One Degree wrote:
You obviously ran out of arguments so you started labeling me and insulting me. I returned the favor instead of ignoring you when you resorted to it. People having fewer babies by choice is not genocide no matter how distorted you try to define it.
Okay, I'll take your clarification at face-value.
One Degree wrote:
Uniting the workers of the world before you solve a problem sounds like you are much more concerned with an ideology than actually helping people. Why not start making each community better by whatever means suits them so we have stronger and more communities to help the others? This is an exponential solution that can be started right now in one community. Designate massive free loans to one community to revitalize it and make it as self sufficient as possible in necessities. Then move on to the next with the help of the first etc. Quit waiting for the world to accept your ideology and start building communities.
I'll *pass* on that, because *you're* the liberal, not me -- you're part of the 'chattering class' if you think that a large-scale approach is not needed. Again, look at the starvation and malnutrition statistic -- instead of writing propaganda for your 'community' ideology, why can't the world hand control of social production over to the workers, so that they / we can provide a more humane-rational approach to feeding the world, etc. -- ?
@ckaihatsu, You said that I need to *text*
No, that's not what I said.
and what you meant by that was that I "can't text" because I was using "lol." I am not a fascist. If you think I am a fascist, then you don't know what fascism is. I am also not a Stalinist. I am individualistic and I seek freedom and privacy for each person. Stalin was collective, and was a little more strict. He was also family oriented. Stalin was also a Zionist. Fascists are far more strict and aggressive than me. I mean I am also not an anarchist, or a Western Marxist that accepts reactionary movements such as Islamic extremism.
Then please stop touting 'socialism-in-one-country', which *is* Stalinist.
https://www.facebook.com/Enver-Hoxha-79 ... SEARCH_BOX
If you are on Facebook (which I am not because Facebook promotes cultural capitalism and is competitive) then go to the link I provided. That is a page dedicated to Enver Hoxha. You should talk to some of the people on there. Use online translators via copy and paste. Most of those people are Albanians in Albania, and have socialist leanings. Even though most of them are not socialists or true Marxists, they have more Stalinist leanings than me. I bet you wouldn't last more than one day on there.
I don't use my time to 'last' on various discussion boards on the Internet -- there is actual *substance* to what I post, which you're just glossing-over in favor of your head-trip that politics is all some sort of big 'tournament'.
Stalinism is a type of socialism. I am no Stalinist, but the people on that Enver Hoxha facebook page have more Stalinist leanings.
Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it any truer -- socialism is *international*, and Stalinism is not socialism.
Private property, capitalist currency, and internationalism are not linked with each other.
*Of course* they are -- if someone sells some real estate they get *currency* for it. This is capitalism's *exchange values* in two different forms, which are *connected* in exchange value like cities on a map.
Internationally such exchange values / capital have *more* legal rights than *people* do:
Private property existed in capitalism, and in feudalism. Capitalist currency has nothing to do with taking pride in one's nation or wanting to be really internationalistic like you. And internationalism has nothing to do with loving or hating money. None of these things are connected, thus meaning they are not comparable.
"These existing differences in international standards..." my response to that paragraph is that you should really get involved with the people on that Enver Hoxha facebook page. Thousands of Albanians who have pro socialist leanings are on there. Do you honestly think that they have the same standards as an introverted, quiet, and freedom seeking Swede? Nobody has to be on facebook. Those Albanians are like that because that is how they are, the system is not making them be like that because if it was, and they realized that it's not correct, then they wouldn't be on there, feeling that it is oppression if they are. Some of those Albanians whom are ugly get hundreds of likes. While some good looking German or Czech woman gets at the most 10 likes. Because different people have different standards. As an introvert myself, I don't think that introversion and extroversion are 100 percent linked to capitalism or internationalist stuff that you keep mentioning.
You seem to be trying to *psychologize* / personalize issues of political-economy, when such issues take place at the *mass* scale, and are *not* specific to any one person.
If a Swede lived in Bangladesh, they would get depressed because they would not be allowed to drink, masturbate, openly be an atheist and deal with all of those reactionary Muslims, and would not have any privacy because Swedes are private, individualistic people who work hard while most Bangladeshis are extroverted, family oriented people who LOVE drama!
You're talking about *cultural* matters here, and *not* politics.
"Yes, it does because socialism, by definition, is *worldwide*, is done by the *international* proletariat, and was never intended to be country-by-country-only." Oh yeah? Prove it.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
"Incorrect -- fascism hews to the *nationalist* political entity, and supports the capitalist economic system while socialism is the *antithesis* of these." You do realize that nationalization of economics and society is a type of socialism? And some fascists went against the capitalist mode of production, labeling it as "obsolete" and crime promoting.
No, this is unsubstantiated. I'd like to see some sources from you to back up this contention.
[S]ome of those fascist policies had socialist leanings. Remember, fascism has socialist roots.
No, it doesn't, and you still haven't introduced any evidence that supports this bullshit of yours.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns ... scism.html "Mussolini declared, “Three-fourths of [the] Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_N ... ssociation
Wikipedia claims that the Italian Nationalist Association is left wing, supports left wing nationalism, wants to keep equal unity for all Italic people (remember, Sicilians were viewed differently than Northern Italians in the 19th century, Italian unity was a quasi socialist and a left wing movement), and supports some elements of corporatism (corporatism is inbetween capitalism and socialism and has syndicalist roots).
Just because some kind of *nationalization* takes place doesn't mean that it automatically 'has socialist roots'. You're completely ignoring the *politics* of fascism, which is for violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status.
So rape and bullying would be considered "tiny" in your model? And gangs must be destroyed. No human should belong or not belong in a "group."
You're putting words in my mouth -- be more careful how you represent my positions.
The *point* is that if you want policing of civil society then a *state apparatus* must exist. For a post-capitalist world society having a state-like institution for that would be *redundant*, because *everyone* could do 'policing'-type things simply as a matter of collectivist politics, in ongoing motion.
My biggest problems with fascism is that fascism is very collective socially, meaning that there is no personal freedom. Fascism is anti feminist, so women were looked down on. And that fascism is not egalitarian, in fascism, there are people above and below you, in which I do not like.
But seriously, check out some Stalinist leaning pages on facebook... you wouldn't last a very long time on those pages I think.