12-15-2016, 07:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2016, 07:56 PM by FireIceTalon.)
It isn't a false narrative though. He already admitted in the presidential thread that he uses Breitbart, a blatantly white nationalist and fascist news source as his source of information. Now, unless he is watching it purely for entertainment or comedy, which I doubt given the language he used when he admitted it and given his past political discourse on here, labeling him a fascist or white supremist is fair game. If one doesn't want to be labeled a fascist or white nationalist, then they shouldn't adhere to or be sympathetic towards said ideologies. You reep what you sow.
Stalin was not a communist, but in fact, a state capitalist dictator. His goal was not to achieve communism, but to make Russia a superpower competitive with the US on a global scale militarily and economically. Yes the CPSU was a communist party, though only in name which doesn't really mean anything. The Nazi's were called the "the National Socialist Party", but we all know their party had nothing to do with socialism in any way. The party was named such to appeal to workers even though the Nazis were vehemently anti-communist. I can sit here and call myself a 3-headed purple alien from outerspace, but that doesn't make it so....you get the idea.
However, while calling him a fascist is tempting, he wasn't a fascist either. Fascism involves an element of corporatism that suppresses labor, often a symbiotic relationship between the state and religion (some exceptions exist though), and almost always elements of systematic racism and sexism, and xenophobia tied into a raging and fervant nationalism. Stalin's regime lacked these characteristics in general, with the exception of strong nationalism (though Soviet nationalism was organized along different lines than nationalism elsewhere). Pinochet though, was a great example of a fascist, along with Mussolini and Hitler ofc. Current Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte could probably also arguably be called a fascist.
Why?
As I stated before, if the means of production can be owned by a small few, then its opposite, is also possible. Reorganizing the production of resources, goods and services along the rational lines of human consumption and need, rather than for profit, isn't hard to comtemplate, and in fact, is logical. Ah, the beauty of dialectics.
Producing and distributing goods for profit, misallocating resources, with a tiny few people deciding who gets what, is irrational and far from logical if we think about this independently of the context of political economy. In the context of the capitalist system, it is logical, because it is conducive as well as the only logical outcome to its internal framework. But only in that context, and this has the natural consequence of demonstrating capitalism to be a irrational and illogical economic system to base human activity upon.
I think what is more fantasy is thinking that the failing present social order is sustainable without either destruction of the planet, or radical social change taking place.
Ashock did offer one nugget of truth in his post, in that propaganda is a beautiful thing, though he forgot to add that its mostly so for the beneficiaries of the given system. So much so, that thinking about alternative ways of how humans can or should organize themselves are seen as fantasy and shouldn't even be given a second thought. This is an unhealthy if not outright dangerous way of thinking.
Stalin was not a communist, but in fact, a state capitalist dictator. His goal was not to achieve communism, but to make Russia a superpower competitive with the US on a global scale militarily and economically. Yes the CPSU was a communist party, though only in name which doesn't really mean anything. The Nazi's were called the "the National Socialist Party", but we all know their party had nothing to do with socialism in any way. The party was named such to appeal to workers even though the Nazis were vehemently anti-communist. I can sit here and call myself a 3-headed purple alien from outerspace, but that doesn't make it so....you get the idea.
However, while calling him a fascist is tempting, he wasn't a fascist either. Fascism involves an element of corporatism that suppresses labor, often a symbiotic relationship between the state and religion (some exceptions exist though), and almost always elements of systematic racism and sexism, and xenophobia tied into a raging and fervant nationalism. Stalin's regime lacked these characteristics in general, with the exception of strong nationalism (though Soviet nationalism was organized along different lines than nationalism elsewhere). Pinochet though, was a great example of a fascist, along with Mussolini and Hitler ofc. Current Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte could probably also arguably be called a fascist.
Quote:It is hard to objectively contemplate the ideological fantasy described by its ardent advocates.
Why?
As I stated before, if the means of production can be owned by a small few, then its opposite, is also possible. Reorganizing the production of resources, goods and services along the rational lines of human consumption and need, rather than for profit, isn't hard to comtemplate, and in fact, is logical. Ah, the beauty of dialectics.
Producing and distributing goods for profit, misallocating resources, with a tiny few people deciding who gets what, is irrational and far from logical if we think about this independently of the context of political economy. In the context of the capitalist system, it is logical, because it is conducive as well as the only logical outcome to its internal framework. But only in that context, and this has the natural consequence of demonstrating capitalism to be a irrational and illogical economic system to base human activity upon.
I think what is more fantasy is thinking that the failing present social order is sustainable without either destruction of the planet, or radical social change taking place.
Ashock did offer one nugget of truth in his post, in that propaganda is a beautiful thing, though he forgot to add that its mostly so for the beneficiaries of the given system. So much so, that thinking about alternative ways of how humans can or should organize themselves are seen as fantasy and shouldn't even be given a second thought. This is an unhealthy if not outright dangerous way of thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)