Fascism debate because I'm bored - Page 2 - 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.
#15027586
Commie who spends his entire day randomly calling people fascist decides the very least boring thing to do is drone on about fascism. Who knew defeated early 20th century political fads could be so interesting? (yawn, zzzzz)
#15027690
BigSteve wrote:Yeah, you did:





I dunno', Sport. Sure sounds like you'd be fine with someone killing the Queen...



Yes, and as I just demonstrated, you equate a monarch with a dictator after stating that killing a dictator should be legally permissible.

So, let's be clear: If someone assassinated Queen Elizabeth II, that'd be okay with you?



Nonsense-


I will be clear, you are absolutely incorrect, is that 'clear' enough?

Now show me from the following, just where it does say what you say above?


#15027414
" In any other political system, people enjoy certain rights, even if they do not always equate with the Geneva Convention & collectively they can rid themselves of an unwanted government through elections.
A dictator, on the other hand, is like a monarch, think that they have a 'divine' right to rule, neither have 'rights' other than accorded to them by subjection or fascism & both deserve absolute contempt".

I think that any other person can see that I am comparing how dictators think they have a 'divine' right to rule, which is how monarchy's see themselves.
That comparison above is by comparing the first sentence to the second one, I would have thought that was clear.

They(monarchs)think that way because of continuity of 'rights' acquired through inheritance, I think that's a reasonable position regarding dictators, who often have family successor's that follow on from them when they pass on.


"Yes, and as I just demonstrated, you equate a monarch with a dictator after stating that killing a dictator should be legally permissible".

You have not demonstrated anything, other than that you interpret things wholly in your own mindset & not on what is actually stated.

Equating a dictator with a monarch, as I have again shown above, is not the same as how you are portraying it.

Saying that killing a dictator, is not the same as saying,' killing a dictator \monarchs', is it, but that is what you are implying I have said, when the fact is, I have not said that.

The only joint reference of dictator\monarch used in my my post, is in expressing, "utmost contempt" for both, but when saying that it should be legal to kill a dictator, the expression or intent in respect of a monarch was never included.
Last edited by Nonsense on 19 Aug 2019 21:04, edited 1 time in total.
#15027696
SolarCross wrote:Commie who spends his entire day randomly calling people fascist decides the very least boring thing to do is drone on about fascism. Who knew defeated early 20th century political fads could be so interesting? (yawn, zzzzz)


You must be talking about someone else because I'm not a commie.
#15027697
Patrickov wrote:As much as I strongly support the idea of killing dictators without sanction (yes, there are probably quite a few in HK and China that need to be killed), who is to decide who should be killed and how? And what can we do to ensure there's enough check and balance against this very powerful organisation?


The oppressed citizens decide who gets to be killed.
#15027698
Palmyrene wrote:You must be talking about someone else because I'm not a commie.


It's definitly not myself. :lol: :lol:
#15027703
Nonsense wrote:The only joint reference of dictator\monarch used in my my post, is in expressing, "utmost contempt" for both, but when saying that it should be legal to kill a dictator, the expression or intent in respect of a monarch was never included.


Twist it any way you want.

Your message was clear...
#15027708
Palmyrene wrote:Ironically fascist ideology is literally about LARPing. It's a narrative.


The proud boys and the other wingnut larpers are also nitwits.
#15027709
Sivad wrote:The proud boys and the other wingnut larpers are also nitwits.


Yeah well at least antifa has self-awareness about what they are which is why you see some of them dressing up as bananas at protests.

Fascists have no sense of humor.
#15027713
Palmyrene wrote:Yeah well at least antifa has self-awareness about what they are


Useful idiots for the neoliberal managerial class?

Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left

Notwithstanding its performative evocations of the 1960s Black Power populist “militancy,” this antiracist politics is neither leftist in itself nor particularly compatible with a left politics as conventionally understood. At this political juncture, it is, like bourgeois feminism and other groupist tendencies, an oppositional epicycle within hegemonic neoliberalism, one might say a component of neoliberalism’s critical self-consciousness; it is thus in fact fundamentally anti-leftist.

[...]

Even when its proponents believe themselves to be radicals, this antiracist politics is a professional-managerial class politics. Its adherents are not concerned with trying to generate the large, broad political base needed to pursue a transformative agenda because they are committed fundamentally to pursuit of racial parity within neoliberalism, not social transformation. In fact, antiracist activists’ and pundits’ insistence during the 2016 election campaign that Bernie Sanders did not address black concerns made that point very clearly because every nearly item on the Sanders campaign’s policy agenda—from the Robin Hood tax on billionaires to free public higher education to the $15/h minimum wage, a single-payer health care system, etc. (Sanders for President)—would disproportionately benefit black and Hispanic populations that are disproportionately working class.

[...]

Antiracist politics is a class politics; it is rooted in the social position and worldview, and material interests of the stratum of race relations engineers and administrators who operate in Democratic party politics and as government functionaries, the punditry and commentariat, education administration and the professoriate, corporate, social service and nonprofit sectors, and the multibillion-dollar diversity industry. That stratum comes together around a commonsense commitment to the centrality of race—and other categories of ascriptive identity—as the appropriate discursive framework through which to articulate norms of justice and injustice and through which to formulate remedial responses. It has grown and become deeply embedded institutionally throughout the society as an entailment of the victories of the 1960s. As the society moves farther away from the regime of subordination and exclusion on explicitly racial terms to which race-reductionist explanations were an immediately plausible response, race has become less potent as the dominant metaphor, or blanket shorthand, through which class hierarchy is lived. And as black and white elites increasingly go through the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, operate as peers in integrated workplaces, share and interact in the same social spaces and consumption practices and preferences, they increasingly share another common sense not only about frameworks of public policy but also about the proper order of things in general.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-9476-3





antiracists…remain attuned to a vision of justice defined by ensuring equal access to hierarchically distributed social goods such as family wealth (and redressing historical impediments to the accumulation of wealth rooted in discrimination). Indeed in making frequent recourse to the adjective “narrow” in chastising a politics that roots inequality in economic exploitation, antiracists and identitarians have positioned the idea of racial justice as a critique of, rather than an expected consequence of, socialism. It is largely for this reason that, as Walter Benn Michaels has noted…‘the commitment to identity politics has been more an expression of…enthusiasm for the free market than a form of resistance to it (Warren et al. 2016.).
#15027714
Since the election, that alliance against class politics has become even more aggressive in red-baiting Sanders and the left via a new sort of race-baiting—attacking socialism, and advocates of socialism or social-democratic politics, as racist or white supremacist. It has closed ranks around condemnation of working-class whites who voted for Trump as loathsome and irredeemable racists with whom political solidarity is indefensible and in the process reducing “working class” to a white racial category and synonym for backwardness and bigotry. Antiracists and neoliberal Democrats unite in high moral dudgeon to denounce suggestions that more than racism operated to generate the Trump vote and that some working people, particularly those whom Les Leopold describes as Obama/Sanders/Trump voters—and not necessarily only white ones—felt betrayed by both parties (Leopold 2017; Lopez 2016; Parenti 2016; Edwards-Levy 2017; Shepard 2017; Skelley 2017; Cohn 2017). The practical upshot of that moral stance is that there can be no political alternative outside neoliberalism. That is why it is important, as we look toward the daunting prospect of building a movement capable of changing the terms of debate in American politics to center the interests and concerns of working people—of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and whatever immigration status—who are the vast majority of the country, that we recognize that race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left. It is more important than ever to acknowledge that reality and act accordingly.
#15027717
Sivad wrote:Useful idiots for the neoliberal managerial class?


Yeah no. Idek how you or the author of that author came to that conclusion. Yeah there's alot of liberals in antifa but they aren't useful idiots.

In fact it's the liberals who are adament about letting fascists do what they want out of good faith.
#15027719
Palmyrene wrote: Idek how you or the author of that author came to that conclusion.


If you don't know then you should read the article, it's a pretty solid case.
#15027729
Sivad wrote:If you don't know then you should read the article, it's a pretty solid case.


I've read the article and it seems to be based on a very broad category of people that arent properly defined (i.e. antiracists). These people don't seem to be similar to antifa at all; the characteristics the author describes of "antiracists" seem more akin to liberals or idpol than antifa.
#15027744
Palmyrene wrote:I've read the article and it seems to be based on a very broad category of people that arent properly defined (i.e. antiracists).


It's based on a very specific and well defined category of people(neoliberal managerial elites), antifa(identitarian extremists) are the cannon fodder for the neolib counterrevolution.
#15027750
Sivad wrote:It's based on a very specific and well defined category of people(neoliberal managerial elites), antifa(identitarian extremists) are the cannon fodder for the neolib counterrevolution.


Antifa aren't identitarianists. They don't have an ideology and it's not an organization. It's a brand.
What is Fascism

If Satan took a shit and that shit had an abortion[…]

So it wasn't an anthrax envelope this time. And […]

COVID-19 Reinfections Are a Thing: Here’s What We […]

So Kings, how many of you remember when Hillary co[…]