Combating Fascism The Peaceful Constructive Way - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15008809
Godstud wrote:I think you need to speak to some of the communists on this forum. It's not the violent ideology that you think it is, and I think that almost none of them call for violence.

That's absolutely not true. Communism is based on revolutions, and no revolution can be done in a peaceful way. I think even Marx said that.
Lenin called for violence more than million times in his books.
In the end, what matters is not what they say, but what they do. And as far as communism and violence, the history is crystal clear.
#15009010
@Godstud

Godstud wrote:Democratic revolutions are bloody too, or have you forgotten the USA and France? :lol:


It seems a lot of revolutions turn into dictatorships too. We could have easily turned into a dictatorship in the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War, it's just that George Washington simply declined to be one. If he wanted to be a dictator though, he could have been one. Things didn't work out that way in France as the French Revolution gave rise to their dictator, Napoleon.
#15009094
Politics_Observer wrote: We could have easily turned into a dictatorship in the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War, it's just that George Washington simply declined to be one.


Apocryphal nonsense.
#15009645
Politics_Observer wrote:@SSDR



Yeah, you definitely sound like a materialist and a communist which I am NO materialist or communist. I can't imagine living under such a system. Capitalism isn't about control so much as it's what works as long as it's governed by rules and regulation to the benefit of society. Humans are inherently selfish to some degree, so it appeals to our nature as humans to get us to work because it provides incentives that socialism can't provide. Sure humans can be selfless, but a more common characteristic of human beings is selfishness, which CAN be healthy so long as it is not taken to an extreme. If anything is taken to an extreme it can of course be unhealthy and bad for everybody. Even when the Soviets ruled Russia and the former Soviet republics capitalism couldn't be crushed because it is a fundamental part of human nature. But capitalism was officially illegal under the Soviet system so the capitalists in the Soviet Union was the mafia and the black market or what is commonly known today as the Russian mafia. So long as human beings exist, so will capitalism. It's never going to go away and it can't be crushed so long as man exists. Plus the Soviet elite (though they were not supposed to exist) had a taste for the finer things in life like anybody does. And who can blame them? And there were plenty of people will to supply it for the right price. Specifically from the mafia and the black market. In addition, socialism or a planned economy is not economically efficient due to a lack of incentives that appeal to our inherent human nature.


I can imagine living under a system where people are in need of cultural slavery to motivate them to work. I live under a society where people need the family institution to motivate them to help others in need. I live under a system where people need religion to motivate them to be good, moral people. And there is no need for me to "imagine" it because it's happening.

There is nothing wrong with being selfish. It depends on what you define as selfish. But in a socialist economy, everyone can full fill their destinies. How come people who moved to the Soviet Union got a free apartment, and a job without any struggles? So they wouldn't have to worry about relying on a family, getting into stressful relationships, or worry about human trafficking. In a pure socialist society, everyone has the ability to be selfish, which is not bad. Viewing that as bad sounds very Christian or religious at least. People use each other in order to survive because of the nature we are in technologically and scientifically. And realizing that people don't need emotional attachments, family stresses, religious rules, nor money/currency in order to motivate to be useful is part of gaining real consciousness.

The Russian Mafia was very evil.

There is no fixed human nature. Humans always evolve. Society always changes, and capitalism didn't always exist (there was feudalism before which was worse).
#15009763
@SSDR

SSDR wrote:There is nothing wrong with being selfish. It depends on what you define as selfish. But in a socialist economy, everyone can full fill their destinies. How come people who moved to the Soviet Union got a free apartment, and a job without any struggles? So they wouldn't have to worry about relying on a family, getting into stressful relationships, or worry about human trafficking. In a pure socialist society, everyone has the ability to be selfish, which is not bad. Viewing that as bad sounds very Christian or religious at least. People use each other in order to survive because of the nature we are in technologically and scientifically. And realizing that people don't need emotional attachments, family stresses, religious rules, nor money/currency in order to motivate to be useful is part of gaining real consciousness.


Yes but what sort of quality of apartments did the citizens in the Soviet Union receive? Were they nice apartments? Or really bad apartments? I mean, I guess it's better than nothing but then you are back to "everybody living equal but in poverty" that I mentioned in some of my initial posts. How much did these jobs pay? What could you get with these jobs? You ended up just waiting in very long bread queues to get something to eat? So what good were those jobs if a lot of goods and services that are available in in capitalist societies aren't available under socialism?

Right now I have a very happy marriage. My wife and I do not have a stressful relationship. She works hard and currently, I work hard as a student utilizing my veterans benefits from my time serving my country. But guess what pays for those veterans benefits? A capitalist society. My wife is able to contribute to our household because of a capitalist society.

Sure, one could argue that veterans benefits are socialism I guess to some degree, but then my country wouldn't be able to afford to pay those benefits without the under-pinnings of a capitalist society and a strong private sector. Selfishness to a degree is not bad. Selfishness take too far IS bad. We see that today in American capitalism where we have too many people living under wage stagnation and in some cases having to pay a higher cost of living due to urban and rural gentrification in some areas. When you have too many living with too little while a few others living with far more too much, selfishness has been taken to an extreme and IS bad. That's why capitalism needs to be regulated to the benefit of all of society without destroying capitalism itself in the process.

I am not a religious person by any means, but moral and ethics are in people who are not religious at all. You can still live a wholesome happy life with good values and not be religious. Good values do not require one to be religious and can be quite useful in living a happy and fulfilling life.

SSDR wrote:
The Russian Mafia was very evil.


Ohh yes, and the Russian mob is an example of selfishness taken too far. There is a healthy form of selfishness where you take care of your own needs without harming others and then their is the more extreme selfishness where you just take from others to the harm of others.

SSDR wrote:There is no fixed human nature. Humans always evolve. Society always changes, and capitalism didn't always exist (there was feudalism before which was worse).


Humans can evolve but can also digress it seems. Humans do seem to have some fixed traits in my opinion. As far as feudalism, I mean how would you define feudalism specifically. I am sure even during the feudalistic times people engaged in trade and commerce which really is captialism. My understanding is that academic scholars do not have an accepted definition of exactly what feudalism is. I quote an article from Ancient History Encyclopedia here:

Mark Cartwright of Ancient History Encyclopedia wrote:Although the term ‘feudalism’ and ‘feudal society’ are commonly used in history texts, scholars have never agreed on precisely what those terms mean.


https://www.ancient.eu/Feudalism/

References-

Cartwright, Mark. "Feudalism." Ancient History Encyclopedia, 22 Nov. 2018, http://www.ancient.eu/Feudalism/. Accessed 4 June 2019.
#15010455
Politics_Observer wrote:@SSDR



Yes but what sort of quality of apartments did the citizens in the Soviet Union receive? Were they nice apartments? Or really bad apartments? I mean, I guess it's better than nothing but then you are back to "everybody living equal but in poverty" that I mentioned in some of my initial posts. How much did these jobs pay? What could you get with these jobs? You ended up just waiting in very long bread queues to get something to eat? So what good were those jobs if a lot of goods and services that are available in in capitalist societies aren't available under socialism?

Right now I have a very happy marriage. My wife and I do not have a stressful relationship. She works hard and currently, I work hard as a student utilizing my veterans benefits from my time serving my country. But guess what pays for those veterans benefits? A capitalist society. My wife is able to contribute to our household because of a capitalist society.

Sure, one could argue that veterans benefits are socialism I guess to some degree, but then my country wouldn't be able to afford to pay those benefits without the under-pinnings of a capitalist society and a strong private sector. Selfishness to a degree is not bad. Selfishness take too far IS bad. We see that today in American capitalism where we have too many people living under wage stagnation and in some cases having to pay a higher cost of living due to urban and rural gentrification in some areas. When you have too many living with too little while a few others living with far more too much, selfishness has been taken to an extreme and IS bad. That's why capitalism needs to be regulated to the benefit of all of society without destroying capitalism itself in the process.

I am not a religious person by any means, but moral and ethics are in people who are not religious at all. You can still live a wholesome happy life with good values and not be religious. Good values do not require one to be religious and can be quite useful in living a happy and fulfilling life.



Ohh yes, and the Russian mob is an example of selfishness taken too far. There is a healthy form of selfishness where you take care of your own needs without harming others and then their is the more extreme selfishness where you just take from others to the harm of others.



Humans can evolve but can also digress it seems. Humans do seem to have some fixed traits in my opinion. As far as feudalism, I mean how would you define feudalism specifically. I am sure even during the feudalistic times people engaged in trade and commerce which really is captialism. My understanding is that academic scholars do not have an accepted definition of exactly what feudalism is. I quote an article from Ancient History Encyclopedia here:



https://www.ancient.eu/Feudalism/

References-

Cartwright, Mark. "Feudalism." Ancient History Encyclopedia, 22 Nov. 2018, http://www.ancient.eu/Feudalism/. Accessed 4 June 2019.


Some of the apartments in the Soviet Union were of lower quality than the apartments in Germany, Sweden, Britain, or Norway. But there are two reasons for this. One, the internal standards of the Soviet Union (Russians, Ukrainians, Turkic people, Georgians, etc.) were different than standards in Sweden or Germany. In general, the people in the Soviet Union were more extroverted, family oriented, and loved noise. Lower standards meant lower quality of material and goods such as apartments. Why were the standards different? Some say it's eugenics, some say it's religion, some say it's culture and standardized social norms. Two, Eastern Europe had always had a lower standard than the First World. The Russian Empire was more poor than the German Empire. The Kingdom of Romania was more poor than the French Republic.

You can believe that the Soviet Union was 'poor' probably because you come from a wealthier, American society where more people are fat, and where cars are bigger. The Soviet Union was not as poor as the previous, CAPITALIST Russian Empire. Titoist Yugoslavia was wealthier than the Kingdom of Serbia. Socialist Poland was wealthier than the pre World War Two Kingdom of Poland. Socialism improved the standards of living for most working class people of Eastern Europe. It was still more poor than the West due to internal standards. If Germany or Sweden were socialist, it would be more wealthy than how things are now in the European Union capitalist dominance.

People were also bigger, fatter, and more healthy with socialism. The average Body Mass Indexes were higher in socialist economies than they were before their socialist economies.

BEFORE SOCIALISM:

Image

DURING SOCIALISM:

Image

Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker, and Wilhelm Pieck were all bigger than Otto Eduard Leopold, Joseph Goebbels, or Edward VIII. Just watch the movies from the 1920's and 1930's, and see how skinnier the people were before socialism. Then watch the movies from the 1950's and after, and see how much bigger people have gotten.

BEFORE SOCIALISM:



DURING SOCIALISM:



Look at how bigger many of the people have gotten.

Your stereotypes of what some of the conditions were like in socialist societies were lies created by American capitalists to make you support American capitalism.

Your second paragraph is giving useless opinionating statements, since it is in a capitalist viewpoint. It's like asking "If there is no currency then how is one going to pay for food?" Nothing is payed for. Everything is free from value and currency since in socialism, it does not exist. Those "veterans' benefits" are economically transcripted in capitalist exchanges since it has to due to what the economy enforces. It's like saying one has to get their capitalist wages to eat. In socialism, economic benefits (welfare or whatever), wages, and the medium of exchange do not exist. Your second paragraph is in a non socialist context.

Your third paragraph is also in a non socialist context. What you said was that capitalism is needed to motivate the majority of the people to work hard to produce the benefits (food, shelter, utility extraction, health care such as emergency medical services, nursing, or medicines, outdoor services such as shoveling snow, etc.) for the disabled people who don't have the abilities to do those activities due to their physical or mental disabilities. You're claiming that private sector enterprises motivate their workers enough to produce those benefits, which in a socialist context, is completely false. In a pure socialist society, where everyone is truly a socialist by the heart, capitalist economics are not needed to motivate the people to PROVIDE those benefits to the disabled people that you are talking about.

The minimum wage not being livable, and the huge gap between the rich and the poor has nothing to do with personal selfishness. In socialism, personal selfishness is allowed more because people are free from wage slavery, money and its corruption that it causes socially (the love of money is the root of all evil), the family institution, religious rule, and slavery. Complaining about the economic gap also has nothing to do with socialism because if the capitalist employers pay their workers the same as themselves (profit sharing, corporate welfare, progressive taxes, etc.), the workers are still ruled, even with labour regulations, because money and the concept of value still exist, and that everything is money driven, keeping the people fake, and socially corrupt. Nazi Germany's gap was far lower (and one of the most equal in the world during the mid 20th century) then the United States was ever, yet Nazi Germany was far from socialism.

Russian mobs are capitalist scumbags who rot society. They're almost as terrible as the Kulaks.

There is no fixed human nature. Societies always change.
#15011093
@SSDR

We obviously don't agree on many many things. I have been to some former communist countries in some years after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe while serving in the US Army and from what I gathered the standard of living wasn't very good under communism. Now, these former communist countries were not the former East Germany mind you, but one only has to look at how many people sought to leave East Germany for West Germany during the Cold War to make a judgement call on whether communism was really a success in East Germany.

You tell a very different story from what I gathered about communism while serving in some of the formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe with the army. Human trafficking was a problem in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of communism but didn't seem the standard of living was all that great under communism in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe. Plus the communists didn't exactly value freedom according to the people I talked with who were citizens of these countries and had to live under the communists.

I came to appreciate the importance and value of American capitalism while serving abroad in these former communist countries. Of course you might not have been around or really remember either when communism was in place in East Germany and Eastern Europe. American capitalism is not perfect but I'll take American capitalism any day over any sort of socialist or communist system.
#15011146
Politics_Observer wrote:So, I am not a communist by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, I think there might be a few things we can learn from the commies. For example, what is fascism and how to fight it. That being said, the commies are not known for being all peace loving hippies who believe in non-violence. The literature on communism I have read is that most communists believe in violent global revolution. So, is there a way for some of us non-violent types to combat fascism in a constructive non-violent way? Do our communist friends on the forum have suggestions on how to combat fascism through constructive non-violent means? I figured you guys might have a few ideas on how to identify fascism and how to fight it constructively without war, violence or violent revolution.


Most fascists were commies:
Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, etc
Fascist "número uno" Mussolini was a socialist.

There is very little difference between fascism and communism.
#15011181
I now live in a city in China which has a shit ton of German companies and hence a lot of Germans.

2 weeks ago I got my ass beat by a German over an argument that started a week earlier with me calling him out on a lot of racist shit he was saying. So I'll just call the guy a literal Nazi.

I was on the losing end, but I was pretty much too drunk to stand. Not an hour before he bought me a glass of whiskey and himself a cup of coffee so it was rather premeditated.

Nevertheless I still think fighting fascists involves at the minimum punching them in the nose and then kicking them in the teeth.

But you are bound to lose one here and there, especially when you are fighting whilst wasted.

The OP subtlety referenced a book by Trotsky, I do believe. 'Fascism: What it is and how to fight it'.

I once believed in nonviolence, or maybe I didn't, but I once said I did.

But I'll take the question of the thread as a legitimate question, which I am not sufficiently refined to answer.

There are those that think conversation and finding common ground are feasible.

But I'm frankly a bit too brutish for all of that, so I opt for punching a fascist in the nose.

Not that I recommend street fighting. But for some of us it's a case of shit happens.
#15011182
Crantag wrote:I now live in a city in China which has a shit ton of German companies and hence a lot of Germans.

2 weeks ago I got my ass beat by a German over an argument that started a week earlier with me calling him out on a lot of racist shit he was saying. So I'll just call the guy a literal Nazi.

I was on the losing end, but I was pretty much too drunk to stand. Not an hour before he bought me a glass of whiskey and himself a cup of coffee so it was rather premeditated.

Nevertheless I still think fighting fascists involves at the minimum punching them in the nose and then kicking them in the teeth.

But you are bound to lose one here and there, especially when you are fighting whilst wasted.

The OP subtlety referenced a book by Trotsky, I do believe. 'Fascism: What it is and how to fight it'.

I once believed in nonviolence, or maybe I didn't, but I once said I did.

But I'll take the question of the thread as a legitimate question, which I am not sufficiently refined to answer.

There are those that think conversation and finding common ground are feasible.

But I'm frankly a bit too brutish for all of that, so I opt for punching a fascist in the nose.

Not that I recommend street fighting. But for some of us it's a case of shit happens.


Image

Communism and fascism are nearly identical.
You must be talking about being an SJW with regards to race.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/communism ... so-similar
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1958-02817-001

Between the misdeeds of Hitler and those of Stalin, in my opinion, there exists only a quantitative difference.
#15011184
@Crantag
The occasional scrap is all good fun between consenting parties but don't kid yourself that you can change anyone's opinions that way. You say he won that round but are you any less of an odious commie because of that? So then why would he become less racist if you had won?
#15011191
Julian658 wrote:Image

Communism and fascism are nearly identical.
You must be talking about being an SJW with regards to race.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/communism ... so-similar
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1958-02817-001

Between the misdeeds of Hitler and those of Stalin, in my opinion, there exists only a quantitative difference.

Nah, not really.

I called myself a communist once upon a time.

Then I called myself an anarchist.

Now, I'm sorta inclined to call myself a person who really doesn't give a shit anymore.

It was more of a personal dispute, between me and an asshole. But I don't like prejudice. So, call me a SJW if you want, but I don't think the label fits, if you really knew me.

SolarCross wrote:@Crantag
The occasional scrap is all good fun between consenting parties but don't kid yourself that you can change anyone's opinions that way. You say he won that round but are you any less of an odious commie because of that? So then why would he become less racist if you had won?


That question was rhetorical, but it was actually a good one.

I don't think I'm much of an odious commie, but maybe I really am a little less of one now.

I'll be less quick to start a bar fight over some trivial racist bullshit after that, because I don't want to suffer with a black eye and a fat lip for a week for my troubles after that. So actually, I'll give it a yes.

That's not even the response I expected to make when I copied your quote. I do understand your point, but you asked me to think about it, and the above is my real reply.
#15011222
@Crantag

Crantag wrote:I once believed in nonviolence, or maybe I didn't, but I once said I did.

But I'll take the question of the thread as a legitimate question, which I am not sufficiently refined to answer.

There are those that think conversation and finding common ground are feasible.

But I'm frankly a bit too brutish for all of that, so I opt for punching a fascist in the nose.

Not that I recommend street fighting. But for some of us it's a case of shit happens.


Shit does happen. That being said it's better to keep your emotions in check when you can and not allow people to provoke you though sometimes that's easier said than done. It's also better to outsmart rather than outfight your opponents.
#15011224
Stalin is not comparable to Hitler also the gulag deaths were way exagaratted the official death count (archives) is about 1 million which is still alot but way less than the 20 millions claim
also holodomor was not really an intended genocide Russia and Ukraine both suffered from this and Ukrainians should not be allowed to use it as a tool and to blatantly rewrite history they were the number one collaborators in the eastern front murdered hundred of thousands of Russians/Jews/Poles
#15011244
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why exactly should we treat fascists in a peaceful and constructive manner, when fascists want to either make me, my family, and my friends into second class citizens or corpses?

These days most fascist are on the left.
Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea.

Poland and Hungary have democratically elected right wingers like America, Italy, and Brazil. That is not fascism.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Canadian Federal Election

Scheer is a fucking AMERICAN, and shouldn't even b[…]

And he is right too, because the UK, serving as U[…]

The melting ice of Greenland will soon reveal the […]

It's interesting that the article doesn't name th[…]