Violence breaks out as self-proclaimed antifascists shut down 'alt-right' speech

[Triks]

1. Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. I'm left myself, but i sure didn't wanna see Hilary winning.

2. Shit dude, maybe. You don't even know what freedom of speech is so i don't expect you to know about socialism.

Hilary is center-right. The USA has never had a left-wing party. The Democrats appear to be left-wing because they are to the left of the Republicans. If you start, speaking to them about public ownership they will look at you like you are mad.

Okay, what is socialism?

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly wonder what these sort of left-wingers want, they hate both the Marxist influenced ideologies and the green parties, so what do they follow? You know, aside from joining left-wing parties to turn them into neo-liberal ones.


Ahem.. like Macron Or Blairites.

They aren't left-wing. If supporting universal healthcare and the welfare state (i.e. Blair, the Democrats, Macron) then the Prussian Junker, staunch monarchist and reactionary Bismark was a marxist. Welfarism is still capitalism, it's not socialism. Virtually all mainstream political parties support those ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he isn't. Carl Benjamin is on record as preferring totalitarian nationalism if it means getting rid of those filthy SJeWs. There are left wing ideologues - like Stalinists - who would embrace totalitarian nationalism for a variety of reasons, but none that would do so in service of defeating pluralism. You know what we grown ups who don't get all our political knowledge from dipshit YouTubers call someone who would destroy democracy out of a desire to preserve inequality?

Hint: Not leftist, or liberal, or "classical" liberal, or "liberalist," or whatever that doofus is calling himself today.

Is that a surprise? Like his favourite economist Hayek, Sargon has a hard-on for fascist dictatorships. He isn't a liberal, he never believed in liberalism but he always believed in "classical liberalism" and like all "classical liberals" - Farage, Hayek, Friedman, Rand, etc. - he is willing to accept dictatorships to preserve the free market.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, I'm pretty left. I told you already.

You are left-wing but think Corbyn is a marxist. Okay.

[Macaquerie]

Is that a surprise? Like his favourite economist Hayek, Sargon has a hard-on for fascist dictatorships. He isn't a liberal, he never believed in liberalism but he always believed in "classical liberalism" and like all "classical liberals" - Farage, Hayek, Friedman, Rand, etc. - he is willing to accept dictatorships to preserve the free market.

Well you wouldn't think a guy who named himself after one of the earliest bloodthirsty conquerors to appear in the history books would be all too much of a fan of democratic pluralism.

[Triks]

Well you wouldn't think a guy who named himself after one of the earliest bloodthirsty conquerors to appear in the history books would be all too much of a fan of democratic pluralism.

No, deffinetely not.

[Player Twelve]

Why would Trump be better than Hillary?

Because Hillary has a brain damage.

[downnola]

Hilary is center-right. The USA has never had a left-wing party. The Democrats appear to be left-wing because they are to the left of the Republicans. If you start, speaking to them about public ownership they will look at you like you are mad.

Okay, what is socialism?

How about you answer that question, because most of the people I see that ride others for not knowing what "socialism" is never actually offer a proper definition in return. All they seem to be capable of doing is pointing out how others don't know what it means.

[bladeXcrasher]

Says the guy who happily tolerates fascists, disgusting.

Nice edit to your original post about them only being loons. You are sick in the head and need to seek help of you really think that assault and battery are ok. You could always move to America and join the MAGA group, seems like they draw many parallels of thought with you.

[Triks]

How about you answer that question, because most of the people I see that ride others for not knowing what "socialism" is never actually offer a proper definition in return. All they seem to be capable of doing is pointing out how others don't know what it means.

An economic system where industry (or "the means of production") is publicly-owned. That's it.

[bladeXcrasher]

An economic system where industry (or "the means of production") is publicly-owned. That's it.

That's a pretty short and incomplete definition of a command economy.

[downnola]

An economic system where industry (or "the means of production") is publicly-owned. That's it.

Which parties in Europe, or elsewhere, subscribe to this definition of socialism that aren't on the radical fringes of contemporary politics? You are aware that Socialism has evolved since the 19th century, right? I only ask because you're claiming the United States doesn't have a left, but you don't seem to understand that the left vs right dichotomy encompasses more than the question of private vs public industry, and what constitutes left and right differ politically and economically among nations.

In other words, your critique of the American left is incredibly reductionist, and is based on a definition that almost nobody uses today aside from radical ideologues.

[Triks]

That's a pretty short and incomplete definition of a command economy.

He asked me for "socialism" and not for a command economy that could be capitalist (but not free-market capitalist because you have the government actively intervening in the economy) - Hitler, Musolini, Pinochet, Korea in the 1960's and 1970's - or it can be socialist - all Eastern bloc countries and the USSR.

[Barnabas]

What new information has been discovered lately? Oh nothing at all. Just the same response we always expect from antifa.

[Triks]

Which parties in Europe, or elsewhere, subscribe to this definition of socialism that aren't on the radical fringes of contemporary politics? You are aware that Socialism has evolved since the 19th century, right? I only ask because you're claiming the United States doesn't have a left, but you don't seem to understand that the left vs right dichotomy encompasses more than the question of private vs public industry, and what constitutes left and right differ politically and economically among nations.

In other words, your critique of the American left is incredibly reductionist, and is based on a definition that almost nobody uses today aside from radical ideologues.

You can have left-wing policies such as an emphasis on the welfare state and nationalisation of critical industries but that doesn't make your country socialist. If that was the case Prussia/The Second German Empire, the USA under Roosevelt and Truman and Britain in the 60's would have been socialist states. The only country nowadays that you could make a case for being socialist is Norway because the public sector accounts for a higher percentage of their GPD (something like 52%).

In America, the debate has always been about the role of the state and specifically the welfare state. The Democrats have supported for the expansion of the welfare state and state-subsidised programs while the Republicans have been against it. None of the major parties have ever supported the nationalisation of any of the country's industries and both parties have been neo-liberal with the Democrats actively deregulating the banks with the appeal of Glass-Steagall.

What Americans can't understand is that welfarism is just smart and sustainable capitalism. Capitalism will always out-produce socialism but will always cause more inequality because of that. Smart capitalists have realised that there needs to be wealth-redistribution so that the workers don't revolt. Dumb capitalists cry when the workers get radicalised and throw a wrench in the spanner.

[bladeXcrasher]

He asked me for "socialism" and not for a command economy that could be capitalist (but not free-market capitalist because you have the government actively intervening in the economy) - Hitler, Musolini, Pinochet, Korea in the 1960's and 1970's - or it can be socialist - all Eastern bloc countries and the USSR.

Command system isn't capitalist, that's basic micro economics.

[downnola]

You can have left-wing policies such as an emphasis on the welfare state and nationalisation of critical industries but that doesn't make your country socialist. If that was the case Prussia/The Second German Empire, the USA under Roosevelt and Truman and Britain in the 60's would have been socialist states. The only country nowadays that you could make a case for being socialist is Norway because the public sector accounts for a higher percentage of their GPD (something like 52%).

In America, the debate has always been about the role of the state and specifically the welfare state. The Democrats have supported for the expansion of the welfare state and state-subsidised programs while the Republicans have been against it. None of the major parties have ever supported the nationalisation of any of the country's industries and both parties have been neo-liberal with the Democrats actively deregulating the banks with the appeal of Glass-Steagall.

What Americans can't understand is that welfarism is just smart and sustainable capitalism. Capitalism will always out-produce socialism but will always cause more inequality because of that. Smart capitalists have realised that there needs to be wealth-redistribution so that the workers don't revolt. Dumb capitalists cry when the workers get radicalised and throw a wrench in the spanner.

Quite frankly, the only countries that fit your definition of socialism are North Korea and Cuba. Your definition of what makes someone left-wing is ridiculously outdated and isn't very useful in discussions like these.

I also think it's telling that you would bring up Glass-Stegall, which was repealed in the 90's, and ignore which party pushed for and passed Dodd-Frank.

[Triks]

Command system isn't capitalist, that's basic micro economics.

You realise that all fascist states and some Asian tigers where just that, right? The state directed what was to be produced and left it to PRIVATE enterprise to do it. All German industrialists supported Hitler and some of them such as Krupp faced trial in Nuremberg. Some of these companies are still around such as Mauser, Porsche and Krupp.

Hayek - a capitalist economist - gave Pinochet as a shining example of what a capitalist country should be. Thatcher and Reagan absolutely loved the guy.

On a side note, we are speaking about MACRO economics and not MICRO economics.

[Barnabas]

Quite frankly, the only countries that fit your definition of socialism are North Korea and Cuba. Your definition of what makes someone left-wing is ridiculously outdated and isn't very useful in discussions like these.

I also think it's telling that you would bring up Glass-Stegall, which was repealed in the 90's, and ignore which party pushed for and passed Dodd-Frank.

Yet today the democrats are backing the gutting of dodd-frank much to the the dismay of elizabeth warren. Banks are winning again. I think we'll get a credit crisis next time.

[JohnBrown1917]

Quite frankly, the only countries that fit your definition of socialism are North Korea and Cuba. Your definition of what makes someone left-wing is ridiculously outdated and isn't very useful in discussions like these.

I also think it's telling that you would bring up Glass-Stegall, which was repealed in the 90's, and ignore which party pushed for and passed Dodd-Frank.

Thats because most countries are not socialist.

[Triks]

Quite frankly, the only countries that fit your definition of socialism are North Korea and Cuba. Your definition of what makes someone left-wing is ridiculously outdated and isn't very useful in discussions like these.

I also think it's telling that you would bring up Glass-Stegall, which was repealed in the 90's, and ignore which party pushed for and passed Dodd-Frank.

In America everyone to the left of the Republican party is seen as left-wing. Quite frankly, you guys are so to the right that most mainstream center-right parties in Europe would be viewed as far-left.

I bring up Glass-Steagall because repealing it in the first place was absolute lunacy. Retail banks should have never been allowed to dip into the derivatives market. We are now up to Basel III and it still misses the mark, yes banks should always have the necessary amount of liquidity but they should never have that amount of risk exposure in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet today the democrats are backing the gutting of dodd-frank much to the the dismay of elizabeth warren. Banks are winning again. I think we'll get a credit crisis next time.

Hooray for synthetic derivatives!

[bladeXcrasher]

You realise that all fascist states and some Asian tigers where just that, right? The state directed what was to be produced and left it to PRIVATE enterprise to do it. All German industrialists supported Hitler and some of them such as Krupp faced trial in Nuremberg. Some of these companies are still around such as Mauser, Porsche and Krupp.

Hayek - a capitalist economist - gave Pinochet as a shining example of what a capitalist country should be. Thatcher and Reagan absolutely loved the guy.

On a side note, we are speaking about MACRO economics and not MICRO economics.

If a central board is controlling all production and resource allocation, that isn't capitalism. Nothing in those industries allowed for markets to adjust production based on supply and demand.

[Barnabas]

In America everyone to the left of the Republican party is seen as left-wing. Quite frankly, you guys are so to the right that most mainstream center-right parties in Europe would be viewed as far-left.

I bring up Glass-Steagall because repealing it in the first place was absolute lunacy. Retail banks should have never been allowed to dip into the derivatives market. We are now up to Basel III and it still misses the mark, yes banks should always have the necessary amount of liquidity but they should never have that amount of risk exposure in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



Hooray for synthetic derivatives!

Well not really a hooray. US banks are sitting on over a 1 trillion in credit card debt and defaults are happening more often.