Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Not inherently
but Marxist fundamentalists are functionally not too different from fascists.
They are convinced their ideology is the only morally right one and wish to impose it on others. It’s what the USSR and China did.
Even modern day left wing extremists advocate for something similar. You can especially see it with their view on the Middle East. Where it’s not enough to simply create a free Palestinian state, they also want to completely destroy Israel and impose anti-Zionism onto Israelis, which is just as fool hardy as America trying to impose its values onto Iran or Afghanistan.
but Marxist fundamentalists are functionally not too different from fascists.
They are convinced their ideology is the only morally right one and wish to impose it on others. It’s what the USSR and China did.
Even modern day left wing extremists advocate for something similar. You can especially see it with their view on the Middle East. Where it’s not enough to simply create a free Palestinian state, they also want to completely destroy Israel and impose anti-Zionism onto Israelis, which is just as fool hardy as America trying to impose its values onto Iran or Afghanistan.
That's because Marxism and Fascism are far-leaning ideologies, and far-leaning ideologies typically require/advocate for use of force.
Marxism(in general) is a far left ideology advocating for a revolution that leads to a dictatorship of the worker class, all to bring about a specific economic vision. Fascism is a far right ideology advocating for ultranationalism through force and uses whatever economic model in place as long as the dictator can use it to push the ideology.
Dictatorships and suppression of opposition is key for both. Dictatorships/authoritarianism is good only for a very small select few.
Marxism(in general) is a far left ideology advocating for a revolution that leads to a dictatorship of the worker class, all to bring about a specific economic vision. Fascism is a far right ideology advocating for ultranationalism through force and uses whatever economic model in place as long as the dictator can use it to push the ideology.
Dictatorships and suppression of opposition is key for both. Dictatorships/authoritarianism is good only for a very small select few.
Uh no. That's the point, if we are talking about the final stage. There won't be a ruling class. You may be confused based on the attempts at communism. But these are not actual state of transition, more like capitalist state versions.
But granted, what is true is that communism (the transition, not the stateless result of the transition and if corrupted by capitalist form of exploitations on the side or meritocratic agencies) COULD create a form of hierarchical domination. That is why I'm against a state and this form of communism.
I prefer a form of anarchic form of state. In which case while violence might be in question, it will be a much more collectivized organization. On a level you or me have never seen before.
On side note, before you start questionning the violence. Know that capitalism is BY DEFAULT much more violent than any form of revolution and communist society you could think of. Capitalism is literally killing every single day through indirect means.
Don't be fooled by ignorant people like Nameless trying to make fallacious comparizon. When we do the real work of comparison, the death toll is multiplied by at least a hundred under capitalism within the same timespan
Ethics is not about being peacefull. Ethics is about doing the right thing based on contextual materiality and time. If there is no other solutions that fighting the ruling class through violence to stop their exploitation, murders and oppressions of the people, it's violence that must be used.
It won't necessarily be the case, but don't think that using violence is necessarily unethical. In many case, violence is the only option we have.
If you are not willing to have a real discussion about documented and researched subjects, I will stop here. I thought you were willing to have a smart exchange, if that's not the case, tell me now and I will adapt accordingly.
I literally explained in detail. Read before posting.
If you want more details I can give them to you, but if you keep that attitude, I won't have any incentive. I'm giving you the result of researches and decades of political activism here. Not my opinion.
There won't be a "France" in a state less and classless socialist society. Your premisse is corrupted.
1. We already have this problem
2. If we are talking about a collective, then the collective must do the work and EVERYONE must participate in accordance with their capacities. Meaning that if I were able to work (we I believe I could in a socialist society, at least much more), I would myself have to do "MY PART" of the collective work in the farm like anyone. Which would be fine, I already done that. Under this context, I think it could actually be fun especially if technology is involved and less time of work. Of course there will be rotations and turns. I won't be in the field forever. Perhaps the next year I will be clearning, perhaps the next year I will be produce clothing in a little local clothing provider or something else... Who knows..
(and it's worth noting, that it won't take the entire day, I will still be able to do my own project and be with my loved ones the rest of the day, since the amount of work will be drastically reduced)
And perhaps, if we developp great tools, we won't have to the most hurtfull work, and machines will do the rest.
2. People will organized in cooperations not through a state. We won't be in a country at all. But localities, commune and territories without real centrality or cooperative ones.
3. It will be an ecosystem, meaning that the need of a commune will be help by the surrounding ones as such, there won't be a need on a large scale, or if that's needed, it will be the result of a large cooperation. It's important to note that locality will be prioritized.
As such the idea that there couldn't be enough people to to the work is meaningless since the work will be done according to the need and not a overarching demand. If there is a population and the needs are carefully planned, there won't be any problems at all.
Cities won't probably be as big. Or at least, there will be completely rethinked. The architecture and the structure are, in themselves, conditionning the life of a city. The best will be to completely destroy what can be destroyed and rebuild functionnal cities.
For example, currently, cities are centralized, perhaps we need to rethink that and decentralized cities and communities. This means creating more network, this means reshaping the entire structural agency. Perhaps, we need to find ways to break the separation between the towns and the countrysides and find an inbetween. This will completely change the way we produce and the way we interact.
You have no idea of the wonders I see for the future. And no, it's not a dictature.
I'm not preaching anything. I'm telling you what will happen. It's not an opinion, it's a prediction.
If by "ourselves" you include people fighting for the interests of the ruling class and elites (like the police atm for ex), then yeah, people will fight among themselves. That's the point.
How my life is "considering" my answer ? You mean "conditionning" ?
How do you think my life is conditionning my answers ? (that could be interesting)
Learn the differences. ffs
Fascism is not fascism because it uses force ffs
But granted, what is true is that communism (the transition, not the stateless result of the transition and if corrupted by capitalist form of exploitations on the side or meritocratic agencies) COULD create a form of hierarchical domination. That is why I'm against a state and this form of communism.
I prefer a form of anarchic form of state. In which case while violence might be in question, it will be a much more collectivized organization. On a level you or me have never seen before.
On side note, before you start questionning the violence. Know that capitalism is BY DEFAULT much more violent than any form of revolution and communist society you could think of. Capitalism is literally killing every single day through indirect means.
Don't be fooled by ignorant people like Nameless trying to make fallacious comparizon. When we do the real work of comparison, the death toll is multiplied by at least a hundred under capitalism within the same timespan
Ethics is not about being peacefull. Ethics is about doing the right thing based on contextual materiality and time. If there is no other solutions that fighting the ruling class through violence to stop their exploitation, murders and oppressions of the people, it's violence that must be used.
It won't necessarily be the case, but don't think that using violence is necessarily unethical. In many case, violence is the only option we have.
If you are not willing to have a real discussion about documented and researched subjects, I will stop here. I thought you were willing to have a smart exchange, if that's not the case, tell me now and I will adapt accordingly.
I literally explained in detail. Read before posting.
If you want more details I can give them to you, but if you keep that attitude, I won't have any incentive. I'm giving you the result of researches and decades of political activism here. Not my opinion.
There won't be a "France" in a state less and classless socialist society. Your premisse is corrupted.
1. We already have this problem
2. If we are talking about a collective, then the collective must do the work and EVERYONE must participate in accordance with their capacities. Meaning that if I were able to work (we I believe I could in a socialist society, at least much more), I would myself have to do "MY PART" of the collective work in the farm like anyone. Which would be fine, I already done that. Under this context, I think it could actually be fun especially if technology is involved and less time of work. Of course there will be rotations and turns. I won't be in the field forever. Perhaps the next year I will be clearning, perhaps the next year I will be produce clothing in a little local clothing provider or something else... Who knows..
(and it's worth noting, that it won't take the entire day, I will still be able to do my own project and be with my loved ones the rest of the day, since the amount of work will be drastically reduced)
And perhaps, if we developp great tools, we won't have to the most hurtfull work, and machines will do the rest.
2. People will organized in cooperations not through a state. We won't be in a country at all. But localities, commune and territories without real centrality or cooperative ones.
3. It will be an ecosystem, meaning that the need of a commune will be help by the surrounding ones as such, there won't be a need on a large scale, or if that's needed, it will be the result of a large cooperation. It's important to note that locality will be prioritized.
As such the idea that there couldn't be enough people to to the work is meaningless since the work will be done according to the need and not a overarching demand. If there is a population and the needs are carefully planned, there won't be any problems at all.
Cities won't probably be as big. Or at least, there will be completely rethinked. The architecture and the structure are, in themselves, conditionning the life of a city. The best will be to completely destroy what can be destroyed and rebuild functionnal cities.
For example, currently, cities are centralized, perhaps we need to rethink that and decentralized cities and communities. This means creating more network, this means reshaping the entire structural agency. Perhaps, we need to find ways to break the separation between the towns and the countrysides and find an inbetween. This will completely change the way we produce and the way we interact.
You have no idea of the wonders I see for the future. And no, it's not a dictature.
I'm not preaching anything. I'm telling you what will happen. It's not an opinion, it's a prediction.
If by "ourselves" you include people fighting for the interests of the ruling class and elites (like the police atm for ex), then yeah, people will fight among themselves. That's the point.
How my life is "considering" my answer ? You mean "conditionning" ?
How do you think my life is conditionning my answers ? (that could be interesting)
Learn the differences. ffs
Fascism is not fascism because it uses force ffs
Context always matter mate.
1. The "key" to fascism is not the suppression of the opposition. But colonial violence turn inward and used on ALL classes of population, not simply the opposition.
2. Communism is not necessarily marxist and all marxist are not necessarily communists (I, for ex, am not).
3. The suppression of opposition is radically different on an ethical basis.
What you did is this:
By equating both violence, invisibilizing the ethics behind said violence is what you have been doing this entire time : your usual centrist bullshit : "both extrem are bad"
What I was evocating here with LuffyT is not good "only for a select few", it's necessary for everyone and it's a STATELESS vision.
So let me tell it to you myself, learn, read, THEN write.
ffs
1. The "key" to fascism is not the suppression of the opposition. But colonial violence turn inward and used on ALL classes of population, not simply the opposition.
2. Communism is not necessarily marxist and all marxist are not necessarily communists (I, for ex, am not).
3. The suppression of opposition is radically different on an ethical basis.
What you did is this:
By equating both violence, invisibilizing the ethics behind said violence is what you have been doing this entire time : your usual centrist bullshit : "both extrem are bad"
What I was evocating here with LuffyT is not good "only for a select few", it's necessary for everyone and it's a STATELESS vision.
So let me tell it to you myself, learn, read, THEN write.
ffs
1. We were talking about the usage of violence to create a socialist/communist society through materialism and marxism. So yes. You were talking about communism still. Context matter.
2. You said "key for both" after a comparison between fascism and marxism.. Again, context matter. Don't try to gaslight me.
3. No. You equated two completely opposed ideology and ended with a fallacious and simplistically reduced comparison of dictatorship to conclude "Dictatorships/authoritarianism is good only for a very small select few." which is basically the opposite of what the dictatorship of the proleteriat is that is meant to do. And don't try to tell me that it is "not what you did".
Again, don't try to gaslight people. You used your reply to once again compare two radical ideologies making it sound rationnal and knowledgable to the untrained ear, when in reality you just invibilized the nature of both system and the nature of the ethics behind their violences.
You know the basic theories of leftism and you are using this knowledge to attack leftism in dirty ways.. This is basic confusionnistic bs. This is not random, it's your usual pattern to justify your rationnality & knowledge superiority and to justify your dissing of far left rethoric like mine. Thus giving the ground to reactionarism.
It's why I keep arguing with you.
Yes
Not saying those are the only relevant degrees though, there’s obviously more but those are just the big 4 that came to the top of my head. Stuff like CS economics and architecture is a very good degree too. There’s just a lot of irrelevant useless degrees in uni nowadays
Anyways I think I got my answer from them lol
Not saying those are the only relevant degrees though, there’s obviously more but those are just the big 4 that came to the top of my head. Stuff like CS economics and architecture is a very good degree too. There’s just a lot of irrelevant useless degrees in uni nowadays
Anyways I think I got my answer from them lol
1. We were talking about the usage of violence to create a socialist/communist society through materialism and marxism. So yes. You were talking about communism still. Context matter.
2. You said "key for both" after a comparison between fascism and marxism.. Again, context matter. Don't try to gaslight me.
3. No. You equated two completely opposed ideology and ended with a fallacious and simplistically reduced comparison of dictatorship to conclude "Dictatorships/authoritarianism is good only for a very small select few." which is basically the opposite of what the dictatorship of the proleteriat is that is meant to do. And don't try to tell me that it is "not what you did".
Again, don't try to gaslight people. You used your reply to once again compare two radical ideologies making it sound rationnal and knowledgable to the untrained ear, when in reality you just invibilized the nature of both system and the nature of the ethics behind their violences.
You know the basic theories of leftism and you are using this knowledge to attack leftism in dirty ways.. This is basic confusionnistic bs. This is not random, it's your usual pattern to justify your rationnality & knowledge superiority and to justify your dissing of far left rethoric like mine. Thus giving the ground to reactionarism.
It's why I keep arguing with you.
2. You said "key for both" after a comparison between fascism and marxism.. Again, context matter. Don't try to gaslight me.
3. No. You equated two completely opposed ideology and ended with a fallacious and simplistically reduced comparison of dictatorship to conclude "Dictatorships/authoritarianism is good only for a very small select few." which is basically the opposite of what the dictatorship of the proleteriat is that is meant to do. And don't try to tell me that it is "not what you did".
Again, don't try to gaslight people. You used your reply to once again compare two radical ideologies making it sound rationnal and knowledgable to the untrained ear, when in reality you just invibilized the nature of both system and the nature of the ethics behind their violences.
You know the basic theories of leftism and you are using this knowledge to attack leftism in dirty ways.. This is basic confusionnistic bs. This is not random, it's your usual pattern to justify your rationnality & knowledge superiority and to justify your dissing of far left rethoric like mine. Thus giving the ground to reactionarism.
It's why I keep arguing with you.
Since you are once again displaying your short term memory, lack of knowledge and understanding, along with an inability to recognize naunce, lemme educate you once again.
Classical Marxism advocates for armed revolution against the bourgeoisie, establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorships are authoritarian regimes incase you didn't know. Whenever someone speaks in general, you argue specifics. Whenever someone speaks with specifics, you argue in general.
Yes. And spoiler, I even agree with you here to a certain extent (not all). I do not believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's what you don't understand. I'm not contradicting your entire point of view, I'm contradicting the way you are using this knowledge to open the door to reactionnarism.
You know enough just to create confusion and pushes an apolitical stance or simply anti-leftism through fallacies. Here, you uses the reducting comparison, knowing full well that the dictatorship of the proletariat and common dictatorships have very different meanings. But you are doing it anyway.
This is a repeating pattern on many political domains, I have been telling you this, time and time again. And you are not fooling me, I think you know exactly what you are doing.
See, you are doing it again. You ask for nuance and you are doing the opposite. You compared two very different systems (simple dictatorship, or rather fascism here and the dictatorship of the proletariat). And you invizibilized their opposition but also differences and nuances to push your agenda.
In this case, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a stage of transition where the working class holds political power in order to abolish classes leading to the eventual end of the state. It is not inherently authoritarian, but it involves some forms of constraint, especially against the ancient ruling classes.
This constraint is not fundamentally different in nature from the one already exercised through laws today. But this time, laws will be directed to strip the power of the ruling class instead of maintaining it.
It CAN become authoritarian in practice, YES, depending on how power is exercised. But what is important is how the power and domination are handled within such system which is exactly what you completely invisibilized by equating fascism to this without explaining their differences in term of ethics, domination and forms of violence.
Again, you do this all the time. You uses your knowledge of leftism or history, to completely depoliticize each point I make (which are not specifically mine btw, just the ones of any radical and materialist leftists) and open the door to any types of illegitimate criticizism, usually reactionnary ones.
Every freakin time.
You want proof? Here we go! If you truly understands leftism, you should understand the importance of not letting far rightist spread their rethoric here. So.. Are you ok with preventing them to speak their Bs here? I can't wait to know.
You know enough just to create confusion and pushes an apolitical stance or simply anti-leftism through fallacies. Here, you uses the reducting comparison, knowing full well that the dictatorship of the proletariat and common dictatorships have very different meanings. But you are doing it anyway.
This is a repeating pattern on many political domains, I have been telling you this, time and time again. And you are not fooling me, I think you know exactly what you are doing.
See, you are doing it again. You ask for nuance and you are doing the opposite. You compared two very different systems (simple dictatorship, or rather fascism here and the dictatorship of the proletariat). And you invizibilized their opposition but also differences and nuances to push your agenda.
In this case, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a stage of transition where the working class holds political power in order to abolish classes leading to the eventual end of the state. It is not inherently authoritarian, but it involves some forms of constraint, especially against the ancient ruling classes.
This constraint is not fundamentally different in nature from the one already exercised through laws today. But this time, laws will be directed to strip the power of the ruling class instead of maintaining it.
It CAN become authoritarian in practice, YES, depending on how power is exercised. But what is important is how the power and domination are handled within such system which is exactly what you completely invisibilized by equating fascism to this without explaining their differences in term of ethics, domination and forms of violence.
Again, you do this all the time. You uses your knowledge of leftism or history, to completely depoliticize each point I make (which are not specifically mine btw, just the ones of any radical and materialist leftists) and open the door to any types of illegitimate criticizism, usually reactionnary ones.
Every freakin time.
You want proof? Here we go! If you truly understands leftism, you should understand the importance of not letting far rightist spread their rethoric here. So.. Are you ok with preventing them to speak their Bs here? I can't wait to know.
Last edited:
The way to stop crime is to remove the condition that pushes people to do crimes, not to tell them to be respectfull.
Let me give you an exemple:
Imagine that you are being held in a room for 3 month WITHOUT food. There is nowhere to escape, there is only the necessary for you to take care of yourself, drink AND, behind a simple glass, there is a FULL big fridge. Now imagine that you are not alone, there are 1000 person in that MASSIVE room with you.
You have a stone in your room, you can break the glass to access the fridge and the fridge will be refilled. But you are being told by others that if you do that, you are breaking the law, and therefore you are gonna be staying 3 more month.
I guess you are a rationnal person, you wanna survive, and unless you wanna eat other people, you will break the glass, right? Well.. This is what happens in capitalism in different ways.
So.. how to we fix that?
Do we stop you and chain you to the bed to stop you from accessing the fridge if you try to? (Prisons/Police/Laws). Or... do we open the room for everyone to access the fridge from another room and give everyone a share of an infinite fridge?
This is what creating new material conditions feels like. We DON'T tell people to less violent with the glass. We remove the need to break the glass in the first place.
Let me give you an exemple:
Imagine that you are being held in a room for 3 month WITHOUT food. There is nowhere to escape, there is only the necessary for you to take care of yourself, drink AND, behind a simple glass, there is a FULL big fridge. Now imagine that you are not alone, there are 1000 person in that MASSIVE room with you.
You have a stone in your room, you can break the glass to access the fridge and the fridge will be refilled. But you are being told by others that if you do that, you are breaking the law, and therefore you are gonna be staying 3 more month.
I guess you are a rationnal person, you wanna survive, and unless you wanna eat other people, you will break the glass, right? Well.. This is what happens in capitalism in different ways.
So.. how to we fix that?
Do we stop you and chain you to the bed to stop you from accessing the fridge if you try to? (Prisons/Police/Laws). Or... do we open the room for everyone to access the fridge from another room and give everyone a share of an infinite fridge?
This is what creating new material conditions feels like. We DON'T tell people to less violent with the glass. We remove the need to break the glass in the first place.
Do you seriously blame socioeconomic factors for stuff like rape and murder? Theft is somewhat understandable (at least of essentials like food/medicine/basic clothes/sanitary stuff not luxuries like jewellery and phones). There's no reason to murder or rape anybody.
And do you seriously think that rapists/murderers don't understand what they're doing is wrong? Lmao
And do you seriously think that rapists/murderers don't understand what they're doing is wrong? Lmao
