Gay marriage

[DangerBoy]

I don't see how being anti-homosexual is wrong if ALL of the people of this board that are for it are
Marxists and Fascists...

You can't be "more wronger"...

I don't think they're Marxists as much as they are European. America's pretty damn conservative you know. As for the fascism...they're, uh...very nationalist? I don't get it.

Well they sure aren't believers in the free market

[Dancing Mustard]

I don't see how being anti-homosexual is wrong if ALL of the people of this board that are for it are
Marxists and Fascists...

You can't be "more wronger"...

Which bit of your brain is not screwed in correctly?

[MeDeFe]

I don't see how being anti-homosexual is wrong if ALL of the people of this board that are for it are
Marxists and Fascists...

You can't be "more wronger"...

Which bit of your brain is not screwed in correctly?

I guess it's the parts that connect to the rest of the nervous system, including all sensory organs that provide a link to the real world outside of one's head.

[tzor]

Yes NPR, a totally objective and unbiased source

I know you didn't mean to but you got that one right! Unlike that Faux news network out there. They consider all things. It's the source Future President McCain loves to listen to.

(I really shouldn't be so hard on Fox, after all so many good NPR reporters are Fox contributers.)

[PLAYER57832]

Your talk of gender rolls reminds me of a funny conversation. (sorry, slight diversion here)

was that intentional?

I also notice people here seem to think that here and hear are the same word.

"here" as in "this place" or "this section of this CC Forum thread"


not "hear" as in "I hear with my ears".

[Neoteny]

Your talk of gender rolls reminds me of a funny conversation. (sorry, slight diversion here)

was that intentional?

I also notice people here seem to think that here and hear are the same word.

"here" as in "this place" or "this section of this CC Forum thread"


not "hear" as in "I hear with my ears".

I believe he was asking about the "roll" instead of "role."

[Frigidus]

I believe he was asking about the "roll" instead of "role."

We're on a Risk website, I just figure it's gonna slip by every now and again.

[bradleybadly]

I'd like a cup of coffee and a gender roll to go with it, please.

[Iliad]

I don't see how being anti-homosexual is wrong if ALL of the people of this board that are for it are
Marxists and Fascists...

You can't be "more wronger"...

Which bit of your brain is not screwed in correctly?

Can't stop laughing...

[PLAYER57832]

Your talk of gender rolls reminds me of a funny conversation. (sorry, slight diversion here)

was that intentional?

I also notice people here seem to think that here and hear are the same word.

"here" as in "this place" or "this section of this CC Forum thread"


not "hear" as in "I hear with my ears".

I believe he was asking about the "roll" instead of "role."

OOPS

[btownmeggy]

I don't see how being anti-homosexual is wrong if ALL of the people of this board that are for it are
Marxists and Fascists...

That's an incredible quotation. I like it.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't see how being anti-homosexual is wrong if ALL of the people of this board that are for it are
Marxists and Fascists...

That's an incredible quotation. I like it.

Set aside the complete idiocy of the statement, what exactly does Marxism and Fascism have to do with whether homosexuality should be legalized?

[MeDeFe]

I don't see how being anti-homosexual is wrong if ALL of the people of this board that are for it are
Marxists and Fascists...

That's an incredible quotation. I like it.

Set aside the complete idiocy of the statement, what exactly does Marxism and Fascism have to do with whether homosexuality should be legalized?

I thought you were setting aside the idiocy of the statement...

[btownmeggy]

Set aside the complete idiocy of the statement, what exactly does Marxism and Fascism have to do with whether homosexuality should be legalized?

I thought you were setting aside the idiocy of the statement...

I'm celebrating the idiocy of the statement.

It's reactionary fervor. It's convolution to a glorious degree. It's truly American.

[MeDeFe]

Set aside the complete idiocy of the statement, what exactly does Marxism and Fascism have to do with whether homosexuality should be legalized?

I thought you were setting aside the idiocy of the statement...

I'm celebrating the idiocy of the statement.

It's reactionary fervor. It's convolution to a glorious degree. It's truly American.

I know you were meggy, I'm asking player why she's still mentioning legislation regarding which people may or may not marry which other people in the same sentence as the alleged Marxist and Fascist tendencies of some debaters here if she wanted to set aside the idiocy.

[PLAYER57832]

Set aside the complete idiocy of the statement, what exactly does Marxism and Fascism have to do with whether homosexuality should be legalized?

I thought you were setting aside the idiocy of the statement...

I'm celebrating the idiocy of the statement.

It's reactionary fervor. It's convolution to a glorious degree. It's truly American.

I know you were meggy, I'm asking player why she's still mentioning legislation regarding which people may or may not marry which other people in the same sentence as the alleged Marxist and Fascist tendencies of some debaters here if she wanted to set aside the idiocy.

It is a different sort of idiocy.... The statement itself shows a general lack of knowledge about either facism OR marxism. Bringing it up in this thread was just a stupid attempt to slurr folks.

I was just addressing the off thread part ... but you are right, I probably should not have bothered.

[Napoleon Ier]

Marxism is fascism.

[got tonkaed]

Marxism is fascism.

If one fully encompassed the other it would save us a lot of time to just get rid of one of the words. I prefer getting rid of marxism, as i dont think it has built up the appropriate level of disgust that fascism has.

[Napoleon Ier]

Marxism is fascism.

If one fully encompassed the other it would save us a lot of time to just get rid of one of the words. I prefer getting rid of marxism, as i dont think it has built up the appropriate level of disgust that fascism has.

Marxism C Fascism;

Marxism /= Fascism.

Fascism U Marxism = Fascism

[got tonkaed]

Marxism is fascism.

If one fully encompassed the other it would save us a lot of time to just get rid of one of the words. I prefer getting rid of marxism, as i dont think it has built up the appropriate level of disgust that fascism has.

Marxism C Fascism;

Marxism /= Fascism.

Fascism U Marxism = Fascism

while as you would guess i would probably disagree when we drew all of the elements out, i dont really have a problem with someone who is of that view composing it that way.

/threadjack

[suggs]

Was Nap joking? In general, The Boy Wonder has been impressive recently in his wide ranging annilihating articulations.
But Marxism = Fascism? YOU ARE KIDDING?

I assume people are talking about the fact that Communism, as so far practised, ends up as totalitarianism. Step forward, Uncle Joe!

But Marxism as an ideology as nothing tin common with Fascism, apart from their mutual disgust for Liberal Democracies.
Marx's arguments were essentially economic (internal contradictions would destroy capitalism, leaving the proletariat to take control).
Fascism has more in common with Lenin's INTERPRETATION of Marx, in short, that a revolutionary vanguard was needed to speed things up a bit. To take control of the state by force.

The main problem with the comparison is that Fascism venerated The Great Leader (Musso, Adi etc) whereas Marx despised the cult of the individual in favour of rule by the people.

Maybe Communism sadly ended up a bit like Fascism - but since Communism had very little to do with Marx, and a lot to do with Lenin, the comparison is invalid.
BOO SUCKS TO YOU.

[Napoleon Ier]

I wasn't quite saying Marxism=Fascism, you see, had you at all bovvered to revise unit 4 number of IGCSE maths, you'd understand that I was saying Marxism is a subset of fascism (M C F), is not equal to fascism (M /= F), and that their union is equal to fascism (M U F=F). Soooooooooo....yah. Revise that. Kkthnxbibi.

As for the "joking", yes, sort of. But for the sake of intellectual banter, let's pretend I'm deadly serious. Nozick reduces political theories to two basic and fundamental forms: Liberty-ism and Power-ism (though obv.he doesn't add the tacky looking -ism suffix, he just leaves them as they are). I, because I'm an arrogant little snot-nosed f*ck, like to distinguish between theories of community synthesis and the organic community. Synthesism and Organicism, if you will. God I'm pretentious.

To make the cursory generalization that anything wanting to synthesize a society from the top down is socialo-fascist and the rest is libertarian with pansy half-baked liberal and social democrats inbetween is simplistic, of course, but that's the general outline of my argument, for those of you who can't e arsed to trawl through my prose, which my history teacher, to give you a little anecdote of how unnapreciated I am, once described using my own terms, highlighting a passage in which I referred to the prose of Das Kapital as "extended phillipic and illegible dissertations", and annotating it with a caustic 4 word zzzinger "not unlike your own...".

To extend the depth however, socialism* and fascism clearly revolve around the ideal of collectivized and imposed communative power, and the subjugation of the individual to the supra-structural and centralizing authority of the state in order to weld him into a place in a system which englobes him and determines for him a fused identity within a community vectorized towards a predetermined common goal through the plannification of every aspect of the citizennery's life and the involvement of the state at each level of the community's functions.

Shared manifestationary features of the ideologies (totalitarian rule, irrational freudian mecanisms such as group identitarianism, mass phenomena, and cult of personality, which credit to him suggs actually did mention) all have a common root, the exposition and analysis of which, forms the backbone of my argument. Whilst it has masqueraded under different forms, socialism is nothing more than a recombinant parasite which adapts to circumstances in order to best leech it's host. Socialism as an ideology takes on two forms: "right-wing" socialism (characterized by it's racialist, ethno-differentialist and communautarianist undertones) and "left-wing" socialism (contrasted to the former by predominantely (though not exclusively) universalist and internationnalist themes).

To return to the observation strikingly similar manifestations, just for the sake of those incredulous upon hearing of "right-wing" (one might stretch to say, national-) socialism, we see common themes (as discussed above) but also common effecs.

Hitler, with his fusional theory of the Aryan race (effectively a communautarist genetic élitism), wanted it's glory, but ultimately, brought it humiliation, and did so with political theory & even more so practice, which was, in every way, socialist.

The USSR, wanting to finalize the philosophical Marxist dream (discussed below) of anarchic voluntary communism (and this is a strictly Marxist orthodoxy I believe I'm correct in asserting was shared by all socialist politicians, certainly in the USSR), constructed the world's most iniquitous and backward society.

Pol Pot wanted to create an unperverted society, he exterminated his own people.

At another level, Attlee's labour and FDR's New Deal 5th Democrat system liberalism all wanted the creation of a supportive platform state which would raise individuals (and, ultimately, their sum total, society) into a position of power and synthesising them into a greater and sturdier blocks by careful initial nurture, but succeeded only in creating dependant, laughable excuses for men incapable of being weaned of the teat of nanny 'State'.

Socialism and fascisms as dynamics, seek to reduce what they take charge of to rubble and replace it with a new order (and at this stage, it is interesting to note that both are reactions to the failings of the same system, and that their proponents often find themselves leaving the one to embrace the other). This is evident in the expression of futurist, even avant-gardist art forms of fascist Italy and to a smaller extent of Nazi Germany, and though pre-existing conservartive social structures in the latter stifled these unique and revolutinnary developments, the same modernist optimism philosophy pervades the art and writings of these states. The point though, is that starting from a common aiming point, Marxist socialism and fascist socialism diverge slightly in their means of attainting their common goal, to converge upon the same, invariable, absolute failure, political and economic.

So, fascism is really a (substantially) variant socialism, and Marxism, a (slightly) variant socialism. So, even if there are different socialisms, and like all whores, they don't like each other and have open, rowdy bitch-fights (like Operation Barbarossa, to give the classic example ), but they equate to the same thing.

Now to return to the politico-philosophical critique, I find it helpful to present this argument to those who question my view: not in what are fascism and socialism similar, but how are they different? Turning the tables like this often brings home the harsh reality to the doubting Thomas. Suggs presents a very cursory mention of Marxist historical "blueprint" or predictionnary discourse, but is this really a major point of divergence? For Fascists as well, the State is necessarily Prussian, hierarchized, focused on a Spartan ideal of community, turning it's back on the softness of Western liberalism. For National-Bolsheviks, like Ernst Niekisch, the state is again, a community, a single organism, of all the workers, excluding a few exploiting capitalist speculators making money off "virtual" capital.

National-Socialism translates itself to a socialism, rather than a fascism, but essentially, is communautarist in it's biologising categorisations, and justifies a form of egalitarianism within the mystic of the Aryan race, evident in the expression of Nazi ideology in social policies (which, from far off, almost resemble Roosevelt's New Deal, and which upon closer inspection reveal themselves to be the inspiration of the latter). Art again is indicative of this view. Traditional socialist propaganda of the USSR portray the bourgeois capitalist banker or the rich Kulak as the enemy of the brave proletarian worker. German propaganda, especially the work of Lagarde and Langbehn, portrays the peasant and German worker within the frame of a blut und boden mystic, who is exploited by shylock the banker. A simple poster from the era will show you evident similarity:



You note the evident similarity with more classic Nazi anti-semitic propaganda.

Industrial x-year plans (again, common features of both fascist, internationalo-socialist, and national-socialist regimes):



Compare with the 1930s 5-year plan Stakhanovite propaganda of the USSR.

*To conduct a serious discourse on Marxism in the purer sense would require a substantive critique of the dare i say, politico-socio-existential study of the individual proposed by the former in it's "blueprint" prediction models for transtionnary phases between "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "volunatrist anarchic communism", and whilst I believe such a critique would reinforce rather than undermine my argument, it is probably more useful to conduct an analysis of this more abstract part of Marxist philosophy gradually and from the bottom up as the thread progresses.

[PLAYER57832]

It sounds like you are mistaking Marxism for Lennonism and the later evolutions into Soviet and Maoist style communism.   Marxism was, at root, about revolt of the people over the powerful, not subjugation.   I am not saying I agree with his thoughts, but one cannot look at only a piece of a person's writings and consider it the whole view, nor can one look just at the various interpretations and consider them necessarily accurate. You have to look at the original source, in their entirety.

[Napoleon Ier]

It sounds like you are mistaking Marxism for Lennonism and the later evolutions into Soviet and Maoist style communism. Marxism was, at root, about revolt of the people over the powerful, not subjugation. I am not saying I agree with his thoughts, but one cannot look at only a piece of a person's writings and consider it the whole view, nor can one look just at the various interpretations and consider them necessarily accurate. You have to look at the original source, in their entirety.

Really. And have you read Marx? Or my post, for that matter?

[Wiivja]

im ready anyone and play my other games