The Nazi's socialist?
- Thread starter DirtbagLeft
- Start date
If all enterprises were worker-owned and such, couldn't they still have it where some jobs pay more than others because they're the suckier/harder jobs? If the entire point of socialism is that the "means of production" are not owned by singular persons and/or entities but by the people who work them directly, would it be undone simply because some jobs require higher pay to attract people to freely do them instead of labor compulsion of some kind?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Oh, that gives me a fun idea. Let me see if I can beat your fascism score 😁
The problem with a lot of these is that I can't concretely say yes or no, some are described in such a derogatory way too. I'll try to go into more detail.
I do place some inherent value in tradition. I think that all other things being equal, tradition has meaning and worth and it serves as a connection between members of a community and to our ancestors. That said, there are plenty of bad traditions that I might like to change and new ideas I favor. Maybe I should give this one half a point.
This is the other side of the coin of #1. I like a lot of Enlightenment Era ideas, some I'm not too crazy about. It's really too reductionist to say that someone (a reactionary like me) opposes or embraces the Enlightenment when so many different ideas came out of it. Some modern ideas are good, some are not. I'm going to give myself a zero here, because I don't inherently dislike modern ideas, even though some are terrible.
I don't feel this way at all. In fact, I don't know if fascists necessarily feel like this very much. It's really just saying that fascists are dumb. I'll take a zero on this one.
I am the absolute opposite of this. I think that anything should be questioned - authority figures, scientists, experts, politcians, deeply held convictions. We should always be skeptical of authority figures and of things that we believe we know. Zero.
This one that lefties would probably pain me with. I don't fear differences, but I think that under some circumstances homogeneity can be nice too. I anti-immigration, though that doesn't mean I fear different people. Not wanting people forcing themselves or their values on me isn't fearing the for their differences. I'll give myself half a point here.
The middle class gets screwed over a lot from both sides, so they often have reason to be frustrated. I'll give myself a point here.
Leftists are plotting against us, and they control a lot of powerful institutions too. I'll give myself a point on this one.
Well, I think that my enemies have their strengths and their weaknesses, but that goes for everybody right? I actually feel more inclined to say that the left is really strong. I'll take a zero here.
I'm not quite a pacifist, I believe in self defense, but I'm a non-interventionist and oppose almost all war. This one's definitely a zero.
I'm not contemptuous of the weak, but I do think that our modern society has gone too far in glorifying weakness. People actually take pride in being weak, in being triggered, in their flaws. We shouldn't contempt for weak people unless they embrace their weakness, unless they avoid bettering themselves - that truly is contemptable. It is better to be strong than weak and we should seek to strengthen ourselves. This doesn't just mean lifting weights or learning to fight - it means becoming psychologically strong too. That is even more important. Maybe this should be worth a point of it were phrased better.
I don't agree with death cults, I'm very much for peace. I do think we could use a but more heroism in our modern societies though. If we're not willing to live by our convictions, if we don't stand up for what's right, then we're going to lose the things we value. I need a hero, I'm holding out for a hero...
Anyway, another half point.
I'm a big fan of men and masculinity. That doesn't mean that I have disdain for women or for homosexuals. Masculinity is important for society and people denigrate it too often. I'll give myself a point here.
I'm a skeptic of democracy but also of centralized authority. This is why weaker states and less centralization would be better, so that both the elites and the mob have less power over individuals and communities. Democracies often fail to represent the will of the people or their interests. But the welfare of the common person in a nation is very important. I'll give myself half a point for this point.
I don't think that is true of fascism. Well, it can be, but any authoritarian system can manipulate language to push their agenda. I'm sure that plenty of fascists have done this, but leftists are the true masters of manipulating language. Anyway, I disagree with manipulating language to serve an agenda or to obscure the truth. Zero on his one.
Anyway, with half points I am up to a six. I'm tied with Tyanna.
I don't identify as a fascist, maybe I'm 3/7 fascist. I'm not a racist either, at least not by my own definition of racism, which might be contentious.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
So like Ilhan Omar then?
Alright, I'll bite. How would you define racist?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
My definition is more narrow than is often used, which isn't necessarily saying much because these days racism can mean almost anything.
I define racism as having hostility towards a race or towards people based on their race. It needs to be actual anger, hatred, dislike, or animosity towards people based on race - not merely generalizations, stereotypes, or preferences. Other uses of the word create problems, especially since so much baggage comes along with the accusation of being racist.
Navarro
Well-known member
That runs headfirst into the law of supply and demand. More prestigious and rarer skills like neurosurgery will always be in demand more than say, being able to dig a ditch, and hence attract higher wages without the distortive effect of the state forcing wages to be equalised.
Last edited:
ShieldWife
Marchioness
There are numerous jobs, including but not limited to those that require more education, training, or investment before you can do it, that people wouldn't do if it wasn't more profitable. Why do the hard job when the easy one pays as well?
Navarro
Well-known member
But equalising wages like that just leads us back into the problem Hayek identified. Why do the hard job when the easy one pays as well? Either socialism doesn't do away with inequality - its main selling point - or socialism relies on slave labour. Of course, in all practical concerns it does both.
Last edited:
The Boot has been summoned to this thread, and sees why. Consider this a very friendly warning for everybody to please take a moment or two and review the civility rules found HERE. These apply to everybody, no matter what side of the debate you are on. The Boot being an exceptionally lazy piece of footwear is not going to infract anybody or any silliness like that. We just would like to officially remind everybody that we do have rules.
On that note, welcome @DirtbagLeft, it is always nice to have other voices in the community and speaking as a particularly dapper set of footwear, there is far more to this forum than just arguing about who is wrong about politics. We also argue about who is wrong about fandoms, fics, and everything else, and who knows, you may find yourself yelling on the same side as some of the people you are yelling at or getting yelled at by in this thread. For example, @Big Steve is wrong about Star Trek! The Boot will flee now before the Slayer of Fools gets medieval on the Boot.
On that note, welcome @DirtbagLeft, it is always nice to have other voices in the community and speaking as a particularly dapper set of footwear, there is far more to this forum than just arguing about who is wrong about politics. We also argue about who is wrong about fandoms, fics, and everything else, and who knows, you may find yourself yelling on the same side as some of the people you are yelling at or getting yelled at by in this thread. For example, @Big Steve is wrong about Star Trek! The Boot will flee now before the Slayer of Fools gets medieval on the Boot.
But that doesn't really address my remark? I'm asking how acknowledging the need for different wages/earnings to attract people to more difficult or less-enjoyable jobs will undermine the idea of worker-owned businesses?
Are you envisioning that the wage differential wouldn't be enough, that the people doing harder jobs should also get a bigger share of the enterprise in question, and that this would eventually (or immediately) undermine the collective ownership principle? In, say, the metaphorical hospital, the neurosurgeon wouldn't just be paid more, they'd get a bigger say in how the hospital is run?
Pfft. I get told I'm wrong about Star Trek all the time. Just don't claim World of WarCraft is better than Final Fantasy XIV. Them's fightin' words.
That definition leaves open the prospect of one of the other widely-held definitions of racism: claims of racial inferiority/superiority. You don't have to feel anger, dislike, hatred, or animosity towards people of another skin color to believe they're inherently "inferior", yet such a belief is at the very core of what fuels the other bad stuff.
DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
I don't reject what you are actually saying I am looking at what you are actually saying and your behavior (such as mischaracterizing my position or ascribing positions to me which I have not taken{ie your acting in bad faith}). I am also considering what I am saying, considering how my audience will take it, and considering possible responses to what I am saying.
Yes because it is the left which advocates for ethnostates. Have you ever thought that the lefts focus on race might be a response to racism. Pretending racism doesn't exist doesn't mean racism doesn't exist.
Lets see. I observed that people are willfully ignorant (stupid), I have observed that people are retarded (mentally deficient), I have observed that people are degenerate (morally deficient). There is only one person that I have actually used name calling with and that is because she is an utter joke who is so stupid (willfully ignorant) that she is not even wrong in her mischaracterization of my position. There is being wrong about what my position is, and then there is being not even wrong.
One might be tempted to think so if they had only read the list and not the surrounding material. That list while it is called Umberto's list is extracted from the article. It's not like he went "Here is a list". but considering I doubt any of you have bothered to read the source material...
Anyone can stop being a bad person by not being a bad person (ie changing).
See there you go lying again. And then after I destroy your "argument" you turn around and claim victory. Well let me make it super simple for you.
Saying violence is justified is one position.
Saying violence should be used is another position.
My own position is yet a third. The violence was justified but should not have been used.
Stop being a lying. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Pick a libertarian policy and try to get me to contradict a libertarian principle. Do not misrepresent what I am saying but look for a genuine contradiction. It's what I have done with you lot whenever one of you claims to be a free speech absolutist.
Then push me on it. It's what I do to you lot. Again pick a libertarian policy.
Agreed there hasn't been. Most attempts at a socialist state have been brought about in third world countries. I am of the belief that socialism can only arise from an established liberal democracy. Any attempt to bring about a libertarian socialist government without a foundation in liberal democracy is much like building a house without a foundation.
(I am not speaking of socialists specifically) Libertarians rarely become authoritarians though it does happen. (speaking specifically of socialism) The fact that the best known attempts at bringing about socialist governments are products of violent revolutions which are ripe for the rise of strongmen is what leads to those attempts always being authoritarian. If one steps back from the question of socialism to a more general historical analysis there appears to be a link between the conditions under which the government is formed and the necessity and amount of violence needed to establish legitimacy. This is actually one of the major differences between the US and the French revolution and also seems to explain the failure of the English revolution and Cromwell (yes I know he predates I am establishing a principle). The 13 colonies were already operating as more or less independent entities with their own forms of government. Additionally where the crown did have a stronger presences there was almost always a parallel government. The governments which existed at the time already had a strong tendency towards Liberalism.
It's this knowledge which is why I and Libertarian Socialists are absolutely insistent that when it comes to establishing a socialist state violence must be used only as an absolute last and strictly in response to aggression. We are taking our lead from the Socialists who lead the Civil Rights Movement. The application of violence is almost always a bad idea even when justified. Even if it is justified it should be restricted to clearly defensive applications. Note that I have repeatedly said that the violence against the white nationalists at Charlottesville was justified, but I have repeatedly said I thought it was a bad idea. This is because violence even when justified can snowball out of control quickly.
Considering that you know absolutely nothing about the system I am advocating for and how it may or may not differ from authoritarian regimes. You have no idea what I am spouting off about. For starters you falsely believe that the system which I am advocating for is a centrally controlled system.
Because as you yourself have said we haven't seen a Libertarian Socialist government. Because as is demonstrably true whenever such a government is attempted the US government goes in and intentionally destabilizes the region which means the reason we haven't seen a Libertarian Socialist government is because of sabotage. So on the one hand you want to blame me for the bloody atrocities of Authoritarians. And on the other hand you want to blame me because Libertarian Socialists are not able to resist the most well funded intelligence agency in the world, and the most well equipped military in the world, because we don't see the point in spilling tankers of blood futilely. Which is about the time the Libertarian Socialist gets shot in the head by an Authoritarian and the blood really starts to pour. Well that is a heads you win tails I loose if I have ever seen one.
Maybe, but I tend to think they would have eventually gotten around to the less pure as well. Authoritarian fascist regimes need an internal and external enemy in order to perpetuate themselves. Besides even if they would have let me live being a half breed the cock sucking would have been a deal breaker.
So you haven't seen The Matrix, or V for Vendetta? Or heard Kurt Cobain? Or Star Trek? Or rage against the Machine? And this is without putting much thought into it. There are lots of very famous socialists who's work have made lots of money and who are very well known. I also think that your portrayal of Animal Farm and 1984 are rather shallow, after all I remind you George Orwell was a Libertarian Socialist.
Funny I hear the same criticism of the BITE Model from Mormons and JW's but it's used by the FBI and by professional sociologists and psychologists. And somehow they are able to figure make fine distinctions. Anything can be vague if you want it to be.
More like as many tries as it takes. I often think it short sighted that the education system fails to even so much a mention the hundreds of bloody failed attempts at establishing liberal democracies before the first one took hold. There are some people who fail at a thing once and then give up. There are others who fail two or three times and then give up. Then there are those who fail hundreds of times understanding that the principles are sound it is only their application which is failing. Then at long last after learning all the ways not to build a light bulb they finally learn how to build one. Contrary to popular belief failure is more important than success. Learning what not to do and why it failed to work the way you wanted it to is key to growth and understanding. It is something which requires brutal honesty and self reflection.
Oh believe me we are well aware of the treacherous tankies (authoritarian socialists). Their actions in both Germany and Russia as well as sense has been a major planning concern. Setting aside CoIntelPro which was a targeted attack on Socialists by the FBI. We have tended to focus mostly on social issues rather than on economic issues while we learn and process. Besides the CIA and the US military there is a third reason why there haven't really been a major push to attempt to bringing about Libertarian Socialism. It's we are positioning ourselves to be part of the counter-revolutionary movement. There are a couple of plans that boil down to 1) Pull back and let the Nazi's and Fascists weaken themselves and then move in with the counter revolutionary forces to mop up. 2) Join the Counter-revolutionaries in an all out assault against the revolutionary forces.
In either case we are in a better position at the negotiation table, and either way the plan is to stomp the fuck out of both ruthlessly and without mercy before they can get a hold. A lot of the planning has been centered on war gaming the after.
Dysphoria which is what I assume you are referring to is not necessarily a mental illness even when referring to gender reassignment surgery. In order to be considered a mental illness it needs to be debilitating and that is a pretty high threshold. Think of it like this. Someone who has cancer may not necessarily be ill. There are people who walk around with benign tumors. The tumor may cause discomfort but be utterly harmless. Doctors will still operate to remove the tumor however because even if they are not ill the tumor may become malignant in the future, or even just to remove the discomfort.
You are using the term newspeak incorrectly. And the reason is actually rather simple. It's an old term and indicates which area of the body the surgery is taking place at. The majority of trans individuals usually only elect to have top surgery (breast augmentation or reduction). Top and bottom surgery cover both penoplasty and vaginoplasty. It is a good way to indicate both at the same time without having to always say both every time. It's just like someone may talk about the health of the plants in their garden without referring to each individual plant species. It's a general category which conveys the whole.
In a few cases some (I have only ever met 2) trans individuals use the term as a means of avoiding triggering their dysphoria. The two individuals I am aware of had the most extreme cases of dysphoria I had ever personally come across actually becoming physically ill at the thought of their own genitals. After the surgery they were fine and could refer to the surgeries by name but prior to it was a physical impossibility.
Would you be interested in revealing which six?
There is a lot to unpack here. WWII was not fought to save liberalism. Just like the Axis used propaganda so did the Allies (even the two names are propaganda). While I do believe that some of the boots on the grounds fighters fought to save liberalism the reality is much different than the fantasy. WWII or as it should properly be called the continuation of the great war was about continuing the grudge match from WWI which had nothing to do with the death of Ferdinand.
Here is the thing because of the way some people have responded I have a hard time figuring out who is fucking with me and who is not. There are after all far more of you than me so I have to generalize linguistic patterns far more than I actually like (people who think the same tend to talk the same). That I have repeatedly stated my potion does not make it easier. So to make this simple let me ask this. And I really need you to answer this. Do you understand the difference between saying violence is justified and violence should be used?
As an addendum I do not think violence should have been used. I do however think it was justified. Given the way my own mind works it is important personally for me to understand when violence is justified and when it is not justified as well as when it should be used and when it should not be used. In large part this developed as a reaction to being a pacifist to the point of receiving savage and brutal beatings regularly until I was about 12 without so much as a protest. After getting beaten bad enough to nearly require hospitalization I had to work out when violence was and was not appropriate as a response. Initially my response was if violence is justified than it should be used. Thankfully that didn't last long and I returned to a near state of pacifism with the belief that violence ought only be used as an extreme measure and only if it will achieve the intended aim of reducing violence in the future. Something to understand is that my analysis is just that. It is a strategic analysis which is apart from either the question of justification or the ought question. I truly hope that provides light into my method of thinking and my position.
Which ideas? The problem which seems to keep arising is that people keep conflating the use of violence with authoritarianism. It's understandable but frustrating. Authoritarianism has a specific meaning. You have also inverted what I have said. The public is made up of individuals and it is up to each individual to decide what action they should take in any given circumstance. I also believe in consequences for actions. I am personally less concerned with legal consequences than I am with ethical consequences. While understandable the choice of the counter-protesters to turn violent was emotional, ill thought out, risky, and stupid. I am however quarterbacking after the game having been a spectator in the bleachers. It is also something I stepped in to correct. It did not happen all at once but the organizers did come around to my way of thinking.
I do not know if you have been to protests but it is easy for things to get overcharged emotionally and even the best organized events can be sent into a spiral by rogue agents. That the counter-protest was not well organized and that they did not have a policy in place was a major moral failing on the part of the organizers.
Please demonstrate this. Having read both fascist and anti-fascist literature and having known both kinds in real life I find this rather interesting as a statement.
Anti-fascists don't have a particular obsession with tradition. Action should only be taken if it will bring about the desired results. Anti-fascists will ally with anyone except fascists. Anti-fascists seek to build alliances through intersectional alliances. Anti-fascists are usually though not always socialists so they don't fear the lower classes or seek to appeal to the fears of the middle class. Anti-fascists don't care about plots nor do they draw on xenophobia. They do not cast fascists as too strong and to weak at the same time, but rather seek to exacerbate their fall. Anti-fascists do not believe life is permanent warfare or that pacifism is trafficking with the enemy, rather they exist to deal with fascists and then fade and rely heavily on pacifist tactics. They don't express contempt for the weak. They are not particularly interested in martyrdom or eager to kill or to die. They don't tend to focus on Machismo. You might get them on selective populism but that is more a technicality than anything else as anti-fascists organize specifically around anti-fascism and no other principle. It's why they don't tend to remain after. And they do not employ newspeak.
So at best you can give them a 1 out of 14.
No one says he is the one definitive authority on what fascism is or is not. However what you have just done is a genetic fallacy in particular an ad hominem. You are impugning the argument based not on the argument but on the source. Additionally your argument seems to be that because he was not living in a major population center it does not matter if he read their literature or was aware of what was going on because he didn't have first hand experience. That is bunk. If anything that made his analysis more objective than it otherwise would have been. Reading the literature (both the official literature as well as the newspapers produced by them) and comparing them to other sources of information is how one builds an analysis.
There is an assumption to an appeal to authority that does not exist. I do not use the list because it was written by a smart guy. I use it because it encapsulates and summarizes fascism. I will fully admit that there are those who use the list that way. And they are wrong for doing so. The way I found it was because I was attempting to compile a list for my own notes from what I read of fascist literature at the time and a professor pointed me to it.
[/quote] Less than you might think and for the same reason that the Alt-Right doesn't check many of those boxes. Something that is also taken into account is severity. It is not just a way to say such and such is a destructive cult but you can even rank various cults by destructiveness.
And its coming back especially with the rise of serious fascist movements. I do not mean calling someone a fascist but the number of self identified fascists and attempts they are making to organize themselves.
Yes there are non Jewish Question Nazi's. There are even Jewish Nazi's. The NSDAP was a Nazi Party based in Nazi philosophy which was a variant of Fascism with a racial bent.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
So when do you start?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Yes, that is intentional, because many people are labeled as being racist because they make some claim about the relative traits or qualities of different racial groups - some of which could subjectively be interpreted as superiority or inferiority. I do not believe that these claims, whether true or false, should rise to the level of racism. Making a claim about races shouldn’t be racism, there should be negative feelings involved.
Navarro
Well-known member
Really? What I have observed is that every claim you've made on an empirical matter has been wrong.
You were wrong when you said Aristarchus invented modern science, and further demonstrated by that that you don't know what science actually is.
You were wrong when you called early 20th century Russia a slave state, and wrong when you claimed that the Bolsheviks overthrew a monarchy. You were also wrong when you said that they were better than the Tsar.
You were wrong when you said the Biblical narrative portrays God as evil.
You were wrong when you said that Morales was an all-around good sort, that Bolivia was a fascist dictatorship, and that the current President of Bolivia called for the indigenous to be genocided.
You were wrong when you called a quote from a character in Halo a white nationalist slogan.
Why do you think that is? (Hint it's because these countries lack social mobility or a middle class.)
So why have only non-liberal democracies ever seen socialism as anything more than a fringe movement? (Hint, hint, it's because "the system" you rail against is tolerable for the majority of people).
They become authoritarians as soon as the evil bougies refuse to hand it all over to be collectivised. We've seen all this before, we know where the train ends.
Yeah, yeah, you've said this a lot. Save that your definition of "in response to aggression" includes pre-emptive strikes.
Again, your definition of "defensive" includes pre-emptive strikes.
Yeah, we know the system you're advocating for. It's the same one socialists have always tried to create, and always made nothing but mountains of skulls in trying.
It will be, because "the workers" won't be able to self-organise.
Ah, so now we're at that excuse are we?
So a utopia built on science-fictional technology impossible IRL, and three rants about "smashing the system", in two cases via terrorism. And in the first case the system isn't even that bad, is the only reason humanity continues to exist, and ultimately isn't even overthrown.
Yes, and as I've shown "libertarian socialism" is an incoherent political ideology, so for real-world purposes it's irrelevant.
There weren't "hundreds of bloody failed attempts" at establishing liberal democracy. They arose within 60 years after the idea started percolating around - and you claim socialism has existed for 2,000.
They'll be stomping you mercilessly, because they're both better-prepared for violence and better at organising than your "let's vote for officers and decide our battle plans by canvassing the grunts for ideas" level of military theory. And if they don't a neighbouring country will see your resources protected only by isolated decentralised communes and stomp you then.
We're not talking about dysphoria here. We're talking about the equivalents of those people who "self-identify" as animals or as fantasy elves. "Self-identification" is meaningless because it's subjective.
Last edited:
Navarro
Well-known member
The neurosurgeon gets more money than the ditch-digger because his skills are more in demand than those of the latter and hence his work is more valuable. Because of this he has more to spend and hence has more room to buy luxury goods such as a larger house, for instance, and all the social influence and power a large amount of money brings. Now the socialist can either accept this and give up on the very idea of removing inequality that socialism was brought in to do, or he can forcibly fix the wage of a neurosurgeon to that of a ditch digger. But this draws him right into Hayek's trap.
Last edited:
More like we simply don't believe you when you say that it wouldn't be.
Look, we've had a few people already coming here claiming to represent Anarcho-Communism, or Libertarian Socialism, or whatever you call it. I've noticed a thing, as have a few others:
When asked for details on how their proposed society would actually function, such people evade or disengage.
So let me ask you: how would your proposed society defend itself? If the Tankies come tanking, how would you stop them?
Ditto for if it's "The Company" instead.
Yes, that point is established, but that's not what I'm bringing up. The principle of socialism I've seen pushed the most isn't "make everyone equal" (although there is a very notable exception to that), it's "people own a share of the enterprise they work in, which protects them from exploitation". I'm wondering how the wage differential issue undermines the idea of worker-owned enterprises being the driving force in the economy. The neurosurgeon would still earn more and likely get a nicer house and, if he or she is really good and a decent person, social influence and prestige as well... but would this preclude them, at the end of the day, joining the ditch digger, orderlies, nurses, etc., in voting for issues relating to the running of the hospital under a "one person, one vote" system?
Because the argument I've fielded before is that capitalism makes a mockery of human freedom, in that only the capitalists themselves have anything approaching real freedom. Working class, even middle class, people are limited in their choices and in their political influence by the power of the capitalists who own and operate the majority of a society's productive capacity. Their freedoms are in effect curtailed by wages kept as low as their bosses can keep them in order to pad profit margins. Thus the desire for worker-owned enterprises where the profits of the enterprise are more evenly, fairly distributed.
Navarro
Well-known member
He has. It boils down to one of two options according to him: "let the tankies take over first and take the brunt of the fighting, then jump in to take them out" or "join the tankies in a revolutionary coalition to bring down society, but make sure to backstab them before they backstab us".
Which explains why the tankies would put people like him up against a wall as soon as they took over.
But I was actually referring to how a "Libertarian Socialist" country would defend itself afterwards. Because even if they managed to kill all their own tankies, there'd be plenty more in other lands. All too keen to go and bring Benefits of Government By Vanguard of Revolution to a country that lacked such benefits.