NationStates

*shocked pikachu face*

Narland wrote:

United Nations of Gaia wrote:Everything is socialism if it's bad.
Lol.
The moment the words "corporato socialism" were written by you, you should've genuinely thought about what the words you speak mean, because it's total nonsense.

Fascism economically relies controlling the means of production through corporate entities.where the state subsidizes, exerts direct influence, and is the primary stakeholder. It is the de facto owner. Corporate socialism is fascism.

Socialism is worker control of the means of production, not government control.
Again, words have meanings, which you don't use correctly, either maliciously or due to a lack of understanding.

Ok. Well? Investigate and if the information looks valid; prosecute.

Narland wrote:

United Nations of Gaia wrote:Everything is socialism if it's bad.
Lol.
The moment the words "corporato socialism" were written by you, you should've genuinely thought about what the words you speak mean, because it's total nonsense.

Fascism economically relies controlling the means of production through corporate entities.where the state subsidizes, exerts direct influence, and is the primary stakeholder. It is the de facto owner. Corporate socialism is fascism.

Fascism never denied the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto and happily incorporated it into their interpretation of why Marx failed in the implementation of their idiosyncratic correction of Marx. No different than the National Socialists implemented theirs, and the International Socialists (who won the bragging rights to both the moniker Marxists, and Communists) even though they are all trying to fix where Marx got it wrong.

The what? Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? It's not very long and not a difficult read, it's literally a pamphlet. To be honest though, that your other points are also at complete odds with reality makes it pretty clear you have a very loose understanding of what socialism is.

Heloin wrote:

Narland wrote:Fascism economically relies controlling the means of production through corporate entities.where the state subsidizes, exerts direct influence, and is the primary stakeholder. It is the de facto owner. Corporate socialism is fascism.

Fascism never denied the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto and happily incorporated it into their interpretation of why Marx failed in the implementation of their idiosyncratic correction of Marx. No different than the National Socialists implemented theirs, and the International Socialists (who won the bragging rights to both the moniker Marxists, and Communists) even though they are all trying to fix where Marx got it wrong.

The what? Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? It's not very long and not a difficult read, it's literally a pamphlet. To be honest though, that your other points are also at complete odds with reality makes it pretty clear you have a very loose understanding of what socialism is.

"But nazis have socialist in the name so must be socialist" is still a really bad take but people keep making it.

Heloin wrote:

Narland wrote:Fascism economically relies controlling the means of production through corporate entities.where the state subsidizes, exerts direct influence, and is the primary stakeholder. It is the de facto owner. Corporate socialism is fascism.

Fascism never denied the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto and happily incorporated it into their interpretation of why Marx failed in the implementation of their idiosyncratic correction of Marx. No different than the National Socialists implemented theirs, and the International Socialists (who won the bragging rights to both the moniker Marxists, and Communists) even though they are all trying to fix where Marx got it wrong.

The what? Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? It's not very long and not a difficult read, it's literally a pamphlet. To be honest though, that your other points are also at complete odds with reality makes it pretty clear you have a very loose understanding of what socialism is.

Yes, I have read the Communist Manifest, as well as as much Lenin, Marx, Engels, Mussolini, Mao, Trotski, et al as I could stand. Sorry, it is the middle of the night, and I am trying to nurse some very ill lambs. I have reposted a better edit of what I was trying to post:

This is my textbook bullet points of post-2nd International version of Socialism.

All Socialists hold at least to:


Whether the directives of public ownership is given through syndicates, planning commissions, corporate boards, military cabals, the former order, etc as intermediaries determine what kind of Socialism. If it is through party held planning commissions it is Soviet Communism. If it through de facto control of corporate entities Fascism. If through military and peasantry against the landowners for one great leap, Maoism, etc. etc.

This is in opposition to free and open markets by a free and self-governing populace in a free and open society based on mutual self-respect, principles of self-government, civil liberties and civic virtue.

yeah Georgism owns

Defacing and damaging monuments and memorials seems to be something of a tit for tat territorial power play and war of symbols between activists. It appears rather bad taste; absolute adherence to the law is a stupid and thoroughly impractical bar for activism of course, but this sort of politics does nothing to improve anybody's standard of living. Just an thin veneer of excuse for street thuggery. I'm disappointed to see more nationalists doing stuff like this as their main avenue of political activity as opposed to some kind of coherent issues-based activity, but at this point I am not terribly surprised.

Narland wrote:

Heloin wrote:The what? Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto? It's not very long and not a difficult read, it's literally a pamphlet. To be honest though, that your other points are also at complete odds with reality makes it pretty clear you have a very loose understanding of what socialism is.

Yes, I have read the Communist Manifest, as well as as much Lenin, Marx, Engels, Mussolini, Mao, Trotski, et al as I could stand. Sorry, it is the middle of the night, and I am trying to nurse some very ill lambs. I have reposted a better edit of what I was trying to post:

<<Fascism economically relies on controlling the means of production through corporate entities.where the state subsidizes, exerts direct influence, and is the primary stakeholder. It is the de facto owner. Corporate socialism is fascism. Corporato-Socialsm is a valid descriptor.

Fascism never denied the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto. It happily incorporated it into their interpretation of why Marx failed and was the basis of the implementation of their idiosyncratic correction of Marx. No different than the National Socialists implemented theirs, and the International Socialists (who won the bragging rights to both the moniker Marxists, and Communists) even though they are all trying to fix where Marx got it wrong.>>

This is my textbook bullet points of post-2nd International version of Socialism.

*Socialism is an economic and political system based on public ownership of the means of production.
*All legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government in a socialist system. The government determines all output and pricing levels.
*Citizens in a socialist society rely on the government for everything, from food to healthcare.
*Proponents of socialism believe that it leads to a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.
*Examples of socialist countries include the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and Venezuela.
*Socialist ideals include production for use, rather than for profit; an equitable distribution of wealth and material resources among all people; no more competitive buying and selling in the market; and free access to goods and services.
*Capitalism, with its belief in private ownership and the goal to maximize profits, stands in contrast to socialism.
*While socialism and capitalism seem diametrically opposed, most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects.

All Socialists hold at least to:

*Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.
*A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
*Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.
*Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.
*Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
*Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.
*Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.
*Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.
*Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
*Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children's Factory Labor in it's Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.

Whether the directives of public ownership is given through syndicates, planning commissions, corporate boards, military cabals, the former order, etc as intermediaries determine what kind of Socialism. If it is through party held planning commissions it is Soviet Communism. If it through de facto control of corporate entities Fascism. If through military and peasantry against the landowners for one great leap, Maoism, etc. etc.

This is in opposition to free and open markets by a free and self-governing populace in a free and open society based on mutual self-respect, principles of self-government, civil liberties and civic virtue.

It's not often that I read something that confirms my more snide biases but here we are.

Heloin wrote:

Narland wrote:Yes, I have read the Communist Manifest, as well as as much Lenin, Marx, Engels, Mussolini, Mao, Trotski, et al as I could stand. Sorry, it is the middle of the night, and I am trying to nurse some very ill lambs. I have reposted a better edit of what I was trying to post:

<<Fascism economically relies on controlling the means of production through corporate entities.where the state subsidizes, exerts direct influence, and is the primary stakeholder. It is the de facto owner. Corporate socialism is fascism. Corporato-Socialsm is a valid descriptor.

Fascism never denied the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto. It happily incorporated it into their interpretation of why Marx failed and was the basis of the implementation of their idiosyncratic correction of Marx. No different than the National Socialists implemented theirs, and the International Socialists (who won the bragging rights to both the moniker Marxists, and Communists) even though they are all trying to fix where Marx got it wrong.>>

This is my textbook bullet points of post-2nd International version of Socialism.

*Socialism is an economic and political system based on public ownership of the means of production.
*All legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government in a socialist system. The government determines all output and pricing levels.
*Citizens in a socialist society rely on the government for everything, from food to healthcare.
*Proponents of socialism believe that it leads to a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.
*Examples of socialist countries include the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and Venezuela.
*Socialist ideals include production for use, rather than for profit; an equitable distribution of wealth and material resources among all people; no more competitive buying and selling in the market; and free access to goods and services.
*Capitalism, with its belief in private ownership and the goal to maximize profits, stands in contrast to socialism.
*While socialism and capitalism seem diametrically opposed, most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects.

All Socialists hold at least to:

*Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.
*A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
*Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.
*Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.
*Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
*Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.
*Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.
*Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.
*Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
*Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children's Factory Labor in it's Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.

Whether the directives of public ownership is given through syndicates, planning commissions, corporate boards, military cabals, the former order, etc as intermediaries determine what kind of Socialism. If it is through party held planning commissions it is Soviet Communism. If it through de facto control of corporate entities Fascism. If through military and peasantry against the landowners for one great leap, Maoism, etc. etc.

This is in opposition to free and open markets by a free and self-governing populace in a free and open society based on mutual self-respect, principles of self-government, civil liberties and civic virtue.

It's not often that I read something that confirms my more snide biases but here we are.

How is my reading of Marxian ideologies a confirmation of your biases?

Whaaaat, racial supremacists were planning on doing bad things? Thats wild

GG to whoever hacked them

Narland wrote:

Heloin wrote:It's not often that I read something that confirms my more snide biases but here we are.

How is my reading of Marxian ideologies a confirmation of your biases?

That you definitely didn't. Again the Communist Manifesto is a small 23 page pamphlet, generally more of a call to action with points to be made about how the then ongoing revolutions of 1848 could be won to bring about communism. It's important to remember that nothing exists within a vacuum, if you don't understand what something is saying about when it was written you will never understand about how it applies to today whether or not you agree with it.

Also while the points themselves are from the pamphlet the phrase "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" is not used anywhere or in any leftist text I know of. Literally the first google result for the term is a website called conservativeusa which looks like it was made in 2002, so I'm fairly certain that's where you got them from. I highly doubt you wrote it out from your "textbook" or went to the marxist website where it's there on page 26 of the helpful pdf.

What a twist of fate (if you could call it that) that his last name would be Rousseau. Willing to bet old Jean-Jacques would be rolling in his grave at the thought of sharing a name with him.

This is no real surprise.

Heloin wrote:Also while the points themselves are from the pamphlet the phrase "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" is not used anywhere or in any leftist text I know of. Literally the first google result for the term is a website called conservativeusa which looks like it was made in 2002, so I'm fairly certain that's where you got them from. I highly doubt you wrote it out from your "textbook" or went to the marxist website where it's there on page 26 of the helpful pdf.

Copyright © 2011 The Conservative Caucus, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ten years ago, apparently.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Whaaaat, racial supremacists were planning on doing bad things? Thats wild

GG to whoever hacked them

I wonder if it was Anonymous.

Saiwania wrote:The group itself, hasn't done anything wrong from what I can tell, asides from those people who really did do petty vandalism and other illegal actions in real life.

Aside from the crimes they did they didn't do any crimes.

Lest I be accused of condoning what-about-ism, I find it curious that most of those on the Antifa or far Left side got away with destroying statues and other monuments they found disagreeable on arguably a far greater scale under Obama and Trump, with fewer to no people batting an eye other than Fox News.

Patent lie.

---

Narland wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Remember, you can't be a Nazi and a proud American. We literally had a war about this, and the Nazis lost.

There are few things more un-American than the various forms of Marxian dialectics promoting envy, strife, and hate, be it National Socialism (Naziism), International Socialism (Communism), Corporato-Socialsim (Fascism), or any other ideology that denies individuals their dignity as self-governing human beings to be free from authoritarian and totalitarian petty despots (bullies) who think they know how best live other peoples lives than the individual persons themselves. Millions, 10s of millions and hundreds of millions murdered alone by these wretched ideologies, and still Nazis, Communists and Fascists, never willing to learn from history are all over the place.

Oh bud, wait until you find out about that time where America was fully in favour of denying individuals their dignity as self-governing human beings.

Heloin wrote:

Narland wrote:How is my reading of Marxian ideologies a confirmation of your biases?

That you definitely didn't. Again the Communist Manifesto is a small 23 page pamphlet, generally more of a call to action with points to be made about how the then ongoing revolutions of 1848 could be won to bring about communism. It's important to remember that nothing exists within a vacuum, if you don't understand what something is saying about when it was written you will never understand about how it applies to today whether or not you agree with it.

Also while the points themselves are from the pamphlet the phrase "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" is not used anywhere or in any leftist text I know of. Literally the first google result for the term is a website called conservativeusa which looks like it was made in 2002, so I'm fairly certain that's where you got them from. I highly doubt you wrote it out from your "textbook" or went to the marxist website where it's there on page 26 of the helpful pdf.

Of course nothing exists in a vacuum except what's picked up from the carpet (both of which are blatantly obvious). That it must be read in context is the point, which you are obfuscating by insinuating that I am a liar. Typical Marxist tactics, btw. If you cannot defend something on its merits (and the Manifesto is woefully lacking in merit) attack the messenger.

The problem isn't the status of your knowledge or lack thereof. The problem is that it (the Manifesto) purports to be that call to action (probably the only thing on which we both agree).which you deny that I have read. The relevance of implementing its call so that the revolutionary struggle may proceed is undeniable, so please stop trying.

The Manifesto is relevant to Communism, and the struggle of the proletariat. The planks are the touchstone of that revolution in "advanced" countries. After all, the call to revolutionary action by any means necessary is what the Revolution is about. That it is the most published and distributed work on Marxism and one of the things that all schools hold in common is the point. In my opinion it is the damnable point against Marxian thought.

The bullet point handout that came with the textbook papers from a college course back in the late 80s reads exactly as i posted. Like most of the handouts, has an attribution is the bottom right where this one reads, "The New School for Social Research." But I am sure you already knew that.

So if you are finished being insulting, perhaps we can talk some more in the future. But until then, i will leave you to the wonders of the greatness of your own mind. I will point out that sort of hubris is what in the 20th Century alone that left a wake of death, destruction and ruin for 100s of millions. when someone's idea of what Marxism/Socialism was was forced on them by revolutionary arms.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Remember, you can't be a Nazi and a proud American. We literally had a war about this, and the Nazis lost.

Unless you're suddenly joining the revolutionary crowd and saying we should entire destroy America's liberal democracy this is not true. It's one of many reasons the republic needs replaced.

Yis.

What's the cure for such disorders? Beatings.

"Lol," replied the scorpion, "lmao"

Narland wrote:

Heloin wrote:That you definitely didn't. Again the Communist Manifesto is a small 23 page pamphlet, generally more of a call to action with points to be made about how the then ongoing revolutions of 1848 could be won to bring about communism. It's important to remember that nothing exists within a vacuum, if you don't understand what something is saying about when it was written you will never understand about how it applies to today whether or not you agree with it.

Also while the points themselves are from the pamphlet the phrase "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" is not used anywhere or in any leftist text I know of. Literally the first google result for the term is a website called conservativeusa which looks like it was made in 2002, so I'm fairly certain that's where you got them from. I highly doubt you wrote it out from your "textbook" or went to the marxist website where it's there on page 26 of the helpful pdf.

Of course nothing exists in a vacuum except what's picked up from the carpet (both of which are blatantly obvious). That it must be read in context is the point, which you are obfuscating by insinuating that I am a liar. Typical Marxist tactics, btw. If you cannot defend something on its merits (and the Manifesto is woefully lacking in merit) attack the messenger.

I don’t think you’ve read anything you’re claiming to have read because even if you oppose socialism in the most sweeping broad generalisation possible you can’t come to the conclusion that fascism is a sub category of it. Fascism exists purely as the end of the line reactionary and right wing opposition to socialism, communism, and anarchism. Fascism ideologically wants and needs opposition in order to justify itself to it’s followers. When you conflate Fascism with what it opposes you fail at a fundamental level to understand the causes and motives behind fascist organisations and movements. I think you haven’t read any leftist works because the conclusion you presented is one born out of right wing anxiety over fascism sharing key points with conservative and reactionary ideologies. Nothing you’ve said is original or new, it’s the oldest excuse used to ignore that conservatism helped the Nazis into power.

The only thing I can be sure you’ve read is one list whose importance isn’t as great as you think among leftists and who’s value is in part of the greater whole of the passage.

South Florida Republic wrote:Nobody online seemed to care about vandalism back in 2020

And there we go with the BUT BLM shit again.

South Florida Republic wrote:Nobody online seemed to care about vandalism back in 2020

You must not have been online during 2020, which is weird, because there was precious little to do that year but go online.

South Florida Republic wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
And there we go with the BUT BLM shit again.

Well, it's a decent point. Leftists will be smugly celebrating this enormous victory against a small group of people, but will then have no issue with vandalizing of statues and other things when done by BLM.

Until you remember that members of BLM get often fucking gassed by police whilst right wingers get treated extremely passively.
The only time the police did anything against white supremacists was letting them into the capitol and then remembering they were on duty and had to swiftly kick out their buddies again.
A left wing protest would have seen live fire being used before they even entered.