• Citing Dignity, Greek Workers Take Over Factory
    73 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Reaver1991;41640378]Fascism isn't inherently racist, just super nationalistic. Nazism was inherently racist. One is the difference between being hoorah italians! and hoorah white people! They're two closely related but different doctrines.[/QUOTE] fascism employs ultranationalism, militarism and imperialism, all things that invariably lead to racism both in theory and practice. also don't forget xenophobia.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41640406]fascism employs ultranationalism, militarism and imperialism, all things that invariably lead to racism both in theory and practice. also don't forget xenophobia.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, but racial superiority wasn't a core tenant of fascism, even if it certainly facilitates it, like it is in Nazism. Same way, I suppose mass famines, oppression, totalitarianism and genocide aren't core tenants of communism but Communist regimes kinda invariably lead to them.
[quote]because economical crisis lead to extremism? never mind the fact that facists parties were supported by corporations globally, whereas communist ones weren't, also because politicians are REALLY good a lying and presenting them as saviors? plus europe was extremely racist back then, hell easier to blame everything in a convient scapegoat that no one ever liked(a.k.a jews).[/quote] I'm going to focus here, as Russian history is one of my specialties. Just to show your ignorance of history. You say the Nazis got into power due to economic and social problems leading to extremism, right? Let us observe the USSR. Take a country, that for centuries, has 80% of its inhabitants in poverty. It is full of (traditionally) anarchist peasants. The noblemen are impoverished and dependent on the Tzar to pay their loans. The clergy own a great deal of land and wealth, stifling freedom of expression and enforcing strict social norms. You have an ass backwards economy losing ground to industrializing countries. The military is full of underpaid men referred to by the impolite "you" by the aristocratic officers. The royal family is inbred and incompetent, mostly foreign and hated by their subjects. A stagnant bureaucracy runs the entire Empire built around conquering Asian khanates. Now throw in World War One. The Tzar is losing the war. His wife is believed to be having affairs. There are rumours of conspiracies. Trade unions are cracked down upon. Food shortages are rife, young men go to the front to die in a pointless conflict. The government is overthrown by a popular movement. The Liberals come to power. They announce reforms and try to manage the situation. Despite this, you have right wing army generals trying to grab power, and leftist communist organizations trying to do the same. Lenin uses his political maneuvering to bring some mutinous sailors to help seize the Winter Palace. It is a quiet night with few shots fired. The next day, when the Communists tried to get into the bank, the clerk there thought it was a joke, and they had to literally rob the place. In 1918, they dissolved the Russian Parliament. They arrested "counter-revolutionaries". They murdered innocent people. Concentration camps were established, and people were killed for their opinions. Much of my family was murdered in those violent times, or had to flee. The people of the February revolution were betrayed. Where was their promised democracy? Where was their equality and end of oppression? Where was their freedom? What kind of shit freedom is it that you kill people and lock them up? You have the balls to tell me that Communism is any better than Fascism?
[QUOTE=Reaver1991;41640492]Well yeah, but racial superiority wasn't a core tenant of fascism even if it could facilitate it like it is in Nazism. Same way, I suppose mass famines, oppression, totalitarianism and genocide aren't core tenants of communism but Communist regimes kinda invariably lead to them.[/QUOTE] imperialism, ultranationalism are racial/ethinic superiority disguised in another name, and xenophobia doesn't even need mentioning. [QUOTE]I suppose mass famines, oppression, totalitarianism and genocide aren't core tenants of communism but Communist regimes kinda invariably lead to them.[/QUOTE] rather, tyrants lead to that, i mean i don't get how you think that this: a society with that is classless and moneyless, every the workers own the method of production, which in theory would result in freedom from oppression. invariably leads to famine simply by natural course, and not the "human" element.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41640536]imperialism, ultranationalism are racial/ethinic superiority disguised in another name, and xenophobia doesn't even need mentioning. rather, tyrants lead to that, i mean i don't get how you think that this: a society with that is classless and moneyless, every the workers own the method of production, which in theory would result in freedom from oppression. invariably leads to famine simply by natural course, and not the "human" element.[/QUOTE] Well, governments/"thepeople" free of market exchange are really, really inefficient at distributing good and ehr, famines.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41640529]I'm going to focus here, as Russian history is one of my specialties. Just to show your ignorance of history. [B]The people of the February revolution were betrayed. Where was their promised democracy?[/B] You have the balls to tell me that Communism is any better than Fascism?[/QUOTE] again, you manage to acknowledge my point and ignore it in the same post, you just repeated what i was saying from the very beginning, THESE people who were betrayed, were fighting for truly communist ideals, instead they got tyrants. whereas in fascism and nazism case, THE PEOPLE GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED. [QUOTE=Reaver1991;41640559]Well, governments/"thepeople" free of market exchange are really, really inefficient at distributing good and ehr, famines.[/QUOTE] you kinda confused me here, are you saying "free market" is so incompetent, that it can't cause famine?
I had to make an account because I got tired of seeing all this misinformation being spewed out by Emperorconor. I'll just say a few words unless he wants this to continue. There isn't a communist or a socialist country in existence today, and there hasn't been. USSR? Stalinist and state capitalist, organized with a hierarchy where workers work for their bureaucratic leaders. China? State capitalist, but that's an obvious one. North Korea? State capitalist... notice something here? These are simply right-wing governments with a powerful control over the country, whom, with their immense control, can often do whatever they choose with regards to their people. That's not what socialism or communism is about. Those seeking power will use whatever rhetoric they can to gain it, whether it is speaking of the American dream or the promise that everyone will be equal and no one will die of starvation or whatever the issue is. It really doesn't help the cause when foreign powers get involved to destroy a revolution that has nothing to do with them.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41640581]again, you manage to acknowledge my point and ignore it in the same post, you just repeated what i was saying from the very beginning, THESE people who were betrayed, were fighting for truly communist ideals, instead they got tyrants. whereas in fascism and nazism case, THE PEOPLE GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED. you kinda confused me here, are you saying "free market" is so incompetent, that it can't cause famine?[/QUOTE] Oh to clarify my point, I mean in a society without market exchange, like purchase of goods and services with money and consumer and producer surplus and all that crap, it's really hard for a central authority/"the people" to effectively distribute goods. Such as food. And, then famines. It kind of happens a lot in communist regimes.
[QUOTE=Reaver1991;41640653]Oh to clarify my point, I mean in a society without market exchange, like purchase of goods and services with money and consumer and producer surplus and all that crap, it's really hard for a central authority/"the people" to effectively distribute goods. Such as food. And, then famines. It kind of happens a lot in communist regimes.[/QUOTE] well, thats why social democracy or the nordic model works somewhat well, is mostly solves these issues, also even marx said that capitalism is necessary to achieve the capacity to transition to an actual communist state, its likely we will first need to eliminate food as commodity before anyone can even think before trying to create a true communist state.
I am all for mixed economies all the way, but all I meant is, Fascist regimes and Communist regimes don't really look all that different when it comes down to it. As my Political Science teacher astutely put it, the more extreme the left and right side become the more they begin to look and behave the same.
[quote]whereas in fascism and nazism case, THE PEOPLE GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED.[/quote] [quote] also because politicians are REALLY good a lying and presenting them as saviors?[/quote] So the people got what they want, despite politicians lying about their promises?
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41640682]well, thats why social democracy or the nordic model works somewhat well, is mostly solves these issues, also even marx said that capitalism is necessary to achieve the capacity to transition to an actual communist state, its likely we will first need to eliminate food as commodity before anyone can even think before trying to create a true communist state.[/QUOTE] Well communism is a far-off state, a lot of things need to be done before the world can be communist. Think about it: you need a stateless, moneyless society where everyones' basic needs are provided for them, and that's no easy task, that's why socialism comes first. And yes, Marx acknowledges what capitalism has done for the world. Capitalism replaced feudalism as the merchant and trader classes held revolutions using the working class (see: French Revolution) taking away the power of the existing elite.
[QUOTE=Antlerp;41640733]Well communism is a far-off state, a lot of things need to be done before the world can be communist. Think about it: you need a stateless, moneyless society where everyones' basic needs are provided for them, and that's no easy task, that's why socialism comes first. And yes, Marx acknowledges what capitalism has done for the world. Capitalism replaced feudalism as the merchant and trader classes held revolutions using the working class (see: French Revolution) taking away the power of the existing elite.[/QUOTE] Does labour have objective value?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41640719]So the people got what they want, despite politicians lying about their promises?[/QUOTE] when did fascists/nazis lied about what they wanted to achieve, they probably were ironically one of the most honest politicians out there, they just happened to be complete and utter assholes. just because politicians tend to be liars in general, doesn't mean they have to lie ALL the time or that every single last one is a liar, plus extermists tend to be more honest than usual, since they're not exactly trying to hide their fucked up ideals.
I kind of find the resurgence of Nazism kind of morbidly fascinating in Greece's case. A lot of the reason Greece is doing so bad now is because of all the austerity measures placed on them by the EU in exchange for bailouts. Like, in economics, we know that deep austerity measures don't actually help economies, they just completely destroy what hope an economy has at recovering. Of course the EU does this because there'd be an uproar from other European people for having to bail Greece out of "Greece's mess" without punishing all of the Greek people.. Which, I've heard for more than a few Economic professors and graduate students refer to it as borderline racism towards the Greek people. And, then boom in country nazism!
[QUOTE=Reaver1991;41640910]I kind of find the resurgence of Nazism kind of morbidly fascinating in Greece's case. A lot of the reason Greece is doing so bad now is because of all the austerity measures placed on them by the EU in exchange for bailouts. Like, in economics, we know that deep austerity measures don't actually help economies, they just completely destroy what hope an economy has at recovering. Of course the EU does this because there'd be an out roar from other European people for having to bail Greece out of "Greece's mess" without punishing all of the Greek people.. Which, I've heard for more than a few Economic professors and graduate students refer to it as borderline racism towards the Greek people. And, then boom in country nazism![/QUOTE] which is rather similar to what france did to germany when you think about it. however communists and the socialists are also on the rise on greece, and there is a rather good chance that the socialists will come out on top, rather than the nazis of the golden dawn, because they're the only ones with anything even resembling a plan. the name of the party is syriza btw, they're a coalition of communists, social democrats, greens...
"It's only Socialism when it works" Seriously, people, there is an ocean of different between a perfectly peaceful syndicalist takeover and the "worker's paradise" that were the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41640993]which is rather similar to what france did to germany when you think about it. however communists and the socialists are also on the rise on greece, and there is a rather good chance that the socialists will come out on top, rather than the nazis of the golden dawn, because they're the only ones with anything even resembling a plan. the name of the party is syriza btw, they're a coalition of communists, social democrats, greens...[/QUOTE] Exactly! It is a lot like the Treaty of Versailles scenario! Nice pick up on that!
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;41641004]"It's only Socialism when it works" Seriously, people, there is an ocean of different between a perfectly peaceful syndicalist takeover and the "worker's paradise" that were the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China.[/QUOTE] there is a reason why true socialism is considered to be an utopia you know. [QUOTE=Reaver1991;41641012]Exactly! It is a lot like the Treaty of Versailles scenario! Nice pick up on that![/QUOTE] there is one slight difference from france vs germany, is that this time the situation, isn't just germany against greece, but more like a generalized racism from northern EU countries against southern ones like spain, italy, portugal, greece. which awfully resemble old times racism, of whites from north vs whites from south of europe.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41641013]there is a reason why true socialism is considered to be an utopia you know.[/QUOTE] True Communism™ is an impossible fantasy. The best we can do within the confines of reality is use Keynesian policies during recessions, promote free trade, remove restrictions on the movement of peoples, replace social welfare policies with a minimum income so as to eliminate poverty at the root, and stay away from nationalizing industries.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41641069]True Communism™ is an impossible fantasy. The best we can do within the confines of reality is use Keynesian policies during recessions, promote free trade, remove restrictions on the movement of peoples, replace social welfare policies with a minimum income so as to eliminate poverty at the root, and stay away from nationalizing industries.[/QUOTE] free trade is also a fantasy, if you honestly that minimum interference from goverments will actually improve the situation, look at what caused the recent ecomonical crisis to begin with, lack of regulation is the cause. also funny thing you say to stay away from nationalizing industries, considering that works pretty damn well for the nordic model(for some kinds of industries at least).
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41641113]free trade is also a fantasy, if you honestly that minimum interference from goverments will actually improve the situation, look at what caused the recent ecomonical crisis to begin with, lack of regulation is the cause.[/QUOTE] Nowhere did I state that minimum interference from governments was my preferred ideal. There is a difference between free trade and laissez faire economics. Also free trade has existed in real life. Britain strictly adhered to a free trade policy during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. [quote]also funny thing you say to stay away from nationalizing industries, considering that works pretty damn well for the nordic model(for some kinds of industries at least).[/quote] Which ones?
Absolute free ass libertarian trade is a fantasy, a particularly stupid one, too. That's why all capitalist leaning countries have varying degrees of mixed economies. And, since he straight up mentioned Keynesian economics, I'm sure he meant that, not crazy ass lassiez-faire-ness [editline]29th July 2013[/editline] god dammit emperorconor
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41641132]Nowhere did I state that minimum interference from governments was my preferred ideal. There is a difference between free trade and laissez faire economics. Also free trade has existed in real life. Britain strictly adhered to a free trade policy during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Which ones?[/QUOTE] keynes condemned laissez faire economics, and free trade recieves the same criticism he gave to laissez faire. banking sector in sweden for instance is almost totally nationalized, and if i'm not mistaken they also have some nationalized petroleum companies. edit: also honestly none of this matters much since, in the end of the day, current capitalism model which relies in infinite growth is unsustainable at the long run, we'll see global rise of socialist democracies at best, fascism/extremism at worse with the worsening of climate change causing famine in africa, middle east and asia, and worsening of economic conditions in the americas and europe.
Well, banks aren't something that really need to be nationalized as whole from what I understand. I'm not really familiar with Sweden's banking sector, but I cannot even kind of imagine a nationalized banking sector. That seems insane and the amount of corruption potential.. yikes. And, even if banks are being risky, when it comes down to it, the only way banks can fail is that their Governments let them fail. Such was the case in the United States. They merged two banks at the start of the recession, and facing a lot of criticism over intervention in the market, they let ehr, I don't remember which one fail but they let one fail and then a domino effect happened and whoops the economy.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41641201]keynes condemned laissez faire economics, and free trade recieves the same criticism he gave to laissez faire.[/quote] He supported free trade though? Do you even know what free trade is? [quote]banking sector in sweden for instance is almost totally nationalized, and if i'm not mistaken they also have some nationalized petroleum companies.[/QUOTE] Bollocks. The Swedish government are privatizing industries. They have plans for future ones as well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Ongoing_and_Finished_privatisations[/url]
[QUOTE=Reaver1991;41641250]Well, banks aren't something that really need to be nationalized as whole from what I understand. I'm not really familiar with Sweden's banking sector, but I cannot even kind of imagine a nationalized banking sector. That seems insane and the amount of corruption potential.. yikes. And, even if banks are being risky, when it comes down to it, the only way banks can fail is that their Governments let them fail. Such was the case in the United States. They merged two banks at the start of the recession, and facing a lot of criticism over intervention in the market, they let ehr, I don't remember which one fail but they let one fail and then a domino effect happened and whoops the economy.[/QUOTE] here in brazil our greatest bank is partially nationalized(banco do brasil) and its probably one of the least corrupt agencies here, and thats saying something in a country where everything is drowned in corruption. [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41641295]He supported free trade though? Do you even know what free trade is? Bollocks. The Swedish government are privatizing industries. They have plans for future ones as well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Ongoing_and_Finished_privatisations[/url][/QUOTE] swedish right-wing have recently got to the power, and are kind of undoing much of the nordic model you know. also you do know free trade is one the main causes of sweatshops getting more and more numerous right? plus keynes turned against free trade in 1930s... and was constantly speaking against it.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41641301]here in brazil our greatest bank is partially nationalized(banco do brasil) and its probably one of the least corrupt agencies here, and thats saying something in a country where everything is drowned in corruption.[/QUOTE] In Canada, and in the US we have the Bank of Canada and the US Treasury act as central banks. But mostly they just kinda set the guidelines for private bank's own interest rates. Many countries operate like this. Brazil does too, right? I'm just a lowly Econ undergrad, but an entirely nationalized financial sector seems crazy. I just don't see what good a nationalizing regular banks is going to do.
[QUOTE=Reaver1991;41641350]In Canada, and in the US we have the Bank of Canada and the US Treasury act as central banks. But mostly they just kinda set the guidelines for private bank's own interest rates. Many countries operate like this. Brazil does too, right? I'm just a lowly Econ undergrad, but an entirely nationalized financial sector seems crazy. I just don't see what good a nationalizing regular banks is going to do.[/QUOTE] no banco do brasil is a regular bank, and the largest national one, there ARE other banks you know that are private, its just that we also have a nationalized one. edit: also i was wrong, banco do brasil isn't partially nationalized, its totally nationalized :p
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;41641301]swedish right-wing have recently got to the power, and are kind of undoing much of the nordic model you know.[/quote] Which is why companies like V&S were privatized in 1994? [quote]also you do know free trade is one the main causes of sweatshops getting more and more numerous right?[/quote] Please explain to me what protectionism is, and what free trade is. Give me one good argument for protectionism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.