Does the Alt-Right event exist? Or just Clinton fiction?

[Lenonis]

*snip*

Whoopsy didn't see the mod warning until now.

Anyway -- haven't we basically answered the OP's question as best as we will? Not sure what is left to discussion.

[Deleted]

Yet this is still about Marxism and not communism,

There is no distinction.
It is not possible to bring about 'Marxism' without communism.

- - - Updated - - -

The facts are: there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and only like 200k of them are violent.

"There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Of course not all of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15-25% according to all intelligence services around the world.

"That leaves 75% of [Muslims being] peaceful people. But when you look at 15-25% of the world's Muslim population, you're looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States."

And they are not even the fucking problem:

Note the numbers there -

[JohnBrown1917]

There is no distinction.
It is not possible to bring about 'Marxism' without communism.
-

Marxism came before state communism. I do see a clear distinction, Between the kind of society marx envisioned and the one Stalin created.
A marxist society is also stateless, how was the USSR/China stateless?


'Marx hypothesized that socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development, which would be a classless, stateless humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"


But I still have yet to see anything about Karl Marx advocating for mass killings, which is what this whole stupid argument is about.

[Deleted]

But when you look at 15-25% of the world's Muslim population, you're looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.

Hide yo children
Must be tough living a life in fear.

[Macaquerie]

Yet this is still about Marxism and not communism, but whatever. Why blame Marx over Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc? How are those people his fault?


Or we could just accept that extreme authoritarianism is the problem.

Most of the deaths that are attributed to communist dictatorships came as a result of failed economic planning and mass starvation, and while this doesn't mitigate their responsibility for the outcome, it really isn't fair to claim that they deliberately exterminated whole populations in the same way that the Nazis did.

And really this all comes down to the way that we perceive statistics when it comes to life and death. We're always seeing death tolls for various wars and disasters reported in the media, but in the grand scheme of things, disease and famine rack up far higher casualty counts. The real crime of Marxism was not so much its authoritarian nature, in reality most communist states didn't have anywhere near the level of effective control to implement a 1984-style police state anyway, but the fact that the revolutionary movements that established these governments typically broke down most of the societal and communal structures that people had depended on to survive. And in place of all these social institutions that helped out the hungry, sick, and destitute, came a bunch of unqualified bureaucrats who believed that revolutionary zeal and fanaticism were the solution to every problem, and all this meant that these countries were extremely ill equipped to deal with kinds of mass starvation brought on by their governments' shortsighted economic planning.

[Reeve]

Does the Alt Right exist?

Exhibit A: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...e-read-the-OP)

[Masark]

And they are not even the fucking problem:

Note the numbers there -

And what are the rates for Christians in the same areas?

[Forogil]

'Marx hypothesized that socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development, which would be a classless, stateless humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Basically Marx was a joke of a scientist - his "hypothesis" have been tested and found wanting.
And the basis of his "hypothesis" is growing more and more irrelevant, whereas some of the theories he tried to replace are still relevant.

That is a common problem: people idolizing the false prophets (like Marx) of last centuries, instead of trying to find relevant solution for the problems of today. And when that fails people switch to anything - like alt-right.

But I still have yet to see anything about Karl Marx advocating for mass killings, which is what this whole stupid argument is about.

So, Marx was such a bad "scientist" that he failed to predict the likely and repeated outcome of trying to implement his ideas?
Remember that he co-wrote "The Communist Manifesto" and the 10-step program was largely implemented in Russia at the start.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the deaths that are attributed to communist dictatorships came as a result of failed economic planning and mass starvation, and while this doesn't mitigate their responsibility for the outcome, it really isn't fair to claim that they deliberately exterminated whole populations in the same way that the Nazis did.

Depends, some were deliberate - some were failures.

The "Killing fields" of the Khmer Rouge that literally decimated the population on an almost yearly basis were deliberate in the same ways as the Nazis. The "Great Leap Backward" is less clear - and the Russians combined efforts with specific parts of the population with general failures.

[Deleted]

Marxism came before state communism.

As an Idea yes, as a functioning society? - I think the current thesis is that its not been managed 'yet' -

Between the kind of society marx envisioned and the one Stalin created.
A marxist society is also stateless, how was the USSR/China stateless?

Marx wanted a one world stateless society - Exactly how to get there is the question.

'Marx hypothesized that socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development, which would be a classless, stateless humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

How. Do. You. Get. There.

But I still have yet to see anything about Karl Marx advocating for mass killings, which is what this whole stupid argument is about.

Nowhere - Its just that in every place where they tried bringing about the socialist 'utopia' masses upon masses of people were or are slaughtered.
Because the level of self sacrifice and communitarianism that is required does not exist in all people everywhere always.

- - - Updated - - -

And what are the rates for Christians in the same areas?

No clue - But do note 'southern-eastern Europe'.
83% -

- - - Updated - - -

Does the Alt Right exist?

Exhibit A: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...e-read-the-OP)

Reading the OP - Not seeing how that makes your point.

- - - Updated - - -

Hide yo children
Must be tough living a life in fear.

Oh i'm not in fear - Virtually all of those are not in the EU (not all sadly) - It just explains why (among other better reasons) I'm against importing those fuckwits.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the deaths that are attributed to communist dictatorships came as a result of failed economic planning and mass starvation, and while this doesn't mitigate their responsibility for the outcome, it really isn't fair to claim that they deliberately exterminated whole populations in the same way that the Nazis did.

Ukrainian 'famines' -

"For example, special and particularly lethal policies were adopted in and largely limited to Soviet Ukraine at the end of 1932 and 1933. According to Snyder: "Each of them may seem like an anodyne administrative measure, and each of them was certainly presented as such at the time, and yet each had to kill."

They intentionally caused deaths with genocidal policies.
There is nothing fucking bad about comparing the communist with the Nazis - Other than the fact that the communists were Are 10-15 times worse.

[Deleted]

Oh i'm not in fear - Virtually all of those are not in the EU (not all sadly) - It just explains why (among other better reasons) I'm against importing those fuckwits.

And as I correctly said, it must be tough living in fear.

[Gangresnake]

And as I correctly said, it must be tough living in fear.

It surely is harder than living in ignorance.

[LilSaihah]

Yet this is still about Marxism and not communism, but whatever. Why blame Marx over Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc? How are those people his fault?

Because we are not talking about Marx, we are talking about Marxism. It's similarly not reasonable to blame Mohammad personally for atrocities committed in the name of Islam, but that has no bearing on whether Islam is a good or bad ideology.

Or we could just accept that extreme authoritarianism is the problem.

That extreme authoritarianism is a problem is reasonable.
Deflecting all criticisms of communism in practice as "not real Marxism" is not. If the ideology is practicable, why has it not existed in any criticizable form in the nigh 170 years since Marx wrote his manifesto?

[Deleted]

It surely is harder than living in ignorance.

Im sorry to hear. *pat*

[Super Kami Dende]

But I really don't see the point in complaining that they used an imprecise label for the bigotry in question, when regardless of whether it's based on the ethnicity or their faith, either way it's equally intolerant, hateful, and indefensible.

This is the stupidity I can't quite understand of the left. You are saying that being racist is the same as hating a religion. That is incredibly naive and childish.

People should be allowed to openly criticise, denounce and hate ideologies. People these days that start having a fucking whinge because someone says something bad about Islam or Feminism and compare that to Racism are just jokes of people.

ALL IDEAS AND BELIEFS should be subject to criticism. If someone doesn't like your Ideas it doesn't make them a bad person, it means they don't like the shit you are saying.

Ironically people who call people Bigots all the time are usually Bigots themselves. Mostly due to the fact they are saying someone is wrong in their beliefs of disliking someone else's belief. Literally bigots calling other people bigots. It is what makes the left wing such the massive hypocrites they are.

[Macaquerie]

This is the stupidity I can't quite understand of the left. You are saying that being racist is the same as hating a religion. That is incredibly naive and childish.

People should be allowed to openly criticise, denounce and hate ideologies. People these days that start having a fucking whinge because someone says something bad about Islam or Feminism and compare that to Racism are just jokes of people.

ALL IDEAS AND BELIEFS should be subject to criticism. If someone doesn't like your Ideas it doesn't make them a bad person, it means they don't like the shit you are saying.

Ironically people who call people Bigots all the time are usually Bigots themselves. Mostly due to the fact they are saying someone is wrong in their beliefs of disliking someone else's belief. Literally bigots calling other people bigots. It is what makes the left wing such the massive hypocrites they are.

If there ever was some kind of policy to expel Muslims from Europe en masse, what you would almost certainly see is Muslims converting or renouncing their faith in huge numbers. In that case, if the opposition was truly to the ideology then Europeans would naturally embrace the former Muslims for turning their back on those beliefs. Of course that would never happen and the conversions would immediately be denounced as insincere and whites would pretty much find any excuse to kick them out anyway.

[Deleted]

This is the stupidity I can't quite understand of the left. You are saying that being racist is the same as hating a religion. That is incredibly naive and childish.

People should be allowed to openly criticise, denounce and hate ideologies. People these days that start having a fucking whinge because someone says something bad about Islam or Feminism and compare that to Racism are just jokes of people.

ALL IDEAS AND BELIEFS should be subject to criticism. If someone doesn't like your Ideas it doesn't make them a bad person, it means they don't like the shit you are saying.

Ironically people who call people Bigots all the time are usually Bigots themselves. Mostly due to the fact they are saying someone is wrong in their beliefs of disliking someone else's belief. Literally bigots calling other people bigots. It is what makes the left wing such the massive hypocrites they are.

You didnt read that post did you.

[Belize]

I suggest cuting it out

But how can we have a cute out/cute off, when you're already the cutest? Not even fair competition.

[Yriel]

If there ever was some kind of policy to expel Muslims from Europe en masse, what you would almost certainly see is Muslims converting or renouncing their faith in huge numbers. In that case, if the opposition was truly to the ideology then Europeans would naturally embrace the former Muslims for turning their back on those beliefs. Of course that would never happen and the conversions would immediately be denounced as insincere and whites would pretty much find any excuse to kick them out anyway.

You will never see Muslims converting or renouncing their faith in huge numbers because of a policy. Just not going to happen.
But even if does, there is not much resentment against non-muslim immigrants here. There are, for example, quite a lot of asians living in germany, mostly from china, vietnam and korea. Nobody has a problem with that because you don't really notice them. They live normal lives, they have jobs and educations.
Sure, the pure number of muslims makes them more visible but a big part is that their religion and, for some part, their culture is not very compatible to ours.
That is not a problem with the asians, for example.
So yes, i think that if they would denounce their religion in huge numbers and accept our livestyle people wouldn't have much of a problem with them aside from the fact that there is a shitload of them and most don't have any real educations or jobs and thus will cost us a lot.

[Macaquerie]

You will never see Muslims converting or renouncing their faith in huge numbers because of a policy. Just not going to happen.
But even if does, there is not much resentment against non-muslim immigrants here. There are, for example, quite a lot of asians living in germany, mostly from china, vietnam and korea. Nobody has a problem with that because you don't really notice them. They live normal lives, they have jobs and educations.
Sure, the pure number of muslims makes them more visible but a big part is that their religion and, for some part, their culture is not very compatible to ours.
That is not a problem with the asians, for example.
So yes, i think that if they would denounce their religion in huge numbers and accept our livestyle people wouldn't have much of a problem with them aside from the fact that there is a shitload of them and most don't have any real educations or jobs and thus will cost us a lot.

That's kind of the issue right, you're okay with immigrants as long as there aren't too many of them, and once there are you'll find some reason to dislike them. There may not be many Asians in Europe, but in places where there are high proportions of them like Canada, Australia, or even some parts of the US, they are tolerated but not exactly welcomed and there are always very strict limitations on how many are allowed in. I imagine that in the next few decades there will be an ever increasing influx of Asian immigrants to Europe, and the chances of Europeans handling that with some dignity and respect are practically zero.

[JohnBrown1917]

That extreme authoritarianism is a problem is reasonable.
Deflecting all criticisms of communism in practice as "not real Marxism" is not. If the ideology is practicable, why has it not existed in any criticizable form in the nigh 170 years since Marx wrote his manifesto?

Because its not, thats what I think atleast.

His vision was a stateless society, Stalin & Mao did not create such a society.
So really, how is classic marxism worse than nazis?.. Well I suppose if you're straight, white and not jewish, you'll probably not have to worry much.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the deaths that are attributed to communist dictatorships came as a result of failed economic planning and mass starvation, and while this doesn't mitigate their responsibility for the outcome, it really isn't fair to claim that they deliberately exterminated whole populations in the same way that the Nazis did.

Wonder how high we'd get if added all starvation deaths caused by capitalism, because I think state communism and capitalism could compete at it.