Republicans: continued

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that you constantly conflate communists with Stalinism.

Stalinism is a form of communism.

They aren't the same thing.

Stalinism is a form of communism.

NO IT'S NOT! FFS, how many times do we need to explain this to you? Communism advocates a stateless decentralised society. State authoritarianism is clearly not stateless. Stop conflating the two.

Your stupid argument is like someone saying that a capitalist country isn't capitalist because it's not pure laissez-faire capitalism. You're using your dumbass "No True Scotsman" routine.

How many times does it have to be explained to you that Stalinism is, in fact, a form of communism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ideologies

Self-identified communists hold a variety of views, including Marxism, Dengism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, council communism, Luxemburgism, anarcho-communism, Christian communism, Islamic socialism and various currents of left communism.

Stalinism -- systematized and expanded on "....the ideas of Vladimir Lenin into the ideology of Marxism–Leninism as a distinct body of work. In this sense, Stalinism can be thought of as being roughly equivalent to Marxism–Leninism....

Stalinism is sometimes used as a term

...to describe a wide variety of political systems and governments, including the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact countries of Europe, Mongolia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Ethiopia, Albania, and others. In this sense, it can be seen as being roughly equivalent to actually existing socialism,...

- i.e. - a whole host of Communist countries are/were of the Stalinist variety of Communism.

some of the contributions to communist theory that Stalin is particularly known for are:

The theoretical work concerning nationalities, as seen in Marxism and the National Question,[2]
The notion of Socialism in One Country
Marxist Theory of Linguistics[clarification needed]
The theory of aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism, a theoretical base supporting the repression of political opponents as necessary.

Stalinism is a form of Marxist Communism.

So, no matter how many times you offer a wrong, and really obviously ignorant, explanation, you only show yourself to be ill-informed. You probably heard someone somewhere make some dopey argument that Stalin was really a right winger and what was going on then was really fascism, not communism, and it's expedient for you to swallow that bullshit. But, alas, it's about as intelligent an argument as someone saying that Hitler was really a Socialist, cuz, like, it's in the name of the Nazi Party.

Absolute rubbish. Nowhere have I expressed that Stalin is a right winger. Stalinism is communism gone wrong. An no matter how many times you want to deny it, communism is a stateless ideology. State authoritarianism clearly isn't faithful to that ideology. Stop acting like modern day communists want state authoritarianism. I don't deny there is a tiny minority that do, but the vast majority don't. I'm certain you've never met a communist at all, and just form your bizarre views on them from Fox News and other right wing nutjob outlets.

From wiki:

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

[Brian Peacock]

Communism is essential a romantic perspective - not that dissimilar from Libertarianism really.

[JimC]

Communism is a romantic fantasy which, when attempts have been made to put it (in its pure form) into practice, slides effortlessly into authoritarian tyranny. However, that doesn't make aspects of its critique of capitalism invalid; careful use of government power to control the excesses of capitalism can be the basis for more equitable societies, which one could loosely describe as social democracies.

[Forty Two]

Absolute rubbish. Nowhere have I expressed that Stalin is a right winger. Stalinism is communism gone wrong.

You're still on this nonsense. You're free to your opinion that it's communism gone wrong. However, I just cited and quoted the wikileaks article which is sourced on that issue. You've cited nothing but your own opinion. It's a form of communism. It's only "gone wrong" depending on what you think should be "right" about communism or what is in the common good. For me, I've not heard any version of communism articulated by even its most utopian and avid proponents that does not sound like it's "gone wrong." Marx went wrong. Engels went wrong. Lenin went wrong. Stalin went wrong. The Luxemburghian communists went wrong. It's a horrid, awful, dystopian set of ideologies, in my opinion. You are free to view some as "gone right" and others as "gone wrong."

None of that changes the fact that Stalinism is, in fact, a form of communism.

An no matter how many times you want to deny it, communism is a stateless ideology. State authoritarianism clearly isn't faithful to that ideology. Stop acting like modern day communists want state authoritarianism.

No, you stop acting as if some of them don't want that. Some do, some don't. There are folks who think communism will be stateless. There are versions of Communism which are Stalinist, too.

I don't deny there is a tiny minority that do, but the vast majority don't.

Stated without evidence. So, you agree, some do and some don't. That's a different issue, and it does not change the fact that Stalinism is a form of communism.

I'm certain you've never met a communist at all, and just form your bizarre views on them from Fox News and other right wing nutjob outlets.

You'd be wrong about that, on all counts. But, you're all about insults and making discussions personal, so that's par for your course.

The reality still is - Stalinism is a form of communism.

From wiki:

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

So, you accept that wikileaks quote, but the one that lays out the many major forms of communism, and defines them, citing to sources - that one you find is "rubbish."

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of Stalinism
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin
especially : the theory and practice of communism developed by Stalin from Marxism-Leninism and marked especially by rigid authoritarianism, widespread use of terror, and often emphasis on Russian nationalism

Basic gist of Stalinist Communism is the doctrine of “socialism in one country,” which holds that, though the socialist goal of world proletarian revolution is not to be abandoned, a viable classless society could be built within Soviet boundaries and despite encirclement by a largely capitalist world. Stalinist Communism. You see a similar Stalinist communism in North Korea now.

Which form of Communism does one have? One might hold to Trotsky, and be pejoratively referred to as a "Trot." One might hold to and support the ideology of the former Soviet Union and be pejoratively referred to as a "Tankie." You can have Trotskyite Communists (Christopher Hitchens in the late 1960s and 70s) or a Stalinist Communist You never read Doris Lessing's Golden Notebook, have you? Leninism? Not true communism. Trotskyism? Not true communism. Maoism? Mao didn't know shit about "real" communism! Neither did Dengh! Piker! Eurocommunism? Watered down nonsense! Luxemburgher communism? Pshaw! Lies! They weren't communist at all! De Leon? wanker! These are all just communisms "gone wrong."

pErvin says those aren't "true" communisms.... the only true communism is the really good, idyllic communism - you know - where everyone has everything they need and want, and everyone gets annual vacations in Majorca.

No. True..... what's the word... Scotsman?

[Forty Two]

Communism is a romantic fantasy which, when attempts have been made to put it (in its pure form) into practice, slides effortlessly into authoritarian tyranny. However, that doesn't make aspects of its critique of capitalism invalid; careful use of government power to control the excesses of capitalism can be the basis for more equitable societies, which one could loosely describe as social democracies.

In what sense are you using the term "romantic?" Like expression of love romantic, or dark/faraway/remote romantic? LOL.

Reading the great communists is like reading the Bible. Nothing can put one off Christianity better than actually reading the Bible and trying to understand what it says. Similarly, read the foundational texts of communism, and it will put your off your dinner.

Careful use of government power - that's an expression of Enlightenment and Age of Reason philosophy -- the "careful use" is another way of saying "limited" use of governmental power. The idea of (a) the use of government power to "control excesses" is as old as there have been tribes with leaders, and (b) the idea that such use should be with "care" or "limited" in some way is not a communist idea - it predates communism.

It's a reference to the fact that use of government to control excesses must be used with care (i.e. limited) to prevent excessive use of government to control.... Anyone who thinks that should be opposed to communism, which does not posit such limit or care. The individual is subordinate to the collective in communism.

Don't take that as a criticism of social democratic politics. Social democracy is nested in a bed of capitalism. Social democracy needs capitalism to survive - capitalism is part of social democracy. The fantasy is that social democracy is a modern expression of the communist ideal. It ain't. Anyone who has read any of the primary sources on communism knows that.

[Forty Two]

Communism is essential a romantic perspective - not that dissimilar from Libertarianism really.

In fact, libertarian-communism is a form of communism.

It involves a stateless society with the abolition of money, prices, and wage labor and the distribution of wealth is based on self-determined needs. People would be free to engage in whatever activities they found most fulfilling. LOL.

The romance of it all.... yes, so romantic...

Money is abolished. How? Without a state? How can you "abolish" anything without a force to enforce the abolition? Without money, people barter - I'll make 10 loaves of bread and since I only need one each day, I'll "sell" 9 to my neighbors who are making other things with their time, and we trade. "Money" is just a customary or agreed thing that has representative value - you can't "abolish" it - people will just use lumps of gold or silver and pound them into shapes for easy estimation of weight.

And, so, you have no state, but some force to stop people from trading metals back and forth as money. And, someone "abolishes" prices - things don't have a price anymore! Wow! Everything is free? Oh -but, they aren't eliminating private personal property - so you'd then have to wonder how I would be prevented from "selling" my extra 9 loaves of bread to my neighbors in exchange for, say, lawn mowing - sweater sewing - and the occasional pot, pan or spoon that my non-baker neighbor likes to make. Abolished that -- the means of production of bread is in the hands of .... what? not the state, right? the "community?"

How does the community deal with the bread? Can I make my own bread? But, I can't make more than my own bread - I can't make the extra 9 loaves. Maybe I can, but with the abolition of price, I can't trade for them. I just have to give them away. If I don't give them away for free, then I'm putting a price on it. Prices have been abolished, though. So, I either eat the 9 loaves myself, or I let them rot.

If the "community" determines how much bread to make and where to distribute it (means of production), then I can't choose to make bread. But, libertarian communism says I can do whatever fulfills me - it's my choice. So, I choose to be a baker. But I'm producing then - I'm part of the production - so who is going to tell me what to bake and how much and who to give it to? The community? But I can bake the bread to be fulfilled, but it has no price, so I can't recover my costs or make a little extra over that for my time and trouble.

WAGE labor is abolished, but they didn't say anything about LABOR. What's non-wage labor called? It's either voluntary or slave, right?

Distribution is done by need (no specification of who makes the determination - there comes the community again - you know, the "patriarchal" community... lol) -- and there we have it - I can do whatever fulfills me, but I can't charge for it, I can't earn money, I can't put a price on anything, I do get to own personal property, but the "community" owns the "means of production" meaning I can't own a means of production. That's a lot of fucking "can'ts" associated with a "libertarian" or "anarcho" society without a State....

Romantic? Sounds like a fucking nightmare.

[Brian Peacock]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Don't take that as a criticism of social democratic politics. Social democracy is nested in a bed of capitalism. Social democracy needs capitalism to survive - capitalism is part of social democracy. The fantasy is that social democracy is a modern expression of the communist ideal. It ain't. Anyone who has read any of the primary sources on communism knows that.

What you missed in my post is that capitalism, unrestrained, can be a very horrible thing, and aspects of the communist critique of capitalism are spot on. Sure, social democracies are mixed economies, but the best of them recognise the dark side of capitalism very well, and take steps (many more than I suspect you would like) to restrain its excesses, and nurture their populations. My take on "careful use of government power" would be quite different to yours, I think - but I take your general point that some limits are needed, and that individual liberty could be at risk if the pendulum swings too far...

[Seabass]

Ilhan Omar Never Stood a Chance

Ilhan Omar has courted controversy ever since she transformed, in the public’s conception, from a telegenic symbol of American pluralism to an actual person with actual opinions. In the months after her swearing-in to Congress, the Minnesota representative has been strident in her criticism of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Both are American allies, but it’s her position on the latter country that has prompted members of her own party to turn against her. The past two months have seen her accused varyingly of anti-Semitism, disloyalty to the United States, and, most recently, of downplaying the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The first criticism can be attributed to her suggestion that American support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins” — a seeming nod to the bigoted trope that rich Jews control the world. The second and third are more flagrantly Islamophobic in origin.

The backlash came to a head this week after footage surfaced of Omar speaking about Islamophobia at a Council on American-Islamic Relations event last month. “Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and frankly, I’m tired of it and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it,” Omar said to an audience gathered in Los Angeles. “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something,” she said, gesturing as if to separate herself from ‘some people’, “and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

Conservatives seized on Omar’s characterization of 9/11 as “some people did something” to cast it as an effort to trivialize the attack. President Trump on Friday tweeted a video that intercut her repeatedly saying “some people did something” with footage of the 9/11 attacks, with the caption, “We will never forget!” Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican, tweeted that her comments were “unbelievable.” Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel added that Omar is “anti-American,” while the New York Post on Thursday published a cover photo of airplanes colliding with the Twin Towers. “Rep. Ilhan Omar: 9/11 was ‘some people did something,’” the headline read. “Here’s your something: 2,977 dead by terrorism.” The photo echoed imagery from an Islamophobic poster displayed at the West Virginia statehouse last month, which pictured Omar in front of the collapsing World Trade Center. “‘Never forget,’ you said,” the caption reads. “I am the proof — you have forgotten.” Such an ungenerous interpretation of her remarks is only possible if one is inclined to believe that Omar sympathizes more with terrorists than her murdered countrymen. That she spoke them in the course of decrying Islamophobia makes it especially disconcerting that her political opponents would decontextualize them to fan the flames — she receives regular death threats on the basis of her faith, including from one New York man who threatened recently to “put a bullet in her fucking skull.”

continued: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... klash.html

[Brian Peacock]

They don't even believe she actually 'sympathizes more with terrotist than her murdered countrymen' (and women) - they just know that it's a handy stick to beat her with - and as is often the case with those who beat women with sticks, it makes them feel badass hard..

[L'Emmerdeur]

Even as a 'telegenic symbol of American pluralism' she was anathema to Trumpists and Fox News boneheads.

[Brian Peacock]

Yep, brown, young, female, and Muslim. Thank goodness she's not a left-handed, vegan lesbian as well!

[JimC]

Or a disabled Marxist greeny!

[Cunt]

I see you are all fawning over her colour...does she have policies? Or just a good hat?

[Brian Peacock]

I see you are all fawning over her colour...

Citation required.