Marxism is Oligarch Astroturf - 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 ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15129798
Sivad wrote:This thinking is stupid for oh so many reasons but the main one being that gulaging society and committing mass human rights abuses totally defeats the whole purpose of socialism. These deranged gulagists are all like 'we had to burn that village in order to save it'. :lol: :knife: gulagism is just totally fucking absurd.


You just ignored a historical fact to make an ad hominem.

This is very poor debating.

Socialism is by definition pro-social so engaging in extreme anti-social despotic repression of whole societies just isn't an option for anyone who's truly committed to the principles of socialism.

You people aren't socialists, you're gulag collectivists. And gulag collectivism may be better than other extreme forms of tyranny like caudillo capitalism but it's definitely not an ideal to aspire to or anything to be celebrated. It's fucking horrible and the fuckers that impose it on society aren't liberators or heros of the people, they're violent oppresive maniacs and the best you can say about them and their regimes is that they were slightly less violent oppresive maniacs than the worst violent oppressive maniacs in history.


And now you are deliberately ignoring a question and making ad hominems.

Again, which socialist movement have you supported?

If you have not supported any, then you are (at best) an ivory tower or champagne socialist, or (at worst) not a socialist at all.
#15130497
All someone really needs to know about the bizarre globalist-communist alliance is that the more diverse a work force is, the less likely they are to try and form a union.
#15130567
You've got admire the incredible success of Liberals, Marxists and Cultural Marxists in hiding inconvenient facts. As Joe Biden says we prefer truths over facts. One fact they've covered up is that fascism just meant trade unionism. That Italy's early trade unions commonly used the term fasci. Over and over again the liberal media and the liberal miseducation system teaches that Mussolini revived a forgotten word from the times of the Roman Empire.
#15130575
Rich wrote:You've got admire the incredible success of Liberals, Marxists and Cultural Marxists in hiding inconvenient facts. As Joe Biden says we prefer truths over facts. One fact they've covered up is that fascism just meant trade unionism. That Italy's early trade unions commonly used the term fasci. Over and over again the liberal media and the liberal miseducation system teaches that Mussolini revived a forgotten word from the times of the Roman Empire.

It was hardly a "forgotten word", since the Italian trade unionists used it. ;)

But yes, you are essentially correct - "fascism" basically just means "groupism" or "collectivism", just as "soviet" just means "council". The fact that this "groupism" was directed towards aggressive imperialist expansion and ethnic mass murder was actually something of an accident of history, just as it was an accident of history that the world's first "democracy" in ancient Athens was also directed towards aggressive imperialist expansion and mass murder.
#15130580
Potemkin wrote:It was hardly a "forgotten word", since the Italian trade unionists used it. ;)

But yes, you are essentially correct - "fascism" basically just means "groupism" or "collectivism", just as "soviet" just means "council". The fact that this "groupism" was directed towards aggressive imperialist expansion and ethnic mass murder was actually something of an accident of history, just as it was an accident of history that the world's first "democracy" in ancient Athens was also directed towards aggressive imperialist expansion and mass murder.


Weren't the Soviets also into aggressive imperialist expansion and mass murder? I'm pretty sure the Soviets had a giant evil empire that was built on mass murder. Granted, the red fascists had different justifications than the brown fascists for all the mass murdering imperialism they were doing, but at the end of the day it was all just industrial psychopathy driven by power hungry maniacs.
#15130582
Sivad wrote:Weren't the Soviets also into aggressive imperialist expansion and mass murder? I'm pretty sure the Soviets had a giant evil empire that was built on mass murder. Granted, the red fascists had different justifications than the brown fascists for all the mass murdering imperialism they were doing, but at the end of the day it was all just industrial psychopathy driven by power hungry maniacs.

Rather like the current system in the West, eh @Sivad? :)

You're basically complaining about the fact that people aren't very nice to each other. But when have they ever been particularly nice to each other? As @Rancid keeps pointing out, this is the way the game is played, and it's the way it's been played since at least the time of the Assyrian Empire. Expecting anything different now is somewhat unrealistic.
#15130592
Sivad wrote:Granted, the red fascists had different justifications than the brown fascists for all the mass murdering imperialism they were doing, but at the end of the day it was all just industrial psychopathy driven by power hungry maniacs.

i think we need to be careful, for some strange reason the curios notion that somehow murderous expansionism was some kind of inhuman exception within history and prehuman history has arisen. Rather than warfare being inhuman I would proffer the suggestion that it is warfare, organised collective violence that has made us human, that it was organised collective warfare and its effects on reproductive success outcomes that supercharged the evolution of our intelligence. That the long evolutionary march towards the magnificent struggles of World War I and World War II, probably began millions of years ago amongst our hominoid ancestors. Our chimpanzee cousins engage in very primitive warfare as they engage in very primitive tool use.

Of course the passion for peace can arise. We see it with the Emperor Asoka, with the British Empire after World War I and with Bill Gates rescue of Apple. Oh yes when men see that they have little to gain from further conflict, but possible a great, great deal to lose, they can turn into great lovers of peace. Just to note that the aristocratic / theocratic rulers of the Agrarian ages rarely engaged in modern style genocide. The surplice poor would die off "naturally" there was no need to engage in unnecessary exertions on that score. The Roman treatment of Carthage for example was to eliminate the Carthaginian elite. They weren't seeking to replace the populations of North Africa. The modern tendency to genocide we see emerging in the wars of religion is a sign of the democratisation and plebicisation of power within society.
#15130595
Potemkin wrote:Rather like the current system in the West, eh Sivad?


Yeah, I'm not pretending the West isn't an evil empire. It most certainly is and I've never claimed otherwise but red fascism isn't a sane solution to that problem.

You're basically complaining about the fact that people aren't very nice to each other.


I'm basically complaining about the fact that a growing movement of commietards is trying to gulag me.
#15130599
skinster wrote:Lol, Sivad has communists living under his bed. :D


I got commietards living in my universities, my NGOs, my social service bureaucracies, my city councils and legislatures, my culture industry, etc. My society is lousy with the commietard minions of the globalist oligarchs and it's a real problem.
#15130605
Sivad wrote:Weren't the Soviets also into aggressive imperialist expansion and mass murder? I'm pretty sure the Soviets had a giant evil empire that was built on mass murder. Granted, the red fascists had different justifications than the brown fascists for all the mass murdering imperialism they were doing, but at the end of the day it was all just industrial psychopathy driven by power hungry maniacs.


And now liberal democracies are doing it.

Again, which socialist movement have you supported?

If you have not supported any, then you are (at best) an ivory tower or champagne socialist, or (at worst) not a socialist at all.
#15130607
Sivad wrote:growing

That's a thought.

I've been pondering what should be done with the 'incorrigibles'.

Industrial mincer and use the mush to fertilise the fields of a collective farm - Capital idea.

I might even give you a medal. Posthumously, of course.


;)
#15130611
Wulfschilde wrote:
All someone really needs to know about the bizarre globalist-communist alliance is that the more diverse a work force is, the less likely they are to try and form a union.



It's done all the time, and was done in history, too, during the times of early immigration:



Coal miners

At the time, the United Mine Workers of America had just elected John L. Lewis as their president. During this period, miners worked long hours in unsafe and dismal working conditions, while being paid low wages. Adding to the hardship was the use of coal scrip by the Stone Mountain Coal Company, because the scrip could only be used for those goods the company sold through their company stores. A few months before the battle at Matewan, union miners in other parts of the country went on strike, receiving a full 27 percent pay increase for their efforts. Lewis recognized that the area was ripe for change, and planned to organize the coal fields of southern Appalachia. The union sent its top organizers, including the famous Mary Harris "Mother" Jones.[1] Roughly 3000 men signed the union's roster in the Spring of 1920. They signed their union cards at the community church, something that they knew could cost them their jobs, and in many cases their homes. The coal companies controlled many aspects of the miners' lives.[2] Stone Mountain Coal Corporation fought back with mass firings, harassment, and evictions.[3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... oal_miners




Did the Progressive reforms succeed in doing what they intended- stabilize the capitalist system by repairing its worst defects, blunt the edge of the Socialist movement, restore some measure of class peace in a time of increasingly bitter clashes between capital and labor? To some extent, perhaps. But the Socialist party continued to grow. The IWW continued to agitate. And shortly after Woodrow Wilson took office there began in Colorado one of the most bitter and violent struggles between workers and corporate capital in the history of the country.

This was the Colorado coal strike that began in September 1913 and culminated in the "Ludlow Massacre" of April 1914. Eleven thousand miners in southern Colorado, mostly foreign-born-Greeks, Italians, Serbs-worked for the Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, which was owned by the Rockefeller family. Aroused by the murder of one of their organizers, they went on strike against low pay, dangerous conditions, and feudal domination of their lives in towns completely controlled by the mining companies. Mother Jones, at this time an organizer for the United Mine Workers, came into the area, fired up the miners with her oratory, and helped them in those critical first months of the strike, until she was arrested, kept in a dungeon like cell, and then forcibly expelled from the state.

When the strike began, the miners were immediately evicted from their shacks in the mining towns. Aided by the United Mine Workers Union, they set up tents in the nearby hills and carried on the strike, the picketing, from these tent colonies.



Zinn, _People's History of the United States_, p. 261



---


Rich wrote:
it was organised collective warfare and its effects on reproductive success outcomes that supercharged the evolution of our intelligence



By *this* logic, *disease* should have an enormous effect on human evolution, as well, but you're not mentioning *that* -- it's sheer chauvinism on your part, in reality.

My understanding is that people were healthier and more vital the closer they were to *volcanic rifts* in the geography, due to the negative-ion emissions from the volcanic rock, and it looks as though *magnetism* there also added to health.


Rich wrote:
The modern tendency to genocide we see emerging in the wars of religion is a sign of the democratisation and plebicisation of power within society.



Democratization creates *lessened* social stratification and hegemony, not more -- *greater* stratification would tend towards genocide, as in vastly disproportionate power relations, as we saw from European land speculators in North America, and the Nazis in Europe.


Sivad wrote:
I'm basically complaining about the fact that a growing movement of commietards is trying to gulag me.



Too many zombie movies and cookies after bedtime.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Believe me, Europe is very corrupt too. Though […]

Election 2020

a town hall for morons It looks like Biden may t[…]

Too much personal insulting going on in this thre[…]

Were The Crusades Justified?

The Arab world was advanced until it adopted Isla[…]