- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,593
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
-
Features
Nazis are having a rally in Arkansas
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
PyramidHead
Contributor
I actually did look at that link. Interestingly enough, at the very top of the page is this note:
Not to be confused withDemocratic socialism.
I'll have to get back to this as soon as I get a chance to read those articles in greater depth.
It's a very "People's Front of Judea" versus "Judean People's Front" kind of situation, unfortunately. Socialism is a system of production and distribution that operates society-wide and absolutely requires direct worker control of the surplus they produce. This differentiates it from state capitalism (USSR-style and Chinese), highly regulated capitalism (Western Europe), and individual public programs like UHC and the postal service. These latter cases amount to collectively funded projects run by state officials, most of whom are appointed and not elected, and the elected ones are not really accountable to the voters except for a yay-or-nay regarding whether they should keep their jobs. As long as one class of people does work over and above what they are being paid--which is a necessity, otherwise they would not have been hired--and someone other than the same workers decides what to do with the product or service being contributed, it's not socialism.
Hitler's society was certainly not socialism by any stretch, and arguably there have only been a few short-lived examples of this style of production in modern history. The Paris Commune is a good example, as was the brief period immediately following the October 1917 revolution in Russia, before everybody ran out of food. Venezuela... not socialist. Any country where 2/3 of the economy is in the private sector shouldn't be held up as a poster child for a classless economy with no private property.
As a consequence of the way civilization developed and spread most quickly in places with favorable agricultural conditions (which made for an easy adoption of feudalism and eventually capitalism, since agricultural surpluses can be hoarded and used as backing for currency and justification of force), the world in the current era is dominated by capitalism and socialism has never gotten a large enough foothold for long enough to flourish. Inevitably, it gets stomped out or toppled by a capitalist superpower, or distorted beyond recognition by authoritarian parties. It may be a long time before there is sufficient will and the right external conditions to make it happen on a large scale, and by then it will almost certainly be too late because of climate change.
To distinguish ACTUAL nazis being called out as compared to the normal cries of "Nazi" to everything that isn't actually Nazi? Yeah. I think that's notable. Its a boy who cried wolf thing. Few notice the thread or care about the news item, because we hear about "nazis" all the time. It was only last week in a thread that somebody said "they are all Nazis" in reference to people folks attempt to disinvite from college campus speaking invites.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ToEvz-7trY[/youtube]
PyramidHead
Contributor
J842P
Veteran Member
Karl Popper is wrong.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,593
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
In what way?
laughing dog
Contributor
Thank you for taking the time to not only point out the obvious (that these people are real Nazis), but to carefully justify your explanation.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I actually did look at that link. Interestingly enough, at the very top of the page is this note:
Not to be confused with
I'll have to get back to this as soon as I get a chance to read those articles in greater depth.
It's a very "People's Front of Judea" versus "Judean People's Front" kind of situation, unfortunately. Socialism is a system of production and distribution that operates society-wide and absolutely requires direct worker control of the surplus they produce. This differentiates it from state capitalism (USSR-style and Chinese), highly regulated capitalism (Western Europe), and individual public programs like UHC and the postal service. These latter cases amount to collectively funded projects run by state officials, most of whom are appointed and not elected, and the elected ones are not really accountable to the voters except for a yay-or-nay regarding whether they should keep their jobs. As long as one class of people does work over and above what they are being paid--which is a necessity, otherwise they would not have been hired--and someone other than the same workers decides what to do with the product or service being contributed, it's not socialism.
While it may be "Judean Peoples Front" versus "Peoples Front of Judea" between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy, I must strenuously object to classifying the USSR as "state-capitalism", or indeed any sort of capitalism. If I'm going to make an effort to correctly understand the ideologies at the opposite end of the spectrum from myself, I'd appreciate it if those at the opposite end would do likewise.
If you don't tolerate those you deem intolerant, what is then to stop others from rightfully deeming you intolerant and not tolerating you? Popper's logic applies well to much of modern Feminists, Antifa, etc.
- - - Updated - - -
You're welcome. I can see you need all the help you can get.
- - - Updated - - -
You're welcome. I can see you need all the help you can get.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,593
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Because, as Popper said above, "Paradoxical as it may seem, defending tolerance requires to not tolerate the intolerant."
You act as though if we tolerate nazis, they will become more warm and fuzzy. They're fucking nazis. Give them half a chance and they will kill you just as much as they will kill anyone else. You'll make a nice tolerant corpse.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I disagree with Popper. You cannot designate any idea as "this idea is forbidden" without setting up someone as the arbiter of ideas. Once you have an arbiter of ideas, you have tyranny, no matter how gentle the tyrant may be.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,593
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Where did someone say an idea can be forbidden? How does that work, exactly?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
How do you plan to be intolerant of the intolerant then?
ruby sparks
Contributor
It's not that hard to set limits on free speech. Most of the tyrannies over here in Western Europe have managed it.
Coincidentally, you may also come across the names of some of these same tyrannies when you're appraising yourself of the fact that not all varieties of socialism are what you think it is.
PyramidHead
Contributor
State capitalism is where the state controls the production and distribution of goods for the accumulation of capital, using wage labor. It prioritizes the production of commodities and operates in a top-down fashion akin to a very large business, in competition with other entities that lie outside the state. It isn't free market capitalism, but it is capitalism nonetheless, whether you like it or not. Wage labor, centralized management, and the accumulation of profits that are appropriated by a class that has authority over the workers that produced it are all basic features of capitalism. The USSR for most of its existence was the canonical example of such a society.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
If the USSR is capitalism, then "capitalism" is defined as "economic system". Therefore everything from the free market to real communism is capitalism.
Where was the private ownership of the means of production in the USSR? There was no private ownership of the means of production in the USSR for most of its existence, so by one of the few definitions of "capitalism" that most people on the board can agree on, the USSR was certainly not capitalism.
Where was the private ownership of the means of production in the USSR? There was no private ownership of the means of production in the USSR for most of its existence, so by one of the few definitions of "capitalism" that most people on the board can agree on, the USSR was certainly not capitalism.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Newsflash: Democratic Socialism is a variety of Socialism. There are also varieties of Capitalism.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,593
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
You answer my question first.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Right. As you wish.
Intolerance of fascists, national socialists, and other friends of the OP, can take three forms.
One form is "I will snub them". I don't give a damn about that, and I know that isn't what we are talking about if we are quoting Popper.
Another form is "I will pass a law saying that certain ideas are not to be expressed" or "I will reuse to grant a permit for a rally simply because I don't like their ideology." That is probably what we are talking about, although all of the sudden you forgot that. In many European countries it is actually completely forbidden to be a Nazi, even though it is still allowed in the United States. They think our dedication to free speech and free exchange of ideas as some sort of support for those ideas, because they don't know what they are talking about.
Well, if we are going to say "no permits for Nazis to hold rallies because we don't like Nazis" as sometimes happens in the US or "it is against the law to express fascist ideas" as does happen in some European countries, then we are saying certain ideas are forbidden. That is exactly what we are doing. In Italy there were two incidents that still make me amused (in a sad way). One was their taking time to decide whether or not the Peanuts comic strip could be published there. Lucy is bossy, they were worried that she might be a fascist. There was also concern about M&M commercials, as the red M&M was bossy towards the yellow M&M, and they were worried that he might be a fascist. So yes, there is "this idea is forbidden" in several European countries. Plus a recent EU court case where it was decided that people can't call Mohammed a pedophile. That idea is forbidden. Express those ideas, the government punishes you. It is likely you were talking about this form of intolerance of intolerance.
Then there is one more way one might be called intolerant of intolerance. This is the one Antifa excels at, by simply punching anyone who disagrees with them. They will punch liberals, libertarians, moderates, conservatives, anyone who isn't one of them and doesn't agree with them. Oh, and they do also punch fascists. They express the idea that they should be arbiters of what ideas are allowed and what ideas aren't allowed. Fortunately most people see them for the thugs they are. It is possible you were talking about this form of intolerance of intolerance.