"Alt Right" activist asks for Lenin Statue to be removed

[Mittens]

Which, again, I'm not arguing Communism is feasible. I'm arguing it's not evil.

This is the part, where it's evil though. For the system to continue existing it would have to continuously crush and kill any attempt to form hierarchical structures. This is not necessarily true in other systems. For example, the kibbutzim exist within Israeli state.

[Chrysia]

This is the part, where it's evil though. For the system to continue existing it would have to continuously crush and kill any attempt to form hierarchical structures. This is not necessarily true in other systems. For example, the kibbutzim exist within Israeli state.

All systems either have to adapt or crush competing systems that try to intrude. This is a red herring.

Yes, the kibbutzim exist within Israel, but they aren't competing with Israel, they're insular communities that are supported and actively work with the Israeli government.

[Mittens]

All systems either have to adapt or crush competing systems that try to intrude. This is a red herring.

Yes, the kibbutzim exist within Israel, but they aren't competing with Israel, they're insular communities that are supported and actively work with the Israeli government.

Yes, but only in communism is the only solution to crush competing systems, since the forming of any hierarchical structure dooms the entire system.

[Chrysia]

Yes, but only in communism is the only solution to crush competing systems, since the forming of any hierarchical structure dooms the entire system.

No, it isn't. Capitalism that adapts to other systems isn't "pure capitalism" anymore, it's an amalgamation. It's a new system. If your concern is maintaining capitalism as it is purely envisioned, the only choice remaining is to crush the competing system.

Communism can adapt, it just ceases being communism and becomes a pseudo-communism with x elements to it. A great portrayal of this is Star Trek. The society is an incredibly idealistic pseudo-communism with only those hierarchical structures necessary to preserve interstellar order. It's almost socialism but calling it socialism implies much more state control than seems to exist.

[Felya]

It's not a production issue, it's a resource issue. For communism to work you would need to have infinite resources and some resources like land are always going to be scarce.

Actually, if communism dictates industry allocation, they could use it strategically, to spread out the population. Something that isn't really true under capitalism, because the natural progression is to centralize. People congregate in small areas, with huge land masses in US with scarce population. If they built up industry, the population would follow the jobs. But, it's far more profitable to be centralized in trade hubs, like coastal cities.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but only in communism is the only solution to crush competing systems, since the forming of any hierarchical structure dooms the entire system.

It doesn't... look at China...

- - - Updated - - -

No, it isn't. Capitalism that adapts to other systems isn't "pure capitalism" anymore, it's an amalgamation. It's a new system. If your concern is maintaining capitalism as it is purely envisioned, the only choice remaining is to crush the competing system.

Communism can adapt, it just ceases being communism and becomes a pseudo-communism with x elements to it. A great portrayal of this is Star Trek. The society is an incredibly idealistic pseudo-communism with only those hierarchical structures necessary to preserve interstellar order. It's almost socialism but calling it socialism implies much more state control than seems to exist.

Star Trek? Try China...

[Mittens]

Actually, if communism dictates industry allocation, they could use it strategically, to spread out the population. Something that isn't really true under capitalism, because the natural progression is to centralize. People congregate in small areas, with huge land masses in US with scarce population. If they built up industry, the population would follow the jobs. But, it's far more profitable to be centralized in trade hubs, like coastal cities.

- - - Updated - - -



It doesn't... look at China...

- - - Updated - - -



Star Trek? Try China...

You do realize that China isn't communists right? Call it socialism if you want, but not even Maoists called China communism.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it isn't. Capitalism that adapts to other systems isn't "pure capitalism" anymore, it's an amalgamation. It's a new system. If your concern is maintaining capitalism as it is purely envisioned, the only choice remaining is to crush the competing system.

Communism can adapt, it just ceases being communism and becomes a pseudo-communism with x elements to it. A great portrayal of this is Star Trek. The society is an incredibly idealistic pseudo-communism with only those hierarchical structures necessary to preserve interstellar order. It's almost socialism but calling it socialism implies much more state control than seems to exist.

Capitalism is a market structure not a political one like Communism. Capitalism can exist within any system that allows the necessary conditions for it to exist.

Also, the thing with star trek is that they quite literally have magic, so I don't think its a good example.

[Deleted]

In which case you are contradicting yourself. Private property =/= means of production.

And yet the term used is private property, and i explained it in my post.
Go nuts.

- - - Updated - - -

What Mussolini considered it is irrelevant.

No it isn't -

It bore no resemblance to Socialism

It bears a large resemblance.

was a far-right

An assertion.

conservative ideology

It was just as transformative as socialism.

built upon preserving national identity at all costs.

Yes, It has a different base, the nation instead of the utopian proletariate.

It's literally as far from Socialism as you can realistically get.

No, it really isn't.
They are both collectivist, authoritarians, who favor state run economies.

And yet, it was still a better system than under the English, when they had nobody who even might share some of their concerns in government.

Of course the poor had so much more in common with the rich elites, i mean now they were both "Americans".

I've already acknowledged that Communism isn't feasible with current production, and by population, Nazis aren't behind Communists. Mao's Great Leap Forward is responsible for something like 3/4 of the deaths under Communism, and it was mainly so bad because the population of China was and is so goddamn large. In raw, visceral numbers it is horrible, but you really do have to take per capita into account if you're going to compare ideologies implemented in different times to different populations.

Have you heard of the Holodomor?

[Deleted]

Washington and Jefferson and company - our people, our cultural ancestors - won their war, and it was not a war for slavery. Yeah, you can be a shitmonger and try to twist slaves into it and pretend that had anything to do with what they fought for, but any good historian would smack you in the face for diverting from the actual complaints the colonists had. Taxation, tariffs, trade, representation, laws, and some of the same globalism stuff we have today with the sentiment of "it's ridiculous that the people in charge are on the other side of the planet" (an argument that actually made sense then, pre-internet, cars, and planes and all).

So what you say is that Washington did make more positive contributions then negative contributions, hence we can ignore the negative contributions. That is not the same argument as its right to destroy the "confederation" statue becuse it show a traitor and slaveowner...

[Chrysia]

So what you say is that Washington did make more positive contributions then negative contributions, hence we can ignore the negative contributions. That is not the same argument as its right to destroy the "confederation" statue becuse it show a traitor and slaveowner...

No. Nobody is saying we ignore the negatives. We're saying examine them in the context of their time.

- - - Updated - - -

No it isn't -

It bears a large resemblance.

An assertion.

It was just as transformative as socialism.

Yes, It has a different base, the nation instead of the utopian proletariate.

No, it really isn't.
They are both collectivist, authoritarians, who favor state run economies.

Of course the poor had so much more in common with the rich elites, i mean now they were both "Americans".

Have you heard of the Holodomor?

It really, really is. The Kims call their nation the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We know this is horseshit, but they truly believe it.

No, it doesn't. It's more of a cartel capitalism than socialism.

It was transformative economically, but not socially. The entire point of it was to preserve the nation's existing (or past, in some cases) social identity.

Right, which is why it's not socialism, because it's not about society, it's about the nebulous idea of the nation. It is willing to sacrifice much of the society in the name of protecting the nation.

Socialism is not necessarily authoritarian. Try again.

People living in America had a fuckload more in common with each other than they had with the British.

Yes, and the Holodomor killed a lower percentage of the Soviet population than the Nazi pogroms did.

[Deleted]

BS, Socialism is not authoritarian.

It requires the collectivization of all property, as well as a fully collectivized society - That's by fucking definition authoritarian.

[Felya]

Hmm, right-wing posters not understanding what communism or socialism is.
Why am I not surprised..

The unite the right protest included the following two groups:

National Socialists
Traditional Workers Party

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

I guess according to @GoblinP this whole event was communist vs communist... right?

That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet.

[Deleted]

It really, really is. The Kims call their nation the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We know this is horseshit, but they truly believe it.

This analogy would make for sense if Kim il sung was the father of democracy, but he wasn't, so it isn't.

No, it doesn't. It's more of a cartel capitalism than socialism.

It wasn't quite as leftward as socialism sure - But hate to break it to you, Extreme right wing thought does not feature strongly controlled markets or economies, or a strong state with no other actors with any power.
What does feature a strong state with a strong grip on the economy, with no room for disenting power structures?
That's communism baby.

It was transformative economically, but not socially. The entire point of it was to preserve the nation's existing (or past, in some cases) social identity.

What is the opposite to Conservative? That's Transformative.

Right, which is why it's not socialism, because it's not about society, it's about the nebulous idea of the nation. It is willing to sacrifice much of the society in the name of protecting the nation.

Yeah the socialism, does not mean society -
And socialism want's to get rid of every state and society to usher in a proletarian non state - So again, not seeing the magic distinction.
Fascism is socialism, except instead of the proletariat, its the nation.

Socialism is not necessarily authoritarian. Try again.

Socialism features the collectivization of all means of production, and thus by definition, all power - Collecting all power into a singular foci, and not tolerating dissent, is by fucking definition authoritarian.

People living in America had a fuckload more in common with each other than they had with the British.

In 1776, 99% of them were British dude.

Yes, and the Holodomor killed a lower percentage of the Soviet population than the Nazi pogroms did.

No, No, The Holodomor killed Zero soviet citizens, it killed Ukrainians - Around 1/4 of them -

- - - Updated - - -

I guess according to @GoblinP this whole event was communist vs communist... right?

You know who the Fascist and the Communists hated the most in Europe in the 20s and 30s?
The Social democrats.

[Chrysia]

This analogy would make for sense if Kim il sung was the father of democracy, but he wasn't, so it isn't.

It wasn't quite as leftward as socialism sure - But hate to break it to you, Extreme right wing thought does not feature strongly controlled markets or economies, or a strong state with no other actors with any power.
What does feature a strong state with a strong grip on the economy, with no room for disenting power structures?
That's communism baby.

What is the opposite to Conservative? That's Transformative.

Yeah the socialism, does not mean society -
And socialism want's to get rid of every state and society to usher in a proletarian non state - So again, not seeing the magic distinction.
Fascism is socialism, except instead of the proletariat, its the nation.

Socialism features the collectivization of all means of production, and thus by definition, all power - Collecting all power into a singular foci, and not tolerating dissent, is by fucking definition authoritarian.

In 1776, 99% of them were British dude.
No, No, The Holodomor killed Zero soviet citizens, it killed Ukrainians - Around 1/4 of them -

It still holds. Peoples own opinions on their ideology don't matter, what they objectively do does.

You're thinking in American terms, it seems. Extreme right used to be extremely anti-business, when the concept of the left and right were first coined. The definitions shift. The thing that makes fascism extreme right is the nationalism, which is as far from left-wing ideology as you can get.

Socialism absolutely implies a focus on society. One of its core tenants is egalitarianism, which fascists reject.

Except the "singular foci" is literally everyone, represented by the state.

They were British citizens, but American culture had already significantly drifted away from British culture. That's kinda part of why the war happened.

Ukrainians were Soviet citizens. They were part of the Soviet Union at the time.

[Mittens]

BS, Socialism is not authoritarian.

State-led socialism is authoritarian.

[Deleted]

Yes.
Communists hated the fascists the most.
And fascists just hated everyone.

You should read my Sig:

Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism....
Joseph Stalin.

[Chrysia]

You should read my Sig:

Yeah, which means he thought Social Democracy was less extreme than fascism.

[Felya]

No, No, The Holodomor killed Zero soviet citizens, it killed Ukrainians - Around 1/4 of them -

This is bullshit! Ukrain was not an independent country. Holomodor happened because of Russia's regulation on crops. What you are saying is, like saying 9/11 killed zero American citizens, they were all New Yorkers. WTF?

Just an FYI... Kiev was the original capital of Russia...

You know who the Fascist and the Communists hated the most in Europe in the 20s and 30s?
The Social democrats.

How about each other? See my avatar for evidence...

[Zecora]

It requires the collectivization of all property, as well as a fully collectivized society - That's by fucking definition authoritarian.

You don't even know the difference between socialism and communism?

To quote the White Supremacist-in-chief: "Sad."

[Felya]

You should read my Sig:

Who gives a shit what Stalin said? He isn't known for his skills in judgment, but his insecurities leading to done horrible shit. He wasn't a scholar, so if your opinion hinges on Stalin's, I'm sorry but you are going to have to take a bit more ownership and explain what you two believe.

[Noradin]

No, because the limited suffrage the US won was better than the zero suffrage they had previously.

They won the opportunity to implement general suffrage but decided not to, and they did have representation before.