves Communists. And I mean I understand that can be confusing but the Nazis called themselves socialists and everyone knows the party was purged of socialists in the 20s. Pretty similar story in the Soviet Union, believe it or not...

Really? It seems to me like massive economic incompetency and removal of basic human rights have always been core parts of communism, and from what I've gathered from your posts, these seem to be the cornerstone of your ideology too

 

[luiz]

Who gave that authority to the government? Or the military? If you say "why the people did of course" you have a very naive and misguided understanding of the workings of the US political system.

Millions of voters gave them that authority... Independent courts uphold that authority, which is subject to checks and balances.

How about you? How many votes did you receive? How many people have given you consent to represent them?

Look, you read some radical literature and now you think you're very enlightened and sage and we're all naive. I dare guess I'm substantially older than you, as are most people here. We have all read your radical literature. I dare say I've seen more of the world than you, the ugly and beautiful parts alike. As did many others here. If we don't agree with you, it's not because we're naive and not exposed to the truth of the world, it's because we found the literature unconvincing. Left-wing radicalism is dumb, just like right-wing radicalism. If you're smart, you'll outgrow it eventually.

 

[Hehehe]

Left-wing radicalism is dumb, just like right-wing radicalism

Radical centrism is the way to go

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Personally, I don't want the kind of gun legislation here like the US has. But aside from that, sure, I don't agree with the mob, but I think we should let them march. I don't know how the system works in the US, but here they need a permit to hold a rally, and the police will cover it to make sure that they won't hurt anyone

The question remains. Speech, fine. March, fine. Violence, no. But where does intimidation fit in? As the Nazis were marching around town with their torches chanting out their hatred people gathered on the steps of their synagogue expecting to have to protect it. Neighbors came out to join them, because they also thought it might be necessary. Does this "right to free speech" overmatch people's right to feel safe from assault? Keeping in mind that the marchers descended on the town from across a large region specifically to produce an intimidating presence...in a town that had done nothing to indicate that they were interested in any suppression of free speech in the first place. The local organizer had freely expressed his opinion many times. His only real complaint was that the rest of the people in the town had ignored him.

This event was never about free speech. It was about a white supremacist trying to use intimidating out of town support to get his way against the will of the majority.

 

[Yeekim]

The difference being that Communism is very specifically designed as stateless and every "Communist" society so far has been a state full of economic autocrats who had crony policies and were actually state capitalists. Meanwhile genocide is fundamental to the ideology of Nazism. Do you really not see a difference between the two ideologies?

Marx, who after all though of himself as practical-minded guy, provided an explicit "roadmap" about how this statelessness should be achieved.
This included a state of "a dictatorship of proletariat" that would also complete the task of physically eliminating bourgeoisie through "revolutionary terror".
Lenin, Stalin et al followed Marx's teachings to the letter. The problem was that Marx's roadmap obviously didn't lead where it was supposed to lead.
Fortunately. Because I doubt many would wish to live in the hive-mind Marx pictured as his utopia.

 

[inthesomeday]

Really? It seems to me like massive economic incompetency and removal of basic human rights have always been core parts of communism, and from what I've gathered from your posts, these seem to be the cornerstone of your ideology too

What basic human rights does the communist ideology advocate the removal of?

Millions of voters gave them that authority... Independent courts uphold that authority, which is subject to checks and balances.

The authority of the state existed well before anyone was able to vote on it, on the power of the economic oligarchy that drafted the Constitution. People born under the authority of this state have grown to accept and submit to its power. Does this mean if they were realistically presented the choice between state and statelessness they would choose the state? I reckon not.

How about you? How many votes did you receive? How many people have given you consent to represent them?

If I ran for political office in the tremendously narrow context that the rigid center-right capitalist political establishment of the US allows, with the same corporate puppetry and meaningless buzz phrases as most politicians, I could probably get a pretty good vote percentage. The success of these parties has literally nothing to do with their ideologies, however, it is based in the fact that their masters are the same class who control the media and the courts. I think it's very silly to equate the success of political parties with the popularity of the ideologies they pretend to represent.

Look, you read some radical literature and now you think you're very enlightened and sage and we're all naive. I dare guess I'm substantially older than you, as are most people here. We have all read your radical literature. I dare say I've seen more of the world than you, the ugly and beautiful parts alike. As did many others here. If we don't agree with you, it's not because we're naive and not exposed to the truth of the world, it's because we found the literature unconvincing. Left-wing radicalism is dumb, just like right-wing radicalism. If you're smart, you'll outgrow it eventually.

Only the oldest person on earth can really maintain this classic ad hominem. Experience may matter, but unless you're 89 you're not older than Noam Chomsky; unless you're 83 you're not older than the Dalai Lama; conversely, unless I'm 65 I'm not older than Don Black, the founder of Stormfront.

Radical centrism is the way to go

Yes and very effective too at changing things

Edit: @Yeekim
I don't really subscribe to Marx's ideology other than as an accurate way to analyze history. In terms of practical application of Communism, I'd prefer Makhnov or Kropotkin. Of course, all of these people lived a long time ago and their practical ideas probably aren't as applicable to modern day life, and Marx himself lived in a different country in a different century than Lenin or Stalin tried to apply his very specific practical concepts about achieving communism.

 

[Berzerker]

Tfw you blame a murder victim

I didn't blame her, you just did... why are you accusing her of attacking free speech?

No. Gosh no.

Someone died because someone preached a meme of superiority, and convinced someone that protestors were an enemy that needed to be defeated.

He wasn't defending free speech. He was attacking an enemy. He was choosing to escalate things, because he viewed the culture war to be an actual war.

It's all gradients on a curve. A person is taught that his view is superior and then is convinced that might makes right. This supremacy then allows them to attack their enemies, and attacking proxies of their enemies as if they were enemies.

I dont know why he drove a car into people, hopefully a trial will learn why. But I do know it happened after armed counter protesters arrived to shut down a protest. I dont know why you think I said he was defending free speech, she died because armed counter protesters didn't want other protesters having their say. She died because some people dont believe in free speech and will resort to violence to suppress it. My position wouldn't change if the ideologies were switched and neo-Nazis attacked a left wing rally.

 

[Yeekim]

Edit: @Yeekim
I don't really subscribe to Marx's ideology

That's nice to hear.

In terms of practical application of Communism, I'd prefer Makhnov or Kropotkin.

You mean Nestor Makhno?
I don't know much about Kropotkin, but based on a quick googling he seems somewhat agreeable.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

cause that reality are so utterly far removed from the essence of the ideology in question, can you even realistically make a connection to the ideology? The only real connection is that the people that did horrible things like force industrialization on a pre-industrial society and put Jewish people and homosexuals in labor camps liked to call themselves Communists. And I mean I understand that can be confusing but the Nazis called themselves socialists and everyone knows the party was purged of socialists in the 20s. Pretty similar story in the Soviet Union, believe it or not...
.[/QUOTE]


You have a strange opinion about communism and the realities of life in the USSR. (At least for me, as for a man born in the USSR.)


1. in the USSR there was no state anti-Semitism. Throughout history in the USSR, a Jew could hold any public office.


2. In the USSR, people were not persecuted on racial or national grounds. All the people in the Soviet Union were equal. In the US, there was no such equality and it will not be for a long time. A person of any nationality could take any position, any social niche.


3.Concerning communism. The building of communism was planned in stages.

The first stage is the transition from capitalism to state capitalism. All means of production (factories, plants, etc.) are transferred to state ownership. The goal is to strengthen the economic, political, military might of the state. This is the epoch of Stalin.

The second stage is the transition from state capitalism to socialism. At the same time it was necessary to satisfy human needs. (To provide all housing, items was, etc.) This began Khrushchev, but made a number of mistakes, continued Brezhnev.

The third stage is the transition from socialism to communism. At this stage, they had to give up private property and money. Because the need for them would have disappeared. This stage was not achieved, so it is not clear what kind of communism everyone is arguing about.

Trotsky proposed to achieve everything at once. For which he was hit with an ice ax on the head.

There were also anarchists, they wanted to refuse not only private property and money, but also from the government, the army and the police (as from instruments of violence). They were also unlucky, they could not win in the USSR.


Most of those convicted in the USSR in the 1920s were convicted of banditry. They were criminals. Some of the repressed were convicted for actions aimed at overthrowing the state system. But for this punish in all countries. For the "wrong" nationality, they did not put him in jail.

***

Confused by double standards. When in Ukraine the Nazis killed policemen - it was declared a "revolution of dignity", and the Nazis - "peaceful demonstrators". Now in the US, monuments are being destroyed and people are being beaten.