Fascism debate because I'm bored - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15027989
SolarCross wrote:Who? Nigel Farage? Boris Johnson? Rees-Mogg? Are you so insane that you have no idea how insane that sounds?


Idk any of those names. I do know that the a conservative party of Italy is run by the descendants of Mussolini who believe that Mussolini did nothing wrong.
#15029521
anasawad wrote:It doesn't.
A revolution against a state is not the same thing as a victim of abuse standing up to her abuser.
Nowhere near the same.


I repeat what I said:

The argument here is that letting individuals kill whoever they want is a government.

Thus, comparing an individual or a group of individuals fighting against their oppression by another group of individuals to an abused victim fighting against their abuser is perfectly valid.
#15029828
@Palmyrene
It's not.
The minute you turn the argument from an individual to a group or collective in general, then it becomes a proto-state.
When a group wants to fight against another group that is highly organized, then that group needs to organize as well, which makes it a proto-state; Once it takes power, it becomes a state in the place of that it replaced.
#15029829
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
It's not.
The minute you turn the argument from an individual to a group or collective in general, then it becomes a proto-state.


How? That makes no sense.

When a group want to fight against another group that is highly organized, then that group needs to organize as well, which makes it a proto-state; Once it takes power, it becomes a state in the place of that it replaced.


Well not really because raiders aren't really organized and a high level of organization isn't a "proto-state" unless you define organization as "hierarchy" in which case it's rather irrelevant.
#15029832
@Palmyrene
How? That makes no sense.

It makes full sense.
A collective is organized, and a state, at its foundation, is an organized collective.

Well not really because raiders aren't really organized and a high level of organization isn't a "proto-state" unless you define organization as "hierarchy" in which case it's rather irrelevant.

1- A revolution doesn't hold with just raiders, if raiders are all there is, then those get killed off sooner or later and as such irrelevant.

2-All organized collectives, i.e organizations, have hierarchies, otherwise, they're not organized.
A leaderless uprising never achieves anything.
#15029834
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
It makes full sense.
A collective is organized, and a state, at its foundation, is an organized collective.


That's not what a state is. A state is a series of nested hierarchies which isn't a collective. In hierarchy, the lower levels sacrifice themselves for the higher levels. Those below them are expendable.

1- A revolution doesn't hold with just raiders, if raiders are all there is, then those get killed off sooner or later and as such irrelevant.


Never said it was viable just that it points out that your definition isn't good.

2-All organized collectives, i.e organizations, have hierarchies, otherwise, they're not organized.
A leaderless uprising never achieves anything.


No not all organized collectives. Honestly, Bakunin is rolling in his grave.

All uprisings are leaderless, it's just that some groups try to take control of the revolution.

The Bolsheviks for example were completely taken aback by how quickly the Russian Revolution went and they struggled to stay relevant; a leaderless revolution was so successful that the Bolsheviks were struggling to keep up!
#15029838
That's not what a state is. A state is a series of nested hierarchies which isn't a collective. In hierarchy, the lower levels sacrifice themselves for the higher levels. Those below them are expendable.

Great, here we go with the retardation.


No not all organized collectives. Honestly, Bakunin is rolling in his grave.

If he believes that not all collectives are organized, then he should be because he's an idiot.

All uprisings are leaderless, it's just that some groups try to take control of the revolution.

And no leaderless uprising ever achieves anything, ever.

The Bolsheviks for example were completely taken aback by how quickly the Russian Revolution went and they struggled to stay relevant; a leaderless revolution was so successful that the Bolsheviks were struggling to keep up!

The Bolshevik revolution had leaders and organizers, far before the revolution even began.


Anyways.
#15029843
anasawad wrote:Great, here we go with the retardation.


Wow getting salty real early are you now?

If he believes that not all collectives are organized, then he should be because he's an idiot.


He doesn't. He just doesn't think they need to hierarchial or that they can be hierarchial. You can't have a collective and have a hierarchies. According to Bakunin, hierarchies are literally the principal of selfishness (although egoists will disagree). This is most obvious in economic hierarchy but can still be seen in political hierarchy.

And no leaderless uprising ever achieves anything, ever.


They do. They just get coopted by other groups.

The Bolshevik revolution had leaders and organizers, far before the revolution even began.


There was no "Bolshevik revolution". There was a Bolshevik faction but the Bolesheviks weren't responsible for starting the revolution.

The Russian people started the revolution and kept on self organizing and doing their own activities. They drove the revolution, the Bolsheviks just took them over.
#15029881
Members are reminded of these rules:

15. Do not deliberately take conversations off-topic. Avoid bringing irrelevant issues into a conversation that will take conversation away from the topic addressed by the opening post.

16.You are prohibited from publicly arguing and/or questioning the Forum Rules, T.o.S and General Policies.

rules

And this policy, from the Newbie Guide:

Once upon a time in a forum far away, we came up with the maxim "One line. One bullet." That pretty much sums up our feeling about one line posts. For those blissfully uninitiated, a one-liner is a post that conveys NO ACTUAL relevance to the topic at hand. It is usually short, useless, and often contains random profanity.
...
As this is a forum for adults (or at very least mature individuals) to discuss politics; immature, one-line posts will not be tolerated! Don't be surprised if any of yours disappear. Chances are if you think it's a crappy one-liner, it probably is. Might want to stop before you click that "submit" button and rethink it. Most particularly in forums in the Issues and Ideologies sections

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=357

Do not go into off-topic arguments about "who is a bot", or about who is "mentally ill".
#15029918
You pass but only with a D(edited)

If you paid any attention at all, youd had noticed it was exactly on topic the whole time. While most theist cant even manage to log on a computer at all, isis runs bota all day long with the help of theie recently fired anylists who're hopelessly addicted to isis's heroin.
#15033156
"Authority breeds stupidity."

Plato wasn't stupid and he hated democracy, he thought that we should be governed basically by know it alls.

"Democracy leads to anarchy; which is mob rule"

I'd say authoritarianism breeds supremacism more than anything else, which is IMHO immoral.

I might be getting mixed up here, but the Bakuninist arguments for anarchism are a bit skewey cos the guy argued for organising in secret (one can argue that the conditions in europe at the time, forced such) and a so called invisible dictatorship.

The examples of anarchist societies, while interesting, certainly didn't pass muster IE Makhnovishchina were responsible for indiscriminate killings, and there were questionable actions committed by Durrutti's anarchists in 30s Spain - and I've read the Orwell book too.

That said, as with all ideologies left and right - even the worst right wing ones - we can absolutely learn from them and take lessons in both what to do, and what not to do. And capitalism isn't exactly doing the job right now either is it, let's face it. Nor has it ever been the great solution to all our problems that it's been trumpeted as.
Trump, Oh my god !

I am only a near genius. :lol: I am a genius. It[…]

Election 2020

True, but the people would love him, so the estab[…]

I missed the express political angle that it embar[…]

Bolton is fired

Yes, I think it might be good to remember who MADE[…]