The Socialist Myth of Right-wing Dictatorships

View Latest Activity

Home Forums Information & Intelligence The Socialist Myth of Right-wing Dictatorships

Viewing 42 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #80364
      Joe (G.W.N.S.)
      Moderator

        This discussion stems from a comment by “rampantraptor” in the Redneck Revolt Thread.

        It is my belief that there has never been a modern organic right-wing dictatorship, despite Socialist attempts to rewrite history in a propaganda effort to the contrary.

        The closest thing to such a system would be the puppet governments essentially installed by short sighted politicians in Latin America by the US.

        These would never have existed without our meddling. Hence the idea of a organic right-wing dictatorship in the US is impossible.

        What outside Government could establish such a puppet here?

        Maybe a Socialist Dictatorship or its variations.

        What about the Alt-right?

        In reality there is no Alt-right, there is a rebranding of various extremist groups in a attempt to manipulate and control those ignorant people with no knowledge of history.

        In fact I suspect many of these groups are in bed with the Socialist elitists.

        I’ll leave it there for the moment and see if anyone is interested in this.

      • #80365
        RobRoy
        Participant

          I wish I could say you were being unfair to the alt-right but you and Raptor have it about right IMO.

          What brands itself alt-right today are the same nazi cranks and white power types of yesteryear, same shit different day.

          IMO the right wing only fights if they literally have a blade to their throats, they simply cannot even contemplate the delegitimization of authority, or immerse them in poop for a good while and they will shun the rose bushes out of habit. The horse in “animal farm” was a conservative.

        • #80366
          Joe (G.W.N.S.)
          Moderator

            For consideration.

            From the Thread Socialist by any Name, some History.

            AltRight Nazi? :wacko:

            Here is an excerpt from a translation of a Nazi pamphlet (1932) written by Joseph Goebbels. As should be apparent to all, I consider Joseph Goebbels to be a true subject matter expert on Nazi matters.

            Those Damned Nazis
            by Joseph Goebbels
            Excerpt:

            Why Are We Socialists?

            We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

            Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

            The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

            The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

            We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

            Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

            We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

            We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!

            We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

            We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

            We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!

          • #80367
            rampantraptor
            Participant

              Between this and your other thread it’s been a lot of reading, wasn’t sure which thread to reply in but since you mentioned me here I’ll write here. Not a fan of Dinesh D’Souza but I powered through anyway. Some of my criticisms of your analysis refer to the other thread if anyone else here is confused.

              No society exists in a vacuum, and most radical movements that have achieved power have done so with foreign assistance, they fail otherwise. Lenin was helped by Imperial Germany, the US by France, North Vietnam by the USSR, the list goes on. Right-wing dictatorships in Latin America aren’t unique, gaining foreign assistance has been essential to the success for groups seeking radical political change throughout much of history. Throughout the Cold War, the US backed coups, the Russians backed coups, the US backed guerrillas, the Russians backed guerrillas. The movements that have failed or stagnated are the ones that failed to receive foreign recognition.

              I wholeheartedly agree that the bulk of the alt-right is basically existing white supremacist groups rebranding for a newer generation. I also agree that it’s far more likely we’d see a left-wing dictatorship in the US before a right-wing one, in part due to existing divisions among the right and in part because the neoliberal leanings of much of the power elite predispose them in that direction.

              That being said, it’s disingenuous to label every right-wing movement as leftist as soon as it embraces violence. Most fascist movements were fusionist, borrowing elements from both the left and the right, while still firmly identifying with the right and benefiting from popular fear of the far left. Some modern fascist movements identify as “third position”, siding with neither.

              Indeed the Nazis were National Socialists but the socialist elements were eliminated with the Night of the Long Knives. Their socialism was a right-wing socialism, for their nation and ethnos, rather than for their socioeconomic class, which distinguishes them from the left. However, there’s nothing inherently leftist or socialist about the KKK. It was started by wealthy Southern planters in the vein of a college fraternity and was pushing for a return to the social and racial structures of the Antebellum South, which is hardly a radical leftist position. Find me a single contemporary socialist, liberal, hell, even individualist thinker of the time that identifies the KKK as a socialist party. Should be even easier, since it wasn’t until the end of the 19th Century that the Marxists ensured that “socialism” was strictly identified with state socialism, at the expense of the individualist traditions. You list “white separatists” as right-wing but as soon as some get an authoritarian streak and decide to initiate force to project their views on others (e.g., KKK) you instantly label them leftists. It doesn’t work like that – they’re still right-wing, they’re now right-wing authoritarians.

              At the end of the day these movements identify as right- or left-wing of their own volition, it was a “Unite the Right!” rally that saw a girl get mowed down in Charlottesville, not a “We’re Nazis but Secretly Working With the Leftists!” rally. Strasserites aren’t breaking ranks with Hitlerites same as Bakuninists aren’t breaking ranks with Marxist-Leninists.

              Whether a movement identifies as right-wing or left-wing is irrelevant to our pursuit of liberty if it is authoritarian, which is the point I’ve been trying to make all along. Authoritarian regimes use similar tactics because they give similar results. People put into complacency because of improved security, free shit, and social stability don’t take arms against the power elite, whether it’s Communist Party cadres living off of state corporations or Nazi Party leadership living off of private business contracts. Communist regimes enact policies that wound up looking a lot like state capitalism, fascist regimes wind up enacting policies that look a lot like state socialism. Of course, the end results from both lines of authoritarianism are the same. It does not matter if Orwell’s boot, smashing our faces, forever, is a right or a left one. It’s worth noting that Orwell, who spoke so forcefully against the Stalinist regime and totalitarianism in general, identified as both a libertarian and a socialist.

              I have no quarrel with forms of socialism that adhere to the non-aggression principle, I’d have no problem with Bookchin or Proudhon as my neighbors. Are communalists or left-wing market anarchists right-wing since they aren’t seizing my property at gunpoint? Where the hell does Karl Hess fit in? Should I consider some hippies in a commune more of a threat to me since they’re practicing socialism than a Nazi who extols the extermination of mud people but is unwilling to act upon it? (Okay, that one isn’t fair, it’s a straw man argument. :-) ) How other people self-organize in a truly free society is irrelevant to me if they don’t force their views upon others.

              The reality is that modern politics is not a one-dimensional line of left and right but at the very minimum two-dimensional, one must consider how authoritarian or libertarian movements are irregardless of whether they identify as left or right. I don’t have a problem with you identifying as right-wing, indeed most of my friends here in Baltimore would probably fit that definition nowadays, but I think your firm attachment to that label is clouding your ability to look beyond it. Your conflation of libertarian and right-wing philosophies doesn’t hold water. It fails to account for left-libertarian theory and I could easily flip your logic to claim that many authoritarian movements are by default right-wing, indeed most of the radical elements in the USSR got liquidated by Stalin, who was much more conservative about exporting revolution than, say, Trotsky.

              In short, the left-right differentiation of our modern politics, rooted in the seating arrangements of 19th Century French Parliamentarians, is bullshit in the 21st Century.

              The threat therein of groups like Antifa or the alt-right is not in that they are right or left wing but that they choose to initiate violence to enforce their views on others. I am firmly aware of the threat of authoritarian socialism, I have lived with avowed communists and seen how their views negatively affect their thinking. My firearms are bi-curious and I evaluate the threat of both radical authoritarian leftists and rightists accordingly.

            • #80368
              Joe (G.W.N.S.)
              Moderator

                I do not have time to respond in full right now, but will very soon. ;-)

                I will relay this brief point.

                The Left/Right definition is much older than its current use. I categorically reject the current Left-wing Propaganda definition in current use within the Left-wing dominated academia of today.

                I do not relinquish the narrative to these propaganda efforts to redefine language and history.

                When considering Left and Right we can break it down first by pointing out that Left is by its very nature 180° from Right and vice versa.

                So Left and Right are true opposites.

                Additionally rather than a horizontal line, we have a circle with Left at 9 o’clock and Right at 3 o’clock. More on this later.

                So when used politically, the most Leftist Left is by its very nature 180° from the Rightist Right.

                I will make the case that the Left historically embraces violence to achieve its goals.

                Therefore (180°) the true Right embraces its ideals to achieve its goals and only reluctantly uses violence in self defense.

                More to follow. :yes:

              • #80369
                Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                Moderator

                  I’ll address the easier points before getting into the more in depth points.

                  Not a fan of Dinesh D’Souza but I powered through anyway.

                  Can you dispute the facts provided is the only pertinent question.

                  Right-wing dictatorships in Latin America aren’t unique, gaining foreign assistance has been essential to the success for groups seeking radical political change throughout much of history.

                  I’ll avoid sarcasm in order to promote productive discussion.

                  My point is there is no Nation with the power and political persuasion to support this mythical Right-wing Dictatorship.

                  The possible exception being a Socialist false flag operation to promote social unrest by discrediting the Right.

                  At the end of the day these movements identify as right- or left-wing of their own volition…

                  This in itself is a Socialist corruption of words and there meanings.

                  For example a white male can not call himself a Filipina woman and expect everyone to agree with him (a real example by the way), anymore than a recent 37 year old pedophile was not able to convince a Judge he’s a 8 year old trapped in a adult body!

                  The facts are not meant to be variable to our desires.

                  I don’t have a problem with you identifying as right-wing…

                  As much as I appreciate that ;-) , my actions define my political status.

                • #80370
                  Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                  Moderator

                    A quick sidenote and I know “rampantraptor” is aware of this, but for the newer members benefit.

                    While this discussion may at times be somewhat passionate,it will remain a rational discussion with no insults or flaming so prevalent on the web. We on MVT Forum are better than such nonsense.

                  • #80371
                    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                    Moderator

                      I think it is important to understand my belief that Socialism is currently a direct threat to our Rightful Liberty and freedom.

                      This is is based on my analysis of available information with decades of experience in Intelligence.

                      I’ve brought to our members attention many such threats and will continue as long as Max considers it of value.

                      Indeed the Nazis were National Socialists but the socialist elements were eliminated with the Night of the Long Knives.

                      This is at minimum an over simplification. This did not purge Socialism from the Nazi, but it did purge what could easily be described as Antifa and Social Anarchists.

                      Something the current generation of Socialist thugs should be concerned about as this not the only example of such historical betrayal.

                      Social anarchism and it’s subsets

                      Social anarchism calls for a system with common ownership of means of production and democratic control of all organisations, without any government authority or coercion. It is the largest school of thought in anarchism. Social anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality (while retaining respect for personal property), and emphasises cooperation and mutual aid.

                      Collectivist anarchism, also referred to as “revolutionary socialism” or a form of such, is a revolutionary form of anarchism, commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin and Johann Most. Collectivist anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating that ownership be collectivised. This was to be achieved through violent revolution, first starting with a small cohesive group through acts of violence, or propaganda by the deed, which would inspire the workers as a whole to revolt and forcibly collectivise the means of production.

                      The remaining Socialist ideals with the National Socialist German Workers’ Party is a inconvenient truth that Socialists have been attempting to erase and redefine since Hitler’s death, but the facts are the facts.

                    • #80372
                      zeerf
                      Participant

                        While this discussion may at times be somewhat passionate,it will remain a rational discussion with no insults or flaming so prevalent on the web. We on MVT Forum are better than such nonsense.

                        :yes: :good:

                      • #80373
                        Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                        Moderator

                          However, there’s nothing inherently leftist or socialist about the KKK.

                          Wikipedia:

                          Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democrat(ic)-dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued to be enforced until 1965.

                          And…

                          In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting. Extensive voter fraud was also used.

                          How many today have any idea that the racist laws and organizations are a creation of the Democrats?

                          Antifa: The New Ku Klux Klan
                          August 29, 2017, 12:05 am

                          Shocker: The Left turns again to hooded agents of violence.

                          Over at Conservative Review a while back, in a column titled “The Left’s Violent DNA,” I noted the following after the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise:

                          Question:

                          What do the Ku Klux Klan, the labor movement, Students for a Democratic Society, the Weathermen, Occupy Wall Street, and congressional shooter James T. Hodgkinson have in common?

                          Answer: They all emerged from the murky depths of leftist politics. And all have a history of violence associated with their politics.”

                          As if to prove the point the fascists of Antifa — stunning, I know, that real fascists would label themselves “Antifa” for PR purposes — were on the loose the other day in, yet again, Berkeley. Here is this report from, of all places, the Washington Post:

                          Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley

                          Their faces hidden behind black bandannas and hoodies, about 100 anarchists and antifa — “anti-fascist” — members barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park.

                          Jumping over plastic and concrete barriers, the group melted into a larger crowd of around 2,000 that had marched peacefully throughout the sunny afternoon for a “Rally Against Hate” gathering.

                          Shortly after, violence began to flare. A pepper-spray-wielding Trump supporter was smacked to the ground with homemade shields. Another was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself.

                          A conservative group leader retreated for safety behind a line of riot police as marchers chucked water bottles, shot off pepper spray and screamed, “Fascist go home!”

                          All told, the Associated Press reported at least five individuals were attacked. An AP reporter witnessed the assaults. Berkeley Police’s Lt. Joe Okies told The Washington Post the rally resulted in “13 arrests on a range of charges including assault with a deadly weapon, obstructing a police officer, and various Berkeley municipal code violations.”

                          In other words? In other words, yet again for the umpteenth time in the history of the American Left, it has turned to violence. And just as the paramilitary and hooded Ku Klux Klan was used as, per Columbia University historian Eric Foner, “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party” and, according to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease, the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party,” so now the hooded- fascists of Antifa are being used as a paramilitary organization designed to further the Left’s political agenda by force.

                          Some things never change.

                          Human history has moved from the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel to Apple, but what never changes is the hard fact of human nature. There have always been — and sadly there always will be — human beings who use violence to further their thirst for political power. Yesterday’s Klan is today’s Antifa. Worse, there will always be those who make excuses for this violence.

                          Recall that infamous Democratic Convention of 1924 in Madison Square Garden smack in the middle of New York City? Known to history as “the Klan Bake”?

                          The Democratic Platform produced by those 1924 Democratic Delegates began this way:

                          We, the representatives of the democratic party, in national convention assembled, pay our profound homage to the memory of Woodrow Wilson. Our hearts are filled with gratitude that American democracy should have produced this man, whose spirit and influence will live on through the ages; and that it was our privilege to have co-operated with him in the advancement of ideals of government which will serve as an example and inspiration for this and future generations. We affirm our abiding faith in those ideals and pledge ourselves to take up the standard which he bore and to strive for the full triumph of the principles of democracy to which he dedicated his life.

                          Unmentioned? That Woodrow Wilson was a world class racist who, upon taking office, went about segregating the American military and show-casing at the White House a showing of Birth of a Nation, the infamous film celebrating the Ku Klux Klan. That very same convention — heavily populated by delegates who were Klan members — rejected a party platform plank that condemned the Klan. To celebrate, history records that tens of thousands of hooded, torch-bearing Klan members gathered across the Hudson River in a New Jersey field to celebrate.

                          Exclusive – D’Souza: The Hitler-Sanger Connection

                          More children from the fit; less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.(1)

                          –Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review

                          Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, has an ignoble legacy as a racist who addressed the Ku Klux Klan and initiated a Negro Project to reduce the population of poor, uneducated African Americans whom she considered unfit to reproduce themselves. This Margaret Sanger—the real Margaret Sanger—is completely whitewashed in Parenthood propaganda, which deceitfully portrays Sanger as a champion of reproductive “choice.”

                          Even more incriminating than Sanger’s racism, however, is her close association with Nazism. Sanger was part of a community of American progressives who championed two remedies to get rid of “unfit” populations. The first was forced sterilization, which was Sanger’s preferred solution.

                          Sanger wanted to make it look like the sterilizations were voluntary. In a 1932 article, Sanger called for women to be segregated from the larger community onto “farms and homesteads” where they would be “taught to work under competent instructors” and prevented from reproducing “for the period of their entire lives.” If the women didn’t want to live this way, they could get out of it by consenting to be sterilized.(2)

                          The other progressive solution was “euthanasia,” which basically involved killing off the sick, the aged, and the physically and mentally disabled. One of Sanger’s colleagues, the California progressive Paul Popenoe, called for “lethal chambers” so that large numbers of “unfit” people could be systematically lined up and killed.(3)

                          The Nazis learned about these American programs, and enthusiastically adopted them. As Edwin Black documents in his book The War Against the Weak, the Nazi sterilization law of 1933 and the subsequent Nazi euthanasia laws were both based on blueprints drawn up by Sanger, Popenoe and other American progressives.(4)

                          In fact, the “lethal chambers” the Nazis employed using carbon monoxide gas to kill off “imbeciles” and other undesirables were the first death camps. Later these very facilities were expanded into Hitler’s “final solution” for the Jews, using many of the same medical personnel who manned the euthanasia killing facilities.

                          Sanger’s close associates Clarence Gamble, who funded Sanger and spoke at her conferences, and Lothrop Stoddard, who published in Sanger’s magazine and served on the board of her American Birth Control League, both knew about the Nazi sterilization and euthanasia programs and praised them. Stoddard traveled to Germany where he met with top Nazi officials and even secured an audience with Hitler. His 1940 book Into the Darkness is a paean to Hitler and Nazi eugenics.(5)

                          Sanger too was on board. In 1933, Sanger’s magazine Birth Control Review published an article on “Eugenic Sterilization” by Ernst Rudin, chief architect of the Nazi sterilization program and mentor of Josef Mengele, the notorious Nazi doctor at Auschwitz. Sanger’s magazine also reprinted a pamphlet that Rudin had prepared for British eugenicists.

                          Writing in 1938, when the Nazi program was in full swing, Sanger urged America to follow Hitler’s example. Using the language of Social Darwinism—the same language that Hitler uses in Mein Kampf—Sanger wrote, “In animal industry, the poor stock is not allowed to breed. In gardens, the weeds are kept down.” America, Sanger concluded, must learn from the Nazis and carry out nature’s own mandate of getting rid of “human weeds.”(6)

                          Hitler never quotes Margaret Sanger, but he was inspired by the writings of two of her associates, Leon Whitney of the American Eugenics Society and Madison Grant of the New York Zoological Society. During the 1930s, Whitney on one occasion visited Grant to proudly show him a letter he had just received from Hitler requesting a copy of Whitney’s book The Case for Sterilization.

                          Not to be outdone, Grant pulled out his own letter from Hitler, which praised Grant for writing The Passing of the Great Race, a book Hitler called his eugenic “Bible.”(7) This incident shows how progressive eugenicists in America were well aware of their impact on Hitler and proud of their association with him.

                          Another example of progressive enthusiasm for Hitler involves Charles Goethe, founder of the Eugenics Society of Northern California, who upon returning from a 1934 fact-finding trip to Germany, wrote a congratulatory letter to his fellow progressive Eugene Gosney, head of the San Diego-based Human Betterment Foundation.

                          “You will be interested to know,” Goethe’s letter said, “that work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought, and particularly by the work of the Human Betterment Foundation. I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life.”(8)

                          If Planned Parenthood and the Left today want to get away from this sordid history, they must stop denying it. Rather, they should repudiate and distance themselves from Sanger and her fellow progressives, who were not only racial bigots but also inspired some of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century.

                          Citations

                          (1) Cited by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 135.

                          (2) Margaret Sanger, “My Way to Peace,” January 17, 1932, Margaret Sanger Papers, nyu.edu/projects/sanger.

                          (3) Paul Popenoe and Roswell Hill, Applied Eugenics (New York: Macmillan, 1918), 180.

                          (4) Edwin Black, The War Against the Weak (Washington, D.C.: Dialog Press, 2013), xvii, 258.

                          (5) Ernst Rudin, “Eugenic Sterilization, an Urgent Need,” Birth Control Review, April 1933.

                          (6) Margaret Sanger, “Human Conservation and Birth Control,” March 3, 1938 speech, Margaret Sanger Papers, nyu.edu/projects/sanger.

                          (7) Cited by Black, The War Against the Weak, 270.

                          (8) Cited by Stefan Kuhl, The Nazi Connection (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 36, 46.

                          Don’t think you can get more clear regarding first the Lefts’ connection which then lead to elements of Socialism past and present.

                          Inconvenient, but true!

                        • #80374
                          Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                          Moderator

                            Most fascist movements were fusionist, borrowing elements from both the left and the right, while still firmly identifying with the right and benefiting from popular fear of the far left.

                            Facts or Socialist revisionism?

                            Consider the following.

                            Fascism’s Karl Marx: Man the left doesn’t want you to meet
                            Exclusive: Dinesh D’Souza on hidden relevance of figure Dems wish would be ‘buried and forgotten’

                            For fascism, the State and the individual are one.

                            – Giovanni Gentile, “Origin and Doctrine of Fascism”

                            The myth that fascism and Nazism are phenomena of the right relies heavily on Americans not knowing what fascism and Nazism really mean, what those ideologies stand for. Leftists in academia and the media have worked hard to portray fascism and Nazism in terms of sheer demagoguery and generic authoritarianism, carefully concealing the ideological roots that would reveal fascism and Nazism’s true political colors.

                            Think about this: We know the name of the philosopher of capitalism, Adam Smith. We also know the name of the philosopher of Marxism, Karl Marx. So, quick: What is the name of the philosopher of fascism? Yes, exactly. You don’t know. Virtually no one knows. This is not because he doesn’t exist, but because the political left – which dominates academia, the media and Hollywood – had to get rid of him to avoid confronting fascism and Nazism’s unavoidable leftist orientation.

                            So let’s meet the man himself, Giovanni Gentile, who may be termed fascism’s Karl Marx. Gentile was, in his day, which is the first half of the 20th century, considered one of Europe’s leading philosophers. A student of Hegel and Bergson and director of the Encyclopedia Italiana, Gentile was not merely a widely published and widely influential thinker; he was also a political statesman who served in a variety of important government posts. How, then, has such a prominent and influential figure vanished into the mist of history?

                            Let’s consider some key aspects of Gentile’s philosophy. Following Aristotle and Marx, Gentile argues that man is a social animal. This means that we are not simply individuals in the world. Rather, our individuality is expressed through our relationships: we are students or workers, husbands or wives, parents and grandparents, members in this or that association or group and also citizens of a community or nation. To speak of man alone in the state of nature is a complete fiction; man is naturally at home in community, in society.

                            Right away, we see that Gentile is a communitarian as opposed to a radical individualist. This distinguishes him from some libertarians and classical liberals, who emphasize individuality in contradistinction to society. But Gentile so far has said nothing with which conservatives – let’s say Reaganite conservatives – would disagree. Reagan in 1980 emphasized the importance of five themes: the individual, the family, the church, the community and the country. He accused the centralized state – big government – of undermining not merely our individuality but also these other associations.

                            Gentile now contrasts two types of democracy that he says are “diametrically opposed.” The first is liberal democracy, which envisions society made up of individuals who form communities to protect and advance their rights and interests, specifically their economic interests in property and trade. Gentile regards this as selfish or bourgeois democracy, by which he means capitalist democracy, the democracy of the American founding. In its place, Gentile recommends a different type of democracy, “true democracy,” in which individuals willingly subordinate themselves to society and to the state.

                            Gentile recognizes that his critique of bourgeois democracy echoes that of Marx, and Marx is his takeoff point. Like Marx, Gentile wants the unified community, a community that resembles the family, a community where we’re all in this together. I’m reminded here of New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s keynote address at the 1984 Democratic Convention. Cuomo likened America to an extended family where, through the agency of government, we take care of each other in much the same manner that families look out for all their members.

                            While Marx and Cuomo seem to view political communities as natural, inevitable associations, Gentile emphasized that such communities must be created voluntarily, through human action, operating as a consequence of human will. They are, in Gentile’s words, an idealistic or “spiritual creation.” For Gentile, people by themselves are too slothful and inert to form genuine communities by themselves; they have to be mobilized. Here, too, many modern progressives would agree. Speaking in terms with which both Obama and Hillary would sympathize, Gentile emphasized that leaders and organizers are needed to direct and channel the will of the people.

                            Despite Gentile’s disagreement with Marx about historical inevitability, he has at this point clearly broken with modern conservatism and classical liberalism and revealed himself to be a man of the left. Gentile was, in fact, a lifelong socialist. Like Marx, he viewed socialism as the sine qua non of social justice, the ultimate formula for everyone paying their “fair share.” For Gentile, fascism is nothing more than a modified form of socialism, a socialism arising not merely from material deprivation but also from an aroused national consciousness, a socialism that unites rather than divides communities.

                            Gentile also perceived socialism emerging out of revolutionary struggle, what the media today terms “protest” or “activism.” Revolutionaries, Gentile says, must be ready to disregard conventional rules and they must be willing to use violence. Gentile seems to be the unacknowledged ancestor of the street activism of Antifa and other leftist groups. “One of the major virtues of fascism,” he writes, “is that it obliged those who watched from the windows to come down into the street.”

                            For Gentile, private action should be mobilized to serve the public interest, and there is no distinction between the private interest and the public interest. Correctly understood, the two are identical. Gentile argued that society represents “the very personality of the individual divested of accidental differences … where the individual feels the general interest as his own and wills therefore as might the general will.” In the same vein, Gentile argued that corporations too should serve the public welfare and not just the welfare of their owners and shareholders.

                            Society and the state – for Gentile, the two were one and the same. Gentile saw the centralized state as the necessary administrative arm of society. Consequently, to submit to society is to submit to the state, not just in economic matters, but in all matters. Since everything is political, the state gets to tell everyone how to think and also what to do – there is no private sphere unregulated by the state. And to forestall resistance to the state, Gentile argued that the government should act not merely as a lawmaker but also a teacher, using the schools to promulgate its values and priorities.

                            “All is in the state and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.” Mussolini said that, in the Dottrina del fascismo, one of the doctrinal statements of early fascism, but Gentile wrote it or, as we may say today, ghost wrote it. Gentile was, as you have probably figured by now, the leading philosopher of fascism. “It was Gentile,” Mussolini confessed, “who prepared the road for those like me who wished to take it.”

                            Gentile served as a member of the Fascist Grand Council, a senator in the Upper House of Parliament, and also as Mussolini’s minister of education. Later, after Mussolini was deposed and established himself in the northern Italian province of Salo, Gentile became, at il Duce‘s request, the president of the Italian Academy. In 1944, Gentile was accosted in his apartment by members of a rival leftist faction who shot him at point-blank range.

                            Gentile’s philosophy closely parallels that of the modern American left. Consider the slogan unveiled by Obama at the 2012 Democratic Convention: “We belong to the government.” That apotheosis of the centralized state is utterly congruent with Gentile’s thinking. Only Gentile would have provided a comprehensive philosophical defense that the Democrats didn’t even attempt. In many respects, Gentile provides a deeper and firmer grounding for modern American progressivism than anyone writing today.

                            John Rawls, widely considered a philosophical guru of modern progressivism, seems like thin gruel compared to Gentile in offering an intellectual rationale for ever-expanding government control over the economy and our lives. While Rawls feels abstract and dated now, Gentile seems to speak directly to leftist activists in the Democratic Party, in the media, and on campus.

                            One might naively expect the left, then, to embrace and celebrate Gentile. This, of course, will never happen. The left has the desperate need to conceal fascism’s deep association with contemporary leftism. Even when the left uses Gentile’s rhetoric, its source can never be publicly acknowledged. That’s why the progressives intend to keep Gentile where they’ve got him, dead, buried and forgotten.

                            And…

                            Some more inconvenient truth for the Socialists!

                            ‘Rise of fascism’? It’s already entrenched on left
                            D’Souza chastises media for focus on powerless, fringe white supremacists

                            In their coverage of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, establishment media continue to warn “fascism” is on the rise in America.

                            But a bestselling conservative author and filmmaker contends fascism isn’t on the rise – it’s already entrenched in leading institutions controlled by the left.

                            In an interview with Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, Dinesh D’Souza discussed the state of American politics and his remarkable discoveries while writing his new book, “The Big Lie: Exposing The Nazi Roots Of The American Left.”

                            He said the left-wing journalists complaining of the growth of “fascism” are being deeply disingenuous, because white supremacists don’t have any actual power.

                            “The reason they want Trump to call out the white supremacists is they want to put all the attention on these rag-tag guys who have very little power in American society,” D’Souza said.

                            “The white supremacists don’t have the power to keep a book out of a library. They don’t have the power to decide what students read. They can’t drive conservative or liberal speakers off campus. They just don’t have that kind of power,” he said.

                            Molyneux added that white nationalists “don’t own the media, they don’t own academia, they don’t own the mainstream news outlets, they are inconsequential in the larger sphere.”

                            “It’s not even David versus Goliath. It’s like a flea on a distant mountain versus Goliath,” the host said.

                            D’Souza said the coordinated media campaign against white nationalists is pure projection by the actual fascists who control major American institutions.

                            “Goliath is trying to take his own fascism and impose it on the flea,” he said. “The more dangerous fascism in America today is in the institutions. It’s not even Antifa. It’s the Hollywood boss who gets to say who works in the industry. It’s the dean who controls a billion-dollar endowment who gets to exclude a whole swath of conservative thought from the campus. It’s the ability of the media to bludgeon people into submission, to threaten to humiliate them and destroy them and make them pariahs if they don’t pay obeisance to prevailing ideologies.”

                            D’Souza explained the current leftist tactic of targeting and removing political dissidents from jobs or positions of influence is simply an old fascist tactic carried over to the present day.

                            “The Nazis called this ‘Gleichschaltung,’ meaning coordination, but it really refers to beating the whole society, using the institutions of culture – media, film, the state – against your opposition to make them cower before you,” he observed.

                            “The reason Trump is such a renegade is because he refuses to cower before these guys. Mitt Romney will cower. McCain will cower. Conservative intellectuals are perfectly happy to do genuflections. But Trump won’t do it. And I think he’s stronger for it.”

                            D’Souza argued “fascism” has a specific meaning even though the left simply uses it as a slur against people it doesn’t like. The New York Times bestselling author explained fascism grew out of socialism when leftist intellectuals needed an explanation for why Karl Marx’s supposedly inevitable communist revolution was failing to manifest.

                            “This is very important because this is a part of the origin of fascism that the left has suppressed,” he told Molyneux. “The progressives in academia have tried to make sure that this story does not get into the textbooks.

                            “Fascism is an outgrowth of Marxism and of socialism. At the end of the 19th century, a lot of intelligent Marxists were scratching their heads because a lot of the prophecies of Marx weren’t coming true. Marx had predicted the outbreaks of communist revolutions in countries like England and Germany, and this just wasn’t happening. So the smart Marxists said: ‘Something is wrong with Marx. We need to modify Marx. We need a kind of new Marxism, if you will, for the 20th century.’

                            Out of that, he said came two offshoots, Leninist Bolshevism, itself a revision of Marxism, and Mussolini’s fascism.

                            “Mussolini was in fact a Marxist, the most famous Marxist in Italy along with Gramsci, and Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist Party magazine,” D’Souza noted. “So when Mussolini became a fascist, it was seen as a leftist move. Shortly after Mussolini’s march on Rome establishing the first fascist regime in the world, Lenin sent a telegram of congratulations. Why? He recognized Mussolini as a fellow revolutionary of the left.”

                            Yet many progressives would simply dismiss that history as having no contemporary importance. It’s a critique D’Souza recognizes.

                            “What does this matter today?” he asked rhetorically.

                            And he had a direct answer.

                            “First of all, the ideology of the Democratic Party now, its economic ideology, is essentially indistinguishable from fascism,” he said. “It’s closer to fascism than it is to, say, Marxian socialism. Consider this: Socialist countries like to nationalize private industry.

                            D’Souza said that in his native country of India, the socialist governments since the 1940s have taken over the banks, the energy sector, the airlines and other industries.

                            “Now, in America, we don’t have that. Even under Obama. Look at Obama – we have private hospitals, we have private health insurance companies, but the government tells them what to do,” he said. “The government sets the prices, the government decides who is eligible. So we have state-directed capitalism. We’ve seen that in the banking sector, investment, housing, we’ve seen that in the energy sector. This state-directed capitalism much more closely approximates classical fascism than it does classical socialism.”

                            Drawing on Mussolini’s famous definition of fascism as “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state,” D’Souza said it is very easy to determine which of the two major American political parties aligns more closely to fascist ideology.

                            He explained fascism reduces individuals to a kind of “cell” whose rights don’t matter but simply exist to serve within the “living organism of the state.”

                            “Well, hey, does that sound like the platform of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party,” D’Souza asked?

                            Given the massive power of the left, what can be done?

                            D’Souza offered two concrete suggestions.

                            “The first solution is to be informed, and I don’t mean be informed in a generic sense,” he said. “I mean have at your disposal, in your quiver, the arrows to shoot down the big lie.

                            “In my last book and movie, ‘Hillary’s America,’ I tried to shoot down the race card, show how bogus it is. Democrats transferring responsibility for their own bigotry onto the Republican Party which was trying to stop them. This is what’s going on with the fascism card. The real fascists are on the left, fascism is a leftist ideology. They’re trying to project it onto the right, you need to be able to have the weapons to shoot them down.”

                            The second suggestion is more immediate. In response to the rise of the alt-left “Antifa,” D’Souza urged the Trump administration to no longer allow progressive extremists to riot and attack people as they have been doing for so long.

                            “We need to enforce the law across the board,” he said. “Sure, the white supremacists who plowed down that poor woman, he’s going to get his comeuppance. I’d like to see the felony rioters from the Inauguration [also receive criminal punishment], more than 200 of them, including 11 journalists arrested for rioting, that carries five to ten years in prison.

                            “And yet from the left’s point of view going back to the ’60s, they’d be like, ‘Oh, I’ll spend a night in jail, I’ll be out in the morning, I’ll then be on MSNBC.’ But I think we need to say, ‘No, the law should be enforced across the board, and once we start handing out five- and 10-year sentences some of these Aantifa guys will think twice.’”

                          • #80375
                            Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                            Moderator

                              What about the Alt-right?

                              In reality there is no Alt-right, there is a rebranding of various extremist groups in a attempt to manipulate and control those ignorant people with no knowledge of history.

                              In fact I suspect many of these groups are in bed with the Socialist elitists.

                              So in summary we have extremist groups incorrectly labeled Right-wing that are probably a…

                              Socialist false flag operation to promote social unrest by discrediting the Right.

                              So…

                              My point is there is no Nation with the power and political persuasion to support this mythical Right-wing Dictatorship.

                              Hence my title “The Socialist Myth of Right-wing Dictatorships.”

                            • #80376
                              Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                              Moderator

                                “History is written by the victors.”

                                ― Walter Benjamin

                                We abolished slavery, we defeated the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and we beat the Soviets!

                                While we smugly congratulated ourselves we allowed the enemy to teach our precious children.

                                Have we proven the above quote wrong?

                                Time will tell!

                              • #80377
                                rampantraptor
                                Participant

                                  I was expecting a bit more of a hostile reaction, I will thank Joe for agreeing to keep this civil, this is why I like this forum. I have my own terrible sarcasm I try to keep contained as best I can. :-)

                                  I do wish you could argue your points directly rather than copy-paste other articles en bloc.

                                  I am familiar with the political compass and such, I usually get rated quite strongly libertarian, slightly right wing, believe it or not. Generally I share the same social goals as the left, but I support private property rights, freed markets, and individualism to do so which leans me to the right, at least under modern terms.

                                  Of course political definitions change over time, even now “liberal” in the US usually means progressive or neoliberal, the Europeans I talked to over in Syria got confused by that meaning because to them it still meant something closer to classical liberalism (which was the political left 200 years ago), which we usually refer to as libertarianism nowadays, which was appropriated from American classical liberals in the 1930s from the 19th Century French anarchists. “Libertarian” in Europe still refers to left-anarchists, which confused the European anarcho-communists when I argued for free markets. The term “socialist” originally referred to movements concerned about the “social problem” of the working class under rapidly developing industrialism. The individualist anarchists are smiled upon by anarcho-capitalists today, but many identified as socialists. They were proposing solutions for the plights of the working class and denigrated the capitalist class of their time while remaining fiercely pro-individual liberty and radically free market – to them unfree markets were reactionary, it wasn’t until the broader socialist movement gravitated towards state power to achieve socialist means that socialism gained it’s current statist connotations. By the original definition I’m a proud socialist and so could be a number of modern anarcho-capitalists. Both the political right and left have appropriated one another’s terminology from time to time.

                                  (I was actually gonna make a joke about about self-identifying myself but I couldn’t figure out anything pithy enough.)

                                  You might have these odd designations of groups like Neo-Nazis and KKK as left-wing but if we’re discussing matters of identity we have to acknowledge that identity is a social construct, and part of that is that groups are recognized as members of such by acceptance from existing members of that group. Neo-Nazis and KKK are widely held by the modern right to be right-wing, if far-right, just as insurrectionary anarchists and communists are still considered leftists by the modern left. Just because a movement adopts ideas from the opposite side of the political spectrum doesn’t automatically change a Nazi into a commie. Even if Nazis openly embrace some socialist ideas it’s still in the context of promoting nationalism, maintaining order, and a return to traditional values. Here the Nazis appropriated leftist terminology about the bourgeoisie to aim the German worker’s attention ultimately towards the “true” face of the bourgeoisie, the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy against Germany, this is basically no different than modern alt-right appropriating memes and speaking of “white civil rights” or the displacement of (white) American workers to draw membership today. Same shit, different toilet.

                                  Prior to the 1960s and the Nixon administration the Democrats were the more conservative of the two major parties, you know that. Your suggestion that the KKK was a leftist movement is based on the fact that they were supported by Democrats is baseless. You can tie Sanger to the progressive movement and Woodrow Wilson to the second Klan (he was pretty damn racially conservative) but you still don’t have an adequate explanation of the original Klan that arose during reconstruction.

                                  While we can both agree that modern progressivism is leftist in nature, it’s worth noting that the early progressive movement was funded by the wealthy capitalists of the Gilded Age, as a means of mainstreaming then underground radical labor to shackle it and reducing competition in the markets through new regulation. I could argue that progressivism is as much a product of 19th Century conservative mercantilist interests as it is of Marxism.

                                  Your sentiment of only the left commits political violence and right-wing political violence is only defensive in nature or a socialist set-up is gives the left far too much credit and assumes rightists are weak, feeble, and helpless.

                                  I think I vaguely understand your line of reasoning but I still believe your too closely conflating authoritarianism with leftism. I really don’t know anyone else who would agree with your definitions of of the left-right spectrum.

                                  If you’re basing your distaste of leftism to collectivism, you could make a more solid argument, the political left has mastered collectivist violence much more frequently than the right, though then you still have to acknowledge the Holocaust in Europe or popularly-organized lynchings in the US South. If you were to argue against collectivism, I’d gladly agree with you. Collectivism is tyranny unless voluntary.

                                • #80378
                                  Robert
                                  Participant

                                    The “klan” is for all practically purposes DEAD. It probably had it’s hay day in the 50’s and 60’s but it’s pretty much gone now.

                                    Grand Wizard Bubba was too involved complaining about “mud people” and the Jews to worry about raising his children. He never truly separated himself in order to obtain the goals they supposedly wanted. A generation or two later, Grand Wizard Bubba probably has a granddaughter with a mixed baby and all Bubba’s hate and blathering on was for nothing.

                                    The klan and supposed “white supremacy” is the psy ops ghost to which retarded ass liberals can point to as the boogeyman. And if/when someone doesn’t eat up the liberal BS, they can pull that epithet out of the woodworks and call that person a klansman or racist, etc.

                                    I’m guessing much like most of the mainstream “milutias” in the 90’s, probably all of the remaining Klan, WAR and similar groups are probably so full of feds or informants trying to stave off time on drug charges by infiltrating and making up crap on these groups. BE GLAD HITLERY ISN’T IN NOW.

                                    Meanwhile, dozens of radical muslim training camps all over the U.S. and their best possible friend just left office a short while back.

                                    As Americans we are great at overlooking the obvious threat and trying to find some boogeyman that isn’t really all that scary, to make us feel better.

                                    Like Joe mentioned regarding the leftists and schools- when the hardcore commie hippies realized they weren’t going to get their little revolution in the 60’s, most just went into the publix edumacation system. Is there any wonder we hear stories daily of history re-written in publix skewls? Military hating, white guilt (check yo privilege bro), Trump hating and in general a hatred of long time American values? Garbage in, garbage out.

                                    It’s a long fight, generations and generations long, we have to focus on that as well as today.

                                  • #80379
                                    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                    Moderator

                                      One thing that I believe complicates my and rampantraptor’s discussion is generational, we are of different times. From our education to experience, these differences in our basis makes communication more complex.

                                      Added to this I focus on the application of Socialism historically and Rampantraptor focuses on the theory of Socialism or what it purports to be.

                                      I discount attempts to change the meaning of words and look to actions as a basis for labels.

                                      So we are separated by a common language, we use the same words, but many with different meaning.

                                      Ultimately the problem with all political theories is people. Hidden agendas, quest for power, and evil intent.

                                      Should I excuse Socialism, because many times it was used as a means to a end by those who never believed in it, but used it as a weapon of manipilation?

                                      No, because there is too much blood of the innocents on the true believers hands who decided the ends justify the means!

                                    • #80380
                                      Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                      Moderator

                                        Back to the original point “The Socialist Myth of Right-wing Dictatorships” I believe I have proven it is impossible at this time.

                                        Anyone wishing to continue to discuss Socialism or the origins of the Left-wing bogeyman the White Supremacist should direct that to the Thread Socialist by any Name, some History.

                                        Of course any attempts to prove the current threat of Right-wing Dictatorships can address that here.

                                      • #80381
                                        rampantraptor
                                        Participant

                                          If you have ever invested in a credit union, ever bought electricity or groceries from a co-op, participated in a trade union, that’s the most basal form of socialism – social ownership of capital and the means of production. I personally believe that group action and democratization of our workplaces and of the economy via worker- and producer-owned cooperatives is a good thing and should be promoted to usurp the power of the wealthy elites that currently dominate our society. Wouldn’t it be better if we could strip the wealthy business elites like Soros and Bloomberg of their economic, and thus political, power through the the peaceful and gradual socialization of free markets? I for one would gladly appreciate not having the bastards throw millions of dollars around lobbying against our civil liberties. We all hate tyranny in government, we should seek to prevent it in the economic sphere as well.

                                          The ultimate betrayal of the socialists was to abandon the anti-authoritarian position of their forbears and march with Marx towards a totalitarian socialism, which is how we’ve arrived at our current understanding of what socialism is. I’ve actually had this same argument with the Western socialists while I was in Rojava, most of them couldn’t comprehend the idea of a functioning socialism without the state or popular councils imposing it by force.

                                          In effect, if one were to go back to the 19th Century roots of socialist theory, I would probably very well fit inside the mold, but within modern socialism I sit firmly outside their mainstream, marginalized alongside the other individualists.

                                          When I suggested in the Redneck Revolt thread we should seek to separate the left-wing anarchists from the communists when possible, I should extrapolate further that permitting them the space to practice their own forms of socialism is strictly dependent on their swearing off any attempts to use coercion or force to impose their views or social organization on others.

                                          All I propose is this: we should be clear that the only types of socialism that are compatible with individual liberty are those that respect the property and individual rights of others, are voluntary, and don’t use force to impose their views on others. Marxism-Leninism fails this test spectacularly, as do most strains of anarcho-communism. I would suggest forms of communalism and market socialism as strains that could pass this litmus test and peacefully coexist alongside us in a free society. Can the socialists agree to the non-aggression principle? If yes, we can work together, if no, then no deal. It’s as simple as that.

                                          The early libertarian movement in the 1970s explicitly adopted the NAP to highlight their commitment against coercive force as compared to the increasingly radical New Left, I should note that adoption of the NAP was and is a point of contention from some radical anarcho-capitalists within the LP, despite the oversimplification of anarcho-capitalists = good, anarcho-communists = bad I see on here sometimes. There was a thread here on sovereign citizens, we all get a good chuckle from those folks but they are effectively radical right-wing anarchists. Every side has their crazies.

                                          If you want a glimpse of what this cooperation could look like, here’s an old clip of Murray Bookchin (a communalist) speaking alongside Karl Hess (the father of the term “anarcho-capitalist” and also of the phrase “We are the 99%”), seems whoever posted the clip was an angry anarchist himself, Bookchin didn’t make many friends.

                                        • #80382
                                          Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                          Moderator

                                            For review…

                                            …I focus on the application of Socialism historically and Rampantraptor focuses on the theory of Socialism or what it purports to be.

                                            …a perfect example…

                                            …only types of socialism that are compatible with individual liberty are those that respect the property and individual rights of others, are voluntary, and don’t use force to impose their views…

                                            …despite writings and talk, I know of no Nation with such a Socialist Governance.

                                            I am well aware of the kinder gentler forms of theoretical Socialism and variations that have been written about, but beyond a few very small Communes I know of no examples of such governments.

                                          • #80383
                                            rampantraptor
                                            Participant

                                              …despite writings and talk, I know of no Nation with such a Socialist Governance.

                                              I am well aware of the kinder gentler forms of theoretical Socialism and variations that have been written about, but beyond a few very small Communes I know of no examples of such governments.

                                              There are the social democracies of Scandinavia which would probably fit your definition of socialist, but they’re still largely capitalist by and large. Agreed, we are talking theoreticals here, most socialist movements seeking power have taken their cues from the successful example of the Russians, which means that they’re ultimately authoritarian.

                                              I think the current political experiment in Rojava I just got back from has the potential to offer something different, there’s a lot of neat “libertarianish” ideas under the mantle of democratic confederalism (via Bookchin) being promoted but there’s also the authoritarian Marxist past of the PKK that could derail things if they don’t continue to push further into opening up the civil society.

                                              I went to Rojava partially to fight ISIS, partially to witness an active revolution, and partially to see if libertarian socialism could work in practice. I can’t say I’m 100% satisfied but it seems it could be something new and definitely something more free than most other governments in the region, or it could go nowhere at all if the Turks crush the whole project. The war going on doesn’t help things.

                                              IMO government should be small enough that it is agnostic as to the economic system that occurs within its borders, whether people pay in barter or cash, whether businesses are proprietorships, corporations, communes, co-ops, etc.

                                            • #80384
                                              Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                              Moderator

                                                It is important to note, despite my found memories of “I’d rather be killing Communists” t-shirts and bumper stickers of my Cold War youth, someone labeling themselves a Socialist (and variations) does not make them a target for me.

                                                This is regardless of any SHTF scenarios that may hypothetically occur.

                                                As I have stated before, I judge individuals and groups by their actions, not words. ;-)

                                                I would like to assume this is apparent, but things get interpreted strangely online sometimes.

                                              • #80385
                                                Abacus
                                                Participant

                                                  While I respect our resident political philosophers and analysts, I think it is all way simpler than they are making it out to be.

                                                  Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

                                                  I would add to RAH’s premise that those with the desire to tell other people what to do are often not easily identified by the label they apply to themselves or those that are applied to them by others. I might also add that those without the desire to control seldom seek power that might allow them the ability to do so.

                                                • #80386
                                                  Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                  Moderator

                                                    I think it is all way simpler than they are making it out to be.

                                                    Things are only simple after the fact in hindsight. ;-)

                                                    …not easily identified…

                                                    If it was easy, anyone could do it.

                                                    On the forum we strive to provide the knowledge that can allow even a novice the ability to produce reasonable Intelligence from the information available.

                                                    Good Intel either that you work up yourself, or you have a guy who specializes, is the lifeblood of making the most informed, and effective decisions that you can in difficult circumstances. Good Intel gives you the knowledge upon which to base good Judgment calls. Lack of information can cause paralysis because you simply do now know what is going on. Poor use of Information, or inexperience with how to focus, can cause analysis paralysis.

                                                    Giving your stated background I am sure you are aware of this.

                                                  • #80387
                                                    rampantraptor
                                                    Participant

                                                      Since we’ve had a big debate about socialism, should we now discuss the loaded nature of the term “capitalism” and its cons and merits? ;-)

                                                      What Abacus refers to, the political division of those who seek to control others and those who don’t, is very much a summary of the difference between libertarians and authoritarians. I find it more worthwhile to judge someone’s political views based on that criteria alone rather than getting mixed up over gobbledygook over right-wing, left-wing, communist, liberal, laissez-faire, capitalist, conservative, free market, communalist, etc.

                                                      I must admit somewhat shamefully to not having yet read any of Heinlein’s works. It would be amazing to live during the settlement of the high frontier, I don’t think we’ll truly see any type of sociopolitical development on par with the Renaissance and Enlightenment until people have the freedom and liberty of movement that space affords. Until then humanity is forced to fight among itself for space to experiment socially and politically on a very finite amount of rock. Settlements being able to very literally aggregate and separate as they see fit in open space without the necessity of conflict would be revolutionary. In the meantime… :unsure:

                                                    • #80388
                                                      Robert
                                                      Participant

                                                        RR- I get what your trying to say- “It will be different THIS time” :) But the problem with setting up these quote utopian unquote type of fairy tale dreams is and will always remain-

                                                        THE HUMAN HEART.

                                                        That’s why the type of idealistic socialism you are speaking about will never work. I’m 1000% serious.

                                                        So in the course of what I do, I have met a ton of like minded people over the years. By far they usually fit the same exact mold. But I met a small family in N. GA one time that broke that mold. They were self described “hippies.” And to use their words “real hippies, not the fake ones.” We will call the gal Dilli and they really did live the “hippy lifestyle” which they said meant living outside the system as much as possible, doing for themselves, etc. She invited us up to their place and we went. They lived what most would probably consider semi primitive- collected water from ground water (and did NOT filter it), had a ton of small animals (I helped her with her rabbit setup in exchange for some goat info), gardened, etc. After we were there for a while she told us about how other “hippies” from all over wanted -and did- come there to quote “live the hippy lifestyle.” What she described as the “hippy lifestyle” was a LOT like the things you are mentioning- community all pulling together equally and all that Animal Farm type stuff ;) Well so I had to know and I asked her how that usually went- she got visibly pissed and started ranting-
                                                        “They come here saying they want to live the hippy lifestyle, then they want to smoke pot and lay around on the couch…” (now I’m snickering inside at this point cause I’m thinking “hippies laying around smoking pot, so what is new??”). She went on and on about how they would try to indoctrinate them, stop feeding them after about a week of them not helping with the work and then suddenly they would just be gone one morning, sometimes jacking some of their stuff in the process!

                                                        Now these are the types of people like you are mentioning that say they want this same thing- but when the rubber hits the road and it was time to shovel chicken shit, their “strong held beliefs” hit the road.

                                                        Just like the “1 warrior in 100” deal, I think you’ll find true believers- or fellow travelers if you prefer :) – in what your wanting will be few and far between.

                                                        If the New Testament church couldn’t do it- “had all things in common”, I highly doubt we can. There is an Anias and Saphira (sp) in every group, but the Barnabas are very few and far between). This is what later would led Paul to say “if any man won’t work, the same shouldn’t eat….”

                                                        It just doesn’t work my friend. On a micro scale anyone with a dozen friends could tell you how many they have around on moving day….

                                                      • #80389
                                                        rampantraptor
                                                        Participant

                                                          In Rojava most business is still conducted through private business, private property is protected by law, and the cooperatives are promoted but voluntary. Walking through the towns and cities everything was Mom and Pop shops, it reminded me of all the stories my parents’ and grandparents’ generation would tell about all the local shops that used to exist before Wal-Mart, Target, and all the big corporate giants took over. I should note that the communes of Rojava are modeled after the New England community councils that Bookchin took inspiration from and still exist, rather than the tighter hippie communes we’re familiar with. (Again, terminology makes everything confusing.) You have some beggars and whatnot but folks still work, sometimes even the kids. Being socialist there is a safety net, such as universal health care, women’s houses to help women, and public investment towards community centers. While I think such programs are in theory beyond the scope of government it’s not a deal-breaker, I wouldn’t advocate cutting relations with the UK because of the National Health Service. For the communists it was good but not communist enough, for the anarchists the same but they didn’t whine about it as often.

                                                          I’m not a communalist (in the hippie sense) because I don’t see such tightly integrated communal structures as viable long-term – the US had a history of communes throughout the 19th Century even before the hippies and most didn’t last more than a decade or two, if that long. Anarcho-communism doesn’t interest me because the economics are unconvincing and the popular assemblies they propose don’t have adequate due process. There are some long-standing anarchist squats, I’m aware of at least one in New York that worked out a deal with the city to basically have it set up as cooperatively-owned housing so they could continue living there legally. From how the anarchists described the squats to me it’s basically like having dozens of housemates rather than one or two. Regarding my views on communism I had a bit of a reputation in my unit as an anti-communist if that’s any indication, though I could explain exactly why I wasn’t a communist rather than parrot that it’s evil, which is what Europeans seem to expect from Americans.

                                                          My only socialist inclinations are towards the sphere of promoting cooperatives within a free market as a solution to existing issues of disparities of wealth, health care, labor rights, etc. If someone doesn’t put their work in inside a cooperative, they get fired, just like any other regular job, except it’s the workers running the show, not disconnected CEOs and shareholders. Cooperative businesses do actually have a pretty solid success rate, one study found they tend to be more socially responsible and avoid acquisition and bankruptcy longer than traditional corporations and proprietorships.

                                                          Sunkist started as a orange-grower’s coop, Land-O-Lakes is a dairy farmer’s co-op. I know folks who get their electricity from co-ops and they get faster service and better rates because it’s owned by the folks using it rather than someone trying to milk them for cash. Do we need a giant federal monopoly on health care to address rising health costs? Do we need tons of net neutrality regulations to avoid price gouging? No, consumer co-ops can address both.

                                                          My frustration with the libertarian right is that they act as if social issues don’t matter because it’s outside the realm of government so they don’t offer solutions, which makes us vulnerable to attacks from the authoritarian left who label us as cold and unconcerned about our fellow man and woman, or as one commie I knew complained, that we wanted the “freedom to starve to death.” It does matter if the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of my fellow person is being inhibited. The free market ideology we share here has solutions to inequality that aren’t coercive or state socialist and we need to be able to articulate that, especially in an age where the violent consequences of Marxism are fading into history and less understood by our youth.

                                                          Collectives in the communist sense are monopolies, so they very easily develop into corrupt bureaucracies that only exist for the benefit of the bureaucrats. The truly social economic solutions must be within freed markets, to survive on their own merits or be replaced by new ones more self-sustaining. Even under the direct control of the state Marxism-Leninism failed; our modern, actually-existing capitalism also only exists and is able to perpetuate such disparities of wealth through state intervention through the form of regulations, subsidies, and taxes.

                                                          Those that identify with the political right frequently mourn the lost of community in our modern society, of caring for one’s neighbor, when people looked out for one another, the corner store had everything you needed, when we didn’t fear one another and you actually knew your neighbors. We live in a modern era where disconnected people commit mass shootings to feel noticed at all and a tenth of our population are dependent on antidepressants to make it through everyday life, these are not the signs of a healthy society. If we can briefly bridge the chasm of political language, if we replace “commune” with “town” or “neighborhood”, perhaps we should appreciate that the libertarian socialists are making an attempt, if sometimes misguided, to address the deleterious effects of hyperindividualism in our modern society.

                                                          All I suggest is that we should make it clear that we don’t seek to prohibit attempts at communal or cooperative organization by socialists among themselves as long as they don’t force others to do the same. Whether a commune works or not is none of my business, and I have no right to stop them if they’re not infringing on anyone else’s liberties. I purposefully avoid the “Death to socialists!” rhetoric because I want it to be clear my quarrel is not with socialists writ large, but anyone who seeks to impose their lifestyle and views on others.

                                                          (Sorry, for the essay, car’s in the shop and I haven’t managed to find a new job yet because of it and I’m terribly bored in the meantime.)

                                                        • #80390
                                                          Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                          Moderator

                                                            All I suggest is that we should make it clear that we don’t seek to prohibit attempts at communal or cooperative organization by socialists among themselves as long as they don’t force others to do the same.

                                                            I don’t think you’ll find many; if anyone, here wanting prohibit anyone’s chosen lifestyle, as long as it has no negative effect on them.

                                                            The problems stem from those who would force others acceptance of these lifestyles.

                                                            Another major problem is the Socialists with political power here in the US are not these kinder and gentler almost mythical socialists you speak of.

                                                          • #80391
                                                            Robert
                                                            Participant

                                                              All I suggest is that we should make it clear that we don’t seek to prohibit attempts at communal or cooperative organization by socialists among themselves as long as they don’t force others to do the same.

                                                              I don’t think you’ll find many; if anyone, here wanting prohibit anyone’s chosen lifestyle, as long as it has no negative effect on them.

                                                              The problems stem from those who would force others acceptance of these lifestyles.

                                                              Another major problem is the Socialists with political power here in the US are not these kinder and gentler almost mythical socialists you speak of.

                                                              Amen!

                                                            • #80392
                                                              Max
                                                              Keymaster

                                                                I haven’t read all of this, first up. But I read about Sanger. Sitting here discussing our dog breeding and pure lines and the accidental pyrenees / hound litter we had a while back. Here is some controversy, which I find intereesting, broad brush assumption:

                                                                1) we have a majority of stupid in this country. Another argument that could be advanced from that is that the mode of government and law enforcement is derived from dealing with the stupid masses. Which is why we don’t have nice things, like liberty, and we are living in at tax tyranny.

                                                                2) it seems our system of welfare rewards those on welfare and encourages them to breed. Hence the outbreak of stupid grows, and we get farther and farther away from being able to have some kind of Jeffersonian ideal.

                                                                3) who votes? Maybe rather than qualifications to vote, we have disqualifications. Such as being on welfare. I know that gets complicated with issues like social security where you may or may not have paid in to the system. So broad brush here.

                                                                4) if you wnated to prevent breeding, perhaps you prevent those on welfare from breeding? Due to the continuing burden on the system. I.e. we cannot afford it.

                                                                5) but how can we condone that as believers in rightful liberty? Who decides who breeds or not. Exactly.

                                                                6) but let me throw a kicker in there. All taxation is theft. In particualr, redistributive socialist taxation is theft. I can be persauded to pay a tax contribution, vokuntarily and without threat of death, if I can see a benefit such as good roads to drive on and conduct profitable business. But I will not willingky pay for the subsidisation of the lazy and feckless and stupid. As for other cases, that is what voluntary charity is for.

                                                                7) so, it may be wrong to prevent breeding any any one class of people or another, but it is also wrong to force me to pay for it. Clash of ideology.

                                                                Presented for discussion purposes only.

                                                                Discuss!

                                                                :yahoo:

                                                              • #80393
                                                                Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                                Moderator

                                                                  Well first I think there are many options that could have avoided our current social welfare issues by not given a financial incentive to have more children.

                                                                  However since we are in this predicament now, we need to change either incrementally or accept possible unrest sudden drastic changes could provoke.

                                                                  Of course in time the system will collapse under its own weight regardless. We are just too far past the point of repair without a major reset.

                                                                  Many areas have had good results by implementing a work requirement. Not surprisingly many will drop off the welfare rolls rather than work.

                                                                  Other methods address the problem that many lose all benefits with almost any employment. Allowing a certain degree of benefits so that any employment results in a positive increase in lifestyle. This helps remove the incentive to not improve one’s situation.

                                                                  More later.

                                                                • #80394
                                                                  Max
                                                                  Keymaster

                                                                    Hopefully this will not just be a ‘discussion’ with Joe!

                                                                    Although the purpose of this forum is tactics, we do still have the rightful liberty forum, and any topic that could result in us being thrown into a necessary tactical situation i.e. civil unrest etc, is of course relevant.

                                                                  • #80395
                                                                    wildbill
                                                                    Participant

                                                                      I am very much a proponent of Social Darwinism; I therefore believe that your lack of being responsible for your own actions i.e. having kids you can’t afford/drug addiction/laziness DOES NOT constitute a feeling of sympathy or for charity on my part.

                                                                      Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems we have is Democracy and the more people with “no skin in the game” voting will lead more and more to confiscation of other people’s money, work or property. Basically, we the producers are becoming slaves to the non-producers and all the while I am told I should feel ashamed that I don’t feel more charitable to the “less fortunate” in life.

                                                                      Sorry but the word charity appears NO WHERE in the US Constitution and charity by its very nature is and should be voluntary. The confiscation of my property (money) at the point of a gun by government to fulfill someone’s concept of a “social contract” that is written nowhere and I have never agreed too is nothing but theft and by its very definition makes me a slave to government and those that it caters too.

                                                                      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

                                                                    • #80396
                                                                      Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                                      Moderator

                                                                        Hopefully this will not just be a ‘discussion’ with Joe!

                                                                        I am hurt! ;-)

                                                                        I do agree though. :yes:

                                                                        I am very much a proponent of Social Darwinism…

                                                                        How do we get there from here?

                                                                      • #80397
                                                                        wildbill
                                                                        Participant

                                                                          How do we get there from here?

                                                                          Truthfully I’m not sure that we can, I think we have passed the line of no return with over 50% of the people not paying taxes who have no incentive to cut government at all levels. Therefore I only see a hard reset in our future and when it comes it will be bloody beyond all imagining.

                                                                          Unfortunately I think it will be the “good people” who will be the biggest losers when the “entitled masses” come for “what is owed them” because they are complacently enjoying what they think of a freedom; freedom to be entertained, with smartphones, big screen TV’s, digitally connected cars and houses.

                                                                          Just compare the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independences that started a war to what we call freedom to day and ask yourself what would Jefferson and the other founders say.

                                                                        • #80398
                                                                          Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                                          Moderator

                                                                            Unfortunately I think it will be the “good people” who will be the biggest losers when the “entitled masses” come for “what is owed them”…

                                                                            For me this is one of those glass half full/half empty things.

                                                                            Certainly when such a hard reset happens many good people will pay a steep price, however it is these good people that are necessary to pickup the pieces to build a better future from what remains.

                                                                            I have hope in the future, not that things will be easy, but that good will prevail.

                                                                            If I didn’t believe this I would have already left.

                                                                            Not to a better place, but an enjoyable third world beach where my resources would provide an enjoyable and comfortable existence til my demise. ;-)

                                                                          • #80399
                                                                            wildbill
                                                                            Participant

                                                                              Yes in the end I too believe the “good people” will win out but at a heavy price, but to that end I keep coming back to the quote from Thomas Paine in Common Sense “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

                                                                              For when all is said and done I blame my generation for our allowing the willful spoiled brats and the power elite to bring us to this point in their quest for their socialist utopia.

                                                                            • #80400
                                                                              Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                                              Moderator

                                                                                “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

                                                                                Yea if it must be, sooner rather than later since I am not getting any younger!

                                                                                For when all is said and done I blame my generation…

                                                                                While we share some of the blame it started long before we were born. :yes:

                                                                              • #80401
                                                                                veritas556
                                                                                Participant

                                                                                  Unfortunately I think it will be the “good people” who will be the biggest losers when the “entitled masses” come for “what is owed them”

                                                                                  Yeah, it’s called Sut Afrikaaaa. Right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcNtdHOPfMM

                                                                                  It will happen here too. Maybe not to us, but our kids. Because dad chose not to fight…

                                                                                • #80402
                                                                                  rampantraptor
                                                                                  Participant

                                                                                    Well first I think there are many options that could have avoided our current social welfare issues by not given a financial incentive to have more children.

                                                                                    However since we are in this predicament now, we need to change either incrementally or accept possible unrest sudden drastic changes could provoke.

                                                                                    Of course in time the system will collapse under its own weight regardless. We are just too far past the point of repair without a major reset.

                                                                                    Many areas have had good results by implementing a work requirement. Not surprisingly many will drop off the welfare rolls rather than work.

                                                                                    Other methods address the problem that many lose all benefits with almost any employment. Allowing a certain degree of benefits so that any employment results in a positive increase in lifestyle. This helps remove the incentive to not improve one’s situation.

                                                                                    I agree with Joe here, also with current tax laws and whatnot it can be a disincentive to get more money since squeaking into a new tax bracket can actually cause you to actually lose money. We need a combination of more graded welfare benefits and a flat tax.

                                                                                    Part of this “I deserve welfare” mindset among career recipients is that they earn it because they pay taxes, any cuts in welfare must simultaneously be met with working-class tax cuts. Or, again, we could just move to a flat tax.

                                                                                    If you want to discuss sterilization or birth control of welfare recipients, you also have to ask if we should be on the lam for that too, wasn’t a girl crying to Congress that the government should cover her birth control a meme a few years back? You’d also have to spin that past the religious right.

                                                                                    Preferably we would devolve all types of safety nets to the private sector, but being that it’s not realistic in our time I’ve heard some good arguments in favor of a universal basic income, not out of ideological purity but out of practicality. UBI offers to streamline current welfare spending and cut overhead and costs. Some NGOs have been running experiments in Africa and have had positive results.

                                                                                    I agree that these issues of intergenerational poverty and drug abuse are issues but I wouldn’t consider myself a proponent of social Darwinism. Eventually it begins to sound a whole lot like eugenics.

                                                                                    Trying to restrict voting rights to keep out undesireables could very well backfire. I know everyone thinks of Joe Bob or Sharkeisha with five kids when they think of welfare recipients but there are also a lot of working poor. I should mention that many of these economically distressed workers weren’t just Bernie or Hillary voters but Trump voters as well. If people don’t even have the illusion that they can vote for an improvement of their circumstances you could very well push said folks towards radicalism and insurgency. I don’t see cutting people out of the political process as an ideal to pursue.

                                                                                  • #80403
                                                                                    Abacus
                                                                                    Participant

                                                                                      I think it is all way simpler than they are making it out to be.

                                                                                      Things are only simple after the fact in hindsight. ;-)

                                                                                      …not easily identified…

                                                                                      If it was easy, anyone could do it.

                                                                                      On the forum we strive to provide the knowledge that can allow even a novice the ability to produce reasonable Intelligence from the information available.

                                                                                      Good Intel either that you work up yourself, or you have a guy who specializes, is the lifeblood of making the most informed, and effective decisions that you can in difficult circumstances. Good Intel gives you the knowledge upon which to base good Judgment calls. Lack of information can cause paralysis because you simply do now know what is going on. Poor use of Information, or inexperience with how to focus, can cause analysis paralysis.

                                                                                      Giving your stated background I am sure you are aware of this.

                                                                                      As “the other kind of analyst” I get nuance. It is my job to tell planners, aircrew, and commanders “it depends” but there is power in reductionistic thinking. That is what the quote was about.

                                                                                      Regardless of labels some people want to tell you what to do and some don’t. Period full stop.If you combine that idea with observations on human nature as a whole, the axiom that all people are ass holes at least some of the time, you can explain a lot. At a minimum you won’t be surprised when the supposed good guys do something you don’t like.

                                                                                      Perhaps as a huristic it is most powerful in hindsight. But it is a whole lot easier to keep straight than the endless classification of people and groups into categories. Because once you have everyone sorted, you have to label those categories as good guy or bad guy. And since people basically suck, there is little hope for such a good vs evil strategy to hold up in the real world.

                                                                                      The danger of such categorization is how closely it resembles the No True Scotsman logical fallacy when the person doing the cataloguing identifies or is sympathetic to one of the categories they are sorting things into. By redefining any example of so called right wing violence as really being left wing we do our readers a disservice. This is true even if the assertions are actually accurate. But given how the categorization is at least a little subjective such a claim of truth in sorting is almost impossible. That is after all why this thread has almost become a book at this point.

                                                                                      It would be better to look at violent groups as either individuals, a difficult task, or as individual groups with individual motivations and goals. Even the best organized most homogeneous organizations have some level of internal factionalism.

                                                                                      In the end it matters little whether the violent thugs wreaking havoc are fans of Marx or if they spend all day on Storefront. Both groups are ass holes and both might present a threat to those of us who love liberty.

                                                                                      If we want to define people and groups by what they do, let’s just report on that and not get bogged down with categories.

                                                                                    • #80404
                                                                                      Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                                                      Moderator

                                                                                        By redefining any example of so called right wing violence as really being left wing we do our readers a disservice. This is true even if the assertions are actually accurate.

                                                                                        I have not “redefined any example of so-called right wing violence as really being left wing,” just the the given examples provided by and defined by the Left.

                                                                                        No one here has provided any current threat to liberty by this so called Right. Though many on the the Right are certainly a potential threat to the Socialist agenda.

                                                                                        In the end it matters little whether the violent thugs wreaking havoc are fans of Marx or if they spend all day on Storefront.

                                                                                        I would agree if the the only battle was only a physical one, however we are in a cultural battle of ideals as well.

                                                                                        Understanding the historical background, particularly the use of disinformation in the education of our youth is important IMHO.

                                                                                        As to your desire to keep things in the most basic levels of understanding. That is your prerogative.

                                                                                      • #80405
                                                                                        Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                                                        Moderator

                                                                                          For newer members.

                                                                                        • #126062
                                                                                          Joe (G.W.N.S.)
                                                                                          Moderator

                                                                                            Bump for thought.

                                                                                        Viewing 42 reply threads
                                                                                        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.