Okay, define fascism in a way that excludes liberal democracies and their colonies or neocolonies but includes the USSR. I dont think you know what fascism is.
My definition of fascism is the usual one you’ll hear from any anarchist: People who send me to bed. But feel free to read Umberto Eco and observe how the USSR gets a score of 10 out of 14, where of course one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce. Also how you were all too happy to display rejection of modernism by your implicit dissing of liberal democracies. Please, go ahead, tell me about the grand colonial empire of Estonia! Of Greenland! Of Samoa!
If your liberal democracy puts you into a mental health ward or gulag for your opinion about the system it’s not a liberal democracy. ML states OTOH really like to do that. There’s an inherent totalitarianism to them, they demand that everyone thinks precisely like some centralised decision organ decides, and you tankies will even defend that. Note here totalitarian vs. authoritarian: Thought itself is controlled, not just practical behaviour (fulfilling the quota won’t help you, you still can’t complain). That kind of monopolisation of the prerogative of interpretation is a practical sign of fascism, once it is coalesced. The Ur-fascism points are merely crystallisation points.
The very point that you can type all that in (presumably) a liberal democracy without getting disappeared means that you’re not living under fascism.
It’s really something, MLs having so shit takes that you make me defend liberal democracies.
Disagreement is treason (elementary school dismissal without argumentative engagement), reference to your precious cult of tradition (Nazism is also modernist you muppet) which you of course misread all the time that’s another strike for Newspeak your “Marxist democracy” is neither of the two, lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that’s strike four, obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism.
Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s
By that logic basically all ideology(including yours) is fascism, and to not be a fascist we cannot learn literally anything ever about politics.
(Nazism is also modernist you muppet)
You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I’m rejecting modernism when I’m rejecting enlightenment era ideology.
which you of course misread all the time that’s another strike for Newspeak
How about another strike for literally knowing what words mean and using them properly? You did not say modern, you said modernism. If you didn’t want to be misinterpreted, do not use language that conveys an entirely different meaning.
lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that’s strike four
I wish I had the confidence to make such bold claims with so little knowledge. Have you even ever read about “dictatorship of capital”? Do you even know what that term means? How about you explain it in your own words for me.
obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism
Loling at popular elitism.
Also I will never claim that the current state of capitalism is weak.
Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.
Me. And Eco. You just can’t let it go, can you, that someone disagrees with your precious ideology.
Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s
I never said that. I said that you think that all truth has already been revealed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and possibly Mao. At least one of which you misread but that’s another topic.
You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I’m rejecting modernism when I’m rejecting enlightenment era ideology.
You are rejecting the rational development that started with the Enlightenment, aka modernism. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are both part of that and reject it in their own ways, in a sense anticipating post-modernism. Neither are theologies or whatever, both reject democracy, both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism. Something something complexity theory I’ll let you do your own research can’t be arsed to feed that to a tankie.
Have you even ever read about “dictatorship of capital”?
How’s the GINI coefficient where you’re from? Maybe that’s the reason. Over where I am, struggle-wise, the labour aristocracy is actually kinda more of a headache than capital because capital is so easy to see.
Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.
What is the proper application in your mind then, pray tell? Can you explain it?
There’s a reason I said “one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce around”, not “one is sufficient for fascism”. Otherwise post-modernism would be fascist which makes no sense. At the very least you need an ideological group which corrals around a specific instantiation of those points, a particular way to gloss over the inherent contradictions, really, and engages in political action.
Me. And Eco. You just can’t let it go, can you, that someone disagrees with your precious ideology.
Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?
said that you think that all truth has already been revealed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and possibly Mao.
Bwahahahahaha this is really funny, literally reading a book on expanding marxist concepts into the sphere of transness
Marxism is a living intellectual tradition about ruthless critique, which includes of past leaders and thinkers.
You are rejecting the rational development that started with the Enlightenment, aka modernism. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are both part of that and reject it in their own ways, in a sense anticipating post-modernism. Neither are theologies or whatever, both reject democracy, both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism. Something something complexity theory I’ll let you do your own research can’t be arsed to feed that to a tankie.
Lol, sure, you can define words to mean whatever you want.
On democracy- literally every socialist state has more democracy than bourgeois democracies, because the people are (imperfectly) represented by politicians, the politicians are not there to serve capital.
both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism.
Tell me how your anarchist projects in Catalonia and Ukraine were actually based anti-authoritarians when they did labor and concentration camps. Or when Ukraine was basically a military dictatorship, and enabled kulaks to massacre Jewish people.
Oh, or tell me about your more modern projects (the ones that actually claim to be anarchists, not indigenous resistors in Central America who don’t claim to be socialist or anarchist)
"Anarchism is a coat that only leaks when it is wet. "
How’s the GINI coefficient where you’re from? Maybe that’s the reason. Over where I am, struggle-wise, the labour aristocracy is actually kinda more of a headache than capital because capital is so easy to see.
Wait, so your argument is that the labor aristocracy actually controls your country? You are responding to me asking you if you could define dictatorship of capital.
There’s a reason I said “one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce around”, not “one is sufficient for fascism”.
Then what youre saying holds no water? Sufficient to coalesce around isn’t the same as a definition of.
Also Marxism doesn’t really fit any single point in the definition.
Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?
I don’t even. He wrote about fascism in general, not about specific regimes short of Italy which he uses for some anecdotes, unsurprising given that he’s Italian.
The rest of what you wrote makes just as little sense, so goodbye. Talk to me when you’re grown up.
My definition of fascism is the usual one you’ll hear from any anarchist: People who send me to bed. But feel free to read Umberto Eco and observe how the USSR gets a score of 10 out of 14, where of course one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce. Also how you were all too happy to display rejection of modernism by your implicit dissing of liberal democracies. Please, go ahead, tell me about the grand colonial empire of Estonia! Of Greenland! Of Samoa!
Removed by mod
If your liberal democracy puts you into a mental health ward or gulag for your opinion about the system it’s not a liberal democracy. ML states OTOH really like to do that. There’s an inherent totalitarianism to them, they demand that everyone thinks precisely like some centralised decision organ decides, and you tankies will even defend that. Note here totalitarian vs. authoritarian: Thought itself is controlled, not just practical behaviour (fulfilling the quota won’t help you, you still can’t complain). That kind of monopolisation of the prerogative of interpretation is a practical sign of fascism, once it is coalesced. The Ur-fascism points are merely crystallisation points.
The very point that you can type all that in (presumably) a liberal democracy without getting disappeared means that you’re not living under fascism.
It’s really something, MLs having so shit takes that you make me defend liberal democracies.
Removed by mod
This is a elementary school misreading of that text, it was explicitly not supposed to be a litmus test.
Marxism is literally a modernist philosophy, liberalism is rooted in the enlightenment era. Have you opened a history book in the last 5 years?
Marxist democracies > bourgeois oligarchy aka liberal democracy
Disagreement is treason (elementary school dismissal without argumentative engagement), reference to your precious cult of tradition (Nazism is also modernist you muppet) which you of course misread all the time that’s another strike for Newspeak your “Marxist democracy” is neither of the two, lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that’s strike four, obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism.
As your lawyer I counsel you to continue posting.
Source?
Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s
By that logic basically all ideology(including yours) is fascism, and to not be a fascist we cannot learn literally anything ever about politics.
You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I’m rejecting modernism when I’m rejecting enlightenment era ideology.
How about another strike for literally knowing what words mean and using them properly? You did not say modern, you said modernism. If you didn’t want to be misinterpreted, do not use language that conveys an entirely different meaning.
I wish I had the confidence to make such bold claims with so little knowledge. Have you even ever read about “dictatorship of capital”? Do you even know what that term means? How about you explain it in your own words for me.
Loling at popular elitism.
Also I will never claim that the current state of capitalism is weak.
Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.
Me. And Eco. You just can’t let it go, can you, that someone disagrees with your precious ideology.
I never said that. I said that you think that all truth has already been revealed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and possibly Mao. At least one of which you misread but that’s another topic.
You are rejecting the rational development that started with the Enlightenment, aka modernism. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are both part of that and reject it in their own ways, in a sense anticipating post-modernism. Neither are theologies or whatever, both reject democracy, both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism. Something something complexity theory I’ll let you do your own research can’t be arsed to feed that to a tankie.
How’s the GINI coefficient where you’re from? Maybe that’s the reason. Over where I am, struggle-wise, the labour aristocracy is actually kinda more of a headache than capital because capital is so easy to see.
What is the proper application in your mind then, pray tell? Can you explain it?
There’s a reason I said “one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce around”, not “one is sufficient for fascism”. Otherwise post-modernism would be fascist which makes no sense. At the very least you need an ideological group which corrals around a specific instantiation of those points, a particular way to gloss over the inherent contradictions, really, and engages in political action.
Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?
Bwahahahahaha this is really funny, literally reading a book on expanding marxist concepts into the sphere of transness
Marxism is a living intellectual tradition about ruthless critique, which includes of past leaders and thinkers.
Lol, sure, you can define words to mean whatever you want.
On democracy- literally every socialist state has more democracy than bourgeois democracies, because the people are (imperfectly) represented by politicians, the politicians are not there to serve capital.
Tell me how your anarchist projects in Catalonia and Ukraine were actually based anti-authoritarians when they did labor and concentration camps. Or when Ukraine was basically a military dictatorship, and enabled kulaks to massacre Jewish people.
Oh, or tell me about your more modern projects (the ones that actually claim to be anarchists, not indigenous resistors in Central America who don’t claim to be socialist or anarchist)
"Anarchism is a coat that only leaks when it is wet. "
Wait, so your argument is that the labor aristocracy actually controls your country? You are responding to me asking you if you could define dictatorship of capital.
Then what youre saying holds no water? Sufficient to coalesce around isn’t the same as a definition of.
Also Marxism doesn’t really fit any single point in the definition.
I don’t even. He wrote about fascism in general, not about specific regimes short of Italy which he uses for some anecdotes, unsurprising given that he’s Italian.
The rest of what you wrote makes just as little sense, so goodbye. Talk to me when you’re grown up.
Ah, so we are at the part where the pigeon shits on the chess board, declares victory, and flies off.