Would you unfriend or blacklist someone over politics?

Venezuela is the result of socialism, that's what the fuck Venezuela has to do with anything.

Maybe you can name me a nation or state where socialism has succeeded? Don't say Scandinavian states; those are mixed market economies, and while they're not perfect they tend to float in the water a bit longer than these hard socialist societies.

 

It begs the question: why would O'Rourke need to be known by his nickname? Because there's political gain for having an ethnic (or foreign) sounding name, that's why. It seems to be a hot commodity these days, to have a non-Anglicized name as it scores you some diversity points.

However there was once a time when it was more beneficial to have an Anglicized name than it was to have an ethnic/foreign sounding name to the English language. This is why Donald Trump's ancestors changed the family name away from Drumpf. Because they knew that Anglicizing the family name would help them assimilate into America during that era. Also, Barack Obama used to call himself Barry Obama during his youth. This reflected a time when having an Anglicized name like Barry would have more perks than Barack. Later on, he went back to Barack for the same reason.

Taco Bell is more authentically Mexican than O'Rourke. It shows how ungenuine he is. He tried to participate in the Hispanic Congressional Caucus back in 2013, but they wouldn't allow it because he's not Hispanic.

Yes there was once a time before the civil rights movement when being white unquestionably had it's benefits. This article is a good example of it. Nowadays we just aren't seeing people of color trying to be white for political betterment now are we....

 

If you only acknowledge hard socialist societies as real forms of socialism is it really about your convo partner rambling about 'MY version of socialism!' (as you yourself like to put it repeatedly) or about your own stereotypical views? Seems like several countries that incorporated socialist elements
Btw: if a country fails due to faulty governing is that always the fault of the system? Seems you connect dots without thinking about corruption, dictatorial traits (which you probably identify as a purely socialist element ), etc. just because you think rigidly in systems and opposites.

 

In an argument, when one's criticism get refuted and don't work due to an reason provided by the opponent, they need to try a new or different approach to try and get their point across. Not repeat the same shit again and again like you do.

You have a game you play where you repeat the same flawed arguments again and again until you've exhausted the debate, your opponent stops giving a fuck about your opinion, and you call it your own little victory. That's not how discussions work. That's called being a child.

 

Log. Eye.

 

Both the Nazis and Stalinists adapted Marx's Oppressor vs. Oppressed line of thinking. Hitler advocated the notion that the Jews were the oppressors, and the national German "race" was the oppressed. Just as Stalinists advocated that the rich and well educated were the oppressors of the proletariat. Pit the populations against each other, and conquer. That's the formula. The Nazis had concentration camps, the Soviets had Gulags.

Hitler and Stalin had a bromance early on when they signed the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact as a peace agreement. It wasn't until political tensions got out of hand and Hitler broke the agreement. For political and territorial reasons.

In order for Nazism to come to fruition, a nation would need a strong, powerful, collectivist, and oppostion-free government that controls the means of production and distribution. Collectivism robs every member of the populace of their individuality. Rather than identifying people as unique human beings, they categorize them all into groups: Oppressors and Oppressed. This is why white nationalists like Richard Spencer, and the National Socialist Movement openly support socialism. Racists are shallow and judge every individual based solely on their race, and not the content of their character.

 

So they were basically the same, eh? Except for that little detail that Hitler made a race his target while Stalin focused on class? And that Hitler drew support from the industrialists:I.G. Farben, Hoesch, Krupp, Siemens, Allianz etc. And that Nazism functioned to shift the political focus from class warfare to alleged racial and foreign threats. And that Stalin drew on an internationalist ideology of dialectical materialism, while Hitler preached nationalism and drew on theories of race. If you didn't flunk history 101, you should have.

 

Actually, National Socialism had much in common with Trump's MAGA movement and your own Alt right/Alt Lite movement. Both exploit middle class insecurities about racial and foreign menaces in a nativist/populist package. Hitler promised to Make Germany Great Again thru nationalism. The AltLite snake oil you and your martyred "saints" (post#420) have been peddling targets Muslims in much the same way the Nazis targeted the Jews, with a similar goal in mind--rally the white middle class and divert attention from class warfare to nativist nationalism . Nazism was a diversionary tactic to take the heat off of capitalism and class warfare by targeting Jews and foreigners. As was previously noted, the Social Darwinism of the Alt Right/Alt Lite, with its acceptance of hierarchy, fits well with a neo-nazi outlook.

Stalin differed from Hitler in other important respects. Hitler, like Trump, rose by using his charisma to exploit the perception of German victimization. His was a populist movement requiring mass popular support. He had to deliver the goods, and was forced to do so by a blitzkrieg program of foreign conquest. Stalin's base, on the other hand, were the party apparatus and the N.K.V.D. He could pursue a more cautious policy of expansion, using the Leninist formula of "two steps forward, one step backward". Trying to deal with him as though he were Hitler was a serious mistake.

 

He had the nickname before he entered high school. Was he planning his political career that early?

 

You seem to be fighting a straw man. Who exactly are the advocates of hard socialism on these forums you're trying to convince? Are any of us fans of Venezuela? If you want to concede that the Scandanavian countries are not socialist (they seem to be doing much better than just staying afloat), and presumably would do the same for other countries of western Europe, what socialist countries do you have in mind? The only ones I can think of are Communist countries and Third World countries. They are socialist primarily because they lack an indigenous entrepreneurial class. The alternative would be for them to be neocolonial clients of Euro-American capitalist countries or companies. Do you really think they'd be better off?

 

Ordinarily, he who asserts must carry the burden of proof. What "lefties" should be banned from Facebook and havn't bee? what did they say?

 

6

LOL – you want me to ‘prove’ something you are claiming but which even you cannot prove.

 

6

So all the authoritarian regimes that didn’t call themselves socialist are examples of the inevitable failure that capitalism will bring about.

Yet I’ve had many right wingers claim they are ‘socialist’ hell I’ve had right wingers tell me that the UK is socialist because of things like the NHS.

Ok can you name a totally ‘free market’ state?

AGAIN these are example of you black and white mentality coupled to your deep-seated prejudices and bias.

To repeat –

To me there are lots of different versions of capitalism and socialism, is everyone that leans slightly to the left a socialist, is everyone that thinks of themselves as a capitalist a supporter of the most extreme forms of laissez-faire capitalism? To me that seems like madness, yet I have talked to people that have said they think ‘socialism’ is any governance in which there is a welfare system and any interference of the government in the ‘free market’ which would seem to cover a lot of places most people would think of as capitalist. I’ve been called a communist by people on hipforums for things I’ve said here but I’ve also been called a capitalist because I favour Keynesian type economic models, but I’ve had some right wingers say that Keynes is socialist.

So I think there is a lot of confusion out there and so some people need to explain their thinking rather than fall back on simplistic rhetoric.

 

6

THEN CITE THEM

If I’ve missed something I’m happy to go back to it – just tell me where it is.

I’ve often had to explain things in a simplistic way because some people needed it explaining in a simple way – but again if you want me to expand on something I’m happy to do so - just tell me what it is

And if you think you have refuted some criticism then as I’ve said I’m happy to take a look at it and give you my take on it - just tell me where it is.

 

6

Again if you think something has been refuted in a rational and reasonable way I’m happy to go back to it however remember that just saying you don’t agree with something just because you don’t like it is not a rational refutation

Again if you can cite these ‘flawed arguments’ I will do my best to explain them for you.

And actually I hate it when people run away from a debate or are serially evasive and so refuse to address the criticisms of their ideas, because it means I don’t know why they hold onto ideas they are incapable of defending.

 

6

I’d say the same about bigots – I mean the old racist joke was

‘I'd never fuck a black woman. Bestiality is illegal where I'm from’

Oh and here is the joke you adapted from that -

‘I'd never fuck a feminist. Bestiality is illegal where I'm from’

 

6

Sorry but again all we seem to be getting from you is more bitching and bleating – wouldn’t it be more productive if you spent your time, thought and energy actually addressing the many outstanding criticisms of your views?

 

Politics is BS.
My older brother is heavily into all this stuff, he's apparently "right-wing", we're from a British working class background so the likes of Tommy Robinson is like an hero for the most part. I'm well aware of all the negative things and such about him, Nigel Farage, Brexit, racists, bigots and all these other terminologies.
I'm 23 and have never voted. I don't care. From what my brother has said... well, basically, everything revolving around politics is super depressing.

Typically my family are patriots. We love Americans, mainly because they rescued all of humanity during WW2 from the Nazi's. Americans crowned themselves as the global superpower after the British Empire fell. And now we have this new movement of, basically, anti-capitalism.

I was born in 1995, my brother was born in 1985. He has often said that western civilisation started to crumble from year 2005ish, with the New York 9/11 terror attacks being the initial trigger. My dad is a pensioner he just listens to everything my brother says. My boyfriend is kind of on the fence generally about all this.

 

Kirstie

Americans played there part but in world war two, but it should be remembered that the US didn’t declare war on the Nazis, the Nazis declared war on the US. Many Americans thought the US should fight on two fronts and should concentrate on Japan and not enter the European theatre. And by the time the US did arrive in Europe the tide had already turned against the Germans operation Sea Lion had failed and as had the attacks on Russia.

Also before the war many American capitalists invested heavily in Nazis Germany.

I'm thankful the US did the right thing in the end but it should not be looked at through rose-tinted glasses

The question is was the British Empire a good thing? And was the US’s attempt at hegemony a good thing for its people?

The British Empire made a lot of money for a few with little benefit to the common people of Britain, while its free market based capitalist policies killed millions. Just go and look at the hovels people used to live in during the height of empire and compare them to the great estates of those that gained the riches from it. The inequality of the time meant many lived in hardship while a few wallowed in luxury.

The living standards of the common folk actually began to go up as the empire was in declining and more distributive policies took over from free market ones. Just take the NHS for example set up in 1948, a year after India gained its independence.

The growing inequality of the present era in the UK isn’t down to immigrants nor the EU but the adoption of free market policies that have undermined the distributive networks set up after the war.

We need to end the neo-liberal policies and restore balance.

Not sure what you mean by ‘anti-capitalism’ to many the biggest threat to capitalism is the destructive neo-liberal capitalism that has caused so much misery around the world.

I want a capitalist system that works for the benefit of everyone not just the interests of a few.

Well what does he mean by ‘western civilisation’ and just how did the events of 9/11 cause it to crumble? What are the signs of the collapse he’s talking about?

 

Kirstie

The thing is that politics doesn’t have to be depressing.

In my view there are negative forms of politics that are based on negative emotions, blaming others, scapegoating and grievances. This type of politics is often based on returning to the past rather than looking to the future. And often the pasted it is thinking about is more imagined that real.

Things were better before we had all the Muslims came here.

Things were better before we joined the EU.

Things were better when we had an empire.

This kind of divisive negative thinking can led some into irrationally blaming or even hating Muslims and the EU for all the problems they are facing and so wanting to turn the clock back.

If someone is full of negative thoughts and feelings of resentment then it’s likely they will be depressing and depressed.

It is better to be positive and look to a better future, joining together rather than dividing, coming together to help each other rather than looking round for someone to blame. Seeking out the real problems within our societies so we can deal with them rather than creating phantom ones to hate.

Kirstie you don’t have to feel depressed, there are many out here that want a better future and are working to achieve that, you could be part of that.

And it doesn’t have to a political party (although I would wish you to vote) there are many groups out there charitable or environmental that make a positive political difference.

 

Yes, as I said, two socialist superstates got along quite well until Hitler's backstabbing thirst for power got the most of him (all the crystal meth he consumed likely contributed to it as well)

OK, and if Hitler would've exchanged racial warfare for class warfare, and persecuted the Jews for economic reasons rather than ethnic reasons, he would be a hero to the present-day Left. Especially amongst Balbus and his disciples.