So, When Exactly Do We Take Supremacists Seriously?

"There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism."
- Karl Marx, "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna", Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Nov. 7, 1848

You understand that the 'new society' in that quote does not refer to Communism, right?

@K. Read it and don't be an ignorant tosser like Dicky.

The basic problem(s) with Nazism, Communism, and virtually all other ideologies is that they deemphasize the importance and value of individual human life in favor of "the people", "society", or "the state".

Once you believe that individual human lives are less important than advancing the interests of "the people" or "the state" you can completely justify virtually any level of atrocity against your fellow humans.

Exactly.

K. likes to think himself superior to us proles on Wordforge, you can see it in his writings, but he is the one who supports the things that will always lead to mass death of humans.

*Skims over the whole blog*

Ahh, okay, he's a Randroid, nuff said.

By arguing for the right of individual to defend themselves against a Nazi mob? Right. Please carry on.

Now the psychology powers manifest!
This is better than Defenders.

Hicks is right to say that Marx considers economic conditions formative to collective and individual thought. He is wrong to say that this means Marx doesn't believe that individuals can't go beyond capitalist ideology within capitalism; otherwise, he would consider his own philosophical position to be impossible in his time. He is thus only partially correct in his interpretation of Marx's support for militant politics: In the quote, Marx is not saying that socialism can't be achieved democratically, but rather than only socialism rather than communism can be achieved democratically, and mere socialism, in his view, means continued strife and military conflict between socialism and capitalism, because socialism only challenges and does not replace capitalism.

No. You're arguing for the right to attack people who you don't like. It doesn't just have to be Nazi scum.

The Nazi protesters are scum but walking down a street in a protest is not justification enough to attack them.

You advocate for straight up attacking them and then trying to put on the fig leaf of a self-defense claim.

So just to keep score: In the attempt to show that Marx was keen on killing millions, we are now down to a feeble attempt to show that Marx believed some people would oppose Communism, and that it was ok to use violence against those. This is true. It is no different to any capitalist's willingness to kill the enemies of capitalism, and not at all similar to National Socialism's goal of exterminating whole parts of the human race.

Who is defending Nazis? I am trtyng to educate you know nothings about the genocidal murder explicitly called for in the Communist Manifesto. You people truly know nothing about communism if you don't even know what its founding manifesto calls for.

@K. is like Jon Snow. He knows nothing.

No. But I will take your attempt to redefine my position as concession that you can't defeat my actual position.

My position is: A mob marching with weapons under a swastika flag is extremely likely to attack minorities if they meet them. In such a situation, the police should intervene. If the police fails to do so, civilians have the right to use violence to protect themselves and others.

And I continue to believe that.

Note the slight difference between that position and the one you're ascribing to me, viz, "I love Karl Marx and want to attack everyone who thinks differently."

Not true.

Jon Snow knows the difference between evil and not evil.

Now whose moving the goal posts?

We've gone from they are a imminent threat to "extremely likely to attack minorities" meaning that maybe they aren't an imminent threat.

In such a case I'm even more in the right.

So you've redefined your position in order to claim a win that really no one gives a fuck about. No one's keeping score.

No, I mean so likely as to be an imminent threat. Feel free to use that phrase instead of mine.

Moving the goal posts again.

If you have something called reading comprehension you will notice genocide is not a part of Marxism as per the article. The article actually only separates society into two classes which can be composed of any person. The article only says that violent revolution is the only way to establish Marxist communism because he surmised the two classes could not achieve it through democratic argumentation due to universal human inability to understand the other side. It does not claim genocide is necessary, just that force is necessary to establish the new order of things. It does not even say how much force is necessary. This certainly does not involve the extermination of groups of people as being ing a fucking Nazi does. If your equation were to be true then the US would be like Nazi Germany because they violently overthrew their ruling government because they felt working within the system was not going to work. They did not kill the English because they were English, but rather because they stood in the way of colonial rule. The Nazis exterminated people after they were in power because those people were human garbage.

Critical thinking is not your friend.

To paraphrase: "It is not genocide it is just murdering tens of millions including whole ethnic minority groups!"



You fucking idiot. What do you think happened to the Ukrainian Kulaks (petty small landowning farmers) or to groups like the Tartars? Hell, anyone in business for themselves even if they were just a shop keeper? Much less the wealthy or those in the nobility? Now, sit in the corner with the dunce cap on and let the adults speak.

Umm, the blacks burn down their own neighborhoods, kill their own people, and rape and pillage with total disregard. They need no assistance from anyone else. Or am I mistaken?

You have just cited a blog post that quotes Marx saying targeted acts of terrorism are preferable to war because they kill less people. One can certainly argue about the morals of that statement, but one thing it doesn't say is that it's fine to murder tens of millions.

Why doesn't it say that? IIRC Marx supported mass murder in Russia.

Hi, Not! You're needed in the thread next door.

NotDayton, what we are debating is whether or not Comminism is just as violent and murderous as fascism in its founding ideology.

It is a topic worthy of debate and, yes, what Marx and Engels both said and wrote is extremely topical. That is true even if you don't like it.

Care to explain that further.

I would rather you just read what I wrote in this thread so I do not have to repeat myself. That doesn't seem to much to ask.

It is.

Which posts are you referring to?

I must take issue with Anna saying that while Communism always goes off the rails but starts out with good intentions, there is no "best case" scenario with the Nazis. I posit that there is indeed a "best case" scenario with the Nazis and you are seeing it right now on the news. The Nazis (or white supremacy in general) will never get any serious traction in the US - not in any of our lifetimes, or in our children's lifetimes. Their total annual body count will be less than 1 percent of our annual drunk driving death total. They are less of a credible threat than spending time in any fucked-up crime ridden neighborhood in some of our cities. Matter-of-fact the day the Nazi cretin ran that woman over dozens of people across our country were murdered by people who couldn't spell "Nazi" if you spotted them two letters. But of course the media and politicians will pump up the fear to "run for the hills" level because fear (like sex) sells and fills seats.
Nazis will eclipse Muslims as the new "boogey man" to distract us. Granted there are no "good" Nazis but law enforcement will have no trouble finding arresting the ones that want to put their thoughts and ideals into "hands on" murder. Their numbers will never come close to MS-13 or Islamic Extremists or any other group that wreaks havoc.
Yes, some of them might go all Timothy McVie in the future but many groups might do that - they already did on 9/11.

The Nazis had decades to get seriously established here in the US and failed miserably and will continue to fail miserably, but domestic homicide will go unchecked in Chicago, Memphis, Miami, etc.etc. for the rest of our natural lives but that's the status quo in 2017 so nobody gives a shit. Peace out!

Well, that was enlightening.

Moving on....