WWII, Nazis Communists and other stuff

[Pam Cummings 9644]

On 8/7/2020 at 10:04 AM, BabaYaga said:

Depends upon who you're arguing against....

*proceeds to call anyone who disagrees with him a dirty commie*

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You guys really need to stop doing this, because it's insane. Not everything is a Nazi. Not everything is Stalin. You guys really need to develop an ability to discuss things without trying to just merge them in with the 2 or 3 things you understand. Broaden the horizons.

And while I appreciate your anger, wanting to break someone's nose for wearing a Che shirt is not something to be proud of. Comparing Che to Nazis is laughable shit, especially if you were to honestly ask yourself how much you know about Che that is from credible historical sources. I recommend Jon Lee Anderson's biography if you're interested in learning about Che in some kind of real way beyond college kids wearing t-shirts and other college kids mad at the kids wearing t-shirts, vapid brains where everyone is either a hero or devil.

 

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You guys really need to stop doing this, because it's insane. Not everything is a Nazi. Not everything is Stalin. You guys really need to develop an ability to discuss things without trying to just merge them in with the 2 or 3 things you understand. Broaden the horizons.

And while I appreciate your anger, wanting to break someone's nose for wearing a Che shirt is not something to be proud of. Comparing Che to Nazis is laughable shit, especially if you were to honestly ask yourself how much you know about Che that is from credible historical sources. I recommend Jon Lee Anderson's biography if you're interested in learning about Che in some kind of real way beyond college kids wearing t-shirts and other college kids mad at the kids wearing t-shirts, vapid brains where everyone is either a hero or devil.

I've read several sources regarding Che. My description of him as a murderer is spot on. END OF STORY.

[bad_teammate 13211]

38 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I've read several sources regarding Che. My description of him as a murderer is spot on. END OF STORY.

Capitalizing words and feeling strong feelings do not create truth.

Che is certainly a murderer in the sense that basically everyone who participates in war is a murderer. He killed people in battle and had people executed afterwards, for sure, as has been the way of war forever. 

From the author of what is, as far as I know, the most deeply researched biography of Che Guevara...

------------------
In his characterization of Che Guevara, Mr. Ravelo makes a number of sweeping and emotional assertions which are historically unsound.

For instance, he says that Che was “the executioner of innocents all the way from the Sierra Maestra to the Cabana prison.” To this I must point out that, while Che did indeed execute people [an episode I have gone into at length in my book] I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed ‘an innocent’. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder.
------------------

[Sgt Hulk 13763]

why do you guys continue to open the CR box and summon those circling jerking dipshits out of their hole into the rest of the board.  Close the fucking box 

[Incredulity 11675]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Capitalizing words and feeling strong feelings do not create truth.

Che is certainly a murderer in the sense that basically everyone who participates in war is a murderer. He killed people in battle and had people executed afterwards, for sure, as has been the way of war forever. 

From the author of what is, as far as I know, the most deeply researched biography of Che Guevara...

------------------
In his characterization of Che Guevara, Mr. Ravelo makes a number of sweeping and emotional assertions which are historically unsound.

For instance, he says that Che was “the executioner of innocents all the way from the Sierra Maestra to the Cabana prison.” To this I must point out that, while Che did indeed execute people [an episode I have gone into at length in my book] I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed ‘an innocent’. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder.
------------------

Summary execution is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

 

You’re a war criminal apologist.

[bad_teammate 13211]

29 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Summary execution is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

You’re a war criminal apologist.

How was I "apologizing" for Che? I'm just saying his murders (which they were) are within the normal mode of murderous revolutionary operation and rejecting the absurd and hysterical comparison of Che to Hitler and Stalin. Also pointing out how stupid it is to want to break people's noses for wearing Che shirts.

I'm not wrong.

Just now, BurntEyes said:

I am absolutely certain that the irony of defending and glorifying Stalin's USSR and Castro's/Che's Cuba despite massive proof clearly demonstrating the despot murdering nature of both regimes while at the same time hating on the Nazi is completely lost on certain posters. The reality that their logic and denials are right in line with Holocaust denying NeoNazis extends beyond simply a Communist supporting weirdo/idiot and into an agenda driven, murder supporting, psychopath.

Can you quote any posters here "defending and glorifying Stalin's USSR and Castro's/Che's Cuba"? Not characterizing it in your own words, but actually quoting the words these other people wrote?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

How was I "apologizing" for Che? I'm just saying his murders (which they were) are within the normal mode of murderous revolutionary operation and rejecting the absurd and hysterical comparison of Che to Hitler and Stalin. Also pointing out how stupid it is to want to break people's noses for wearing Che shirts.

I'm not wrong.

Can you quote any posters here "defending and glorifying Stalin's USSR and Castro's/Che's Cuba"? Not characterizing it in your own words, but actually quoting the words these other people wrote?

Dude you've been an apologist for those countries as alternatives to our system of gov't as long as I've been reading your posts.  You do apologize for, and try to downplay what they did.  

You're doing it in this post right here. If you're summarily killing people in the cause of your revolution, your revolution might not be the great thing you think it is.

Was Che being compared to Hitler, Stalin or Mao ?  He's in the jayvee league compared to those 3.  His thought process was similar, the subjugation of people under HIS theory of life.  You want to punch Nazis, how is wanting to punch Che any different ?  Oh yeah he was a freedom fighter....

[Incredulity 11675]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

How was I "apologizing" for Che? I'm just saying his murders (which they were) are within the normal mode of murderous revolutionary operation and rejecting the absurd and hysterical comparison of Che to Hitler and Stalin. Also pointing out how stupid it is to want to break people's noses for wearing Che shirts.

I'm not wrong.

Can you quote any posters here "defending and glorifying Stalin's USSR and Castro's/Che's Cuba"? Not characterizing it in your own words, but actually quoting the words these other people wrote?

Your fucking words right here.

 

Che is certainly a murderer in the sense that basically everyone who participates in war is a murderer. He killed people in battle and had people executed afterwards, for sure, as has been the way of war forever. 

 

You are a war criminal apologist.

[bad_teammate 13211]

13 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Your fucking words right here.

 

Che is certainly a murderer in the sense that basically everyone who participates in war is a murderer. He killed people in battle and had people executed afterwards, for sure, as has been the way of war forever. 

 

You are a war criminal apologist.

The only way that's an apology is if I think war is some kind of moral good. I don't think it is. I am not excusing or forgiving Che by comparing him to other people I consider murderers.

I just don't think his crimes are comparable to true standouts like Hitler and Stalin. That's not apologism, that's just not being hysterical.

If you're curious whether or not I think Che is/was a good person, just ask me. Or Castro or whoever else. I'm not shy with sharing my opinions and thoughts. I know it's easier for you guys to just make assumptions so you can continue to be angry and ignorant, but take a shot at good faith conversation and see how it goes.

21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Dude you've been an apologist for those countries as alternatives to our system of gov't as long as I've been reading your posts.  

No, I haven't. As is your habit, what you're doing now is lying.

If you can quote some examples I will be happy to look at them, but you won't find them because what you're accusing me of here is just silly and ignorant.

Quote

If you're summarily killing people in the cause of your revolution, your revolution might not be the great thing you think it is.

Where did I say I think they were great? Or even good?

Quote

His thought process was similar, the subjugation of people under HIS theory of life.

lol what the fuck are you talking about?

Are you seriously arguing that Che was attempting to obtain dictatorial control of the world?

Edited August 9, 2020 by bad_teammate

[BabaYaga 15300]

On 8/7/2020 at 4:36 PM, washparkhorn said:

Stalin was on Team Stalin. Hitler was on Team Hitler. Pol Pot was on Team Pol Pot. Mao was on Team Mao. 

Cults of personality are problematic and killed hundreds of millions.

Power for power's sake. Murderous narcissistic sociopaths. 

 

Again, so "it just wasn't implemented right" rears it's head again.  L.  O.  Fucking.  L

And you think it's just a giant coincidence that a certain type of ideology promoting a bloated, centralized planning system always seems to engender these types of people who utilize their unchecked power for bad?  Yeah, it's a big fucking mystery.  If history has taught us anything it is that Communism always fails, a system that has only one trajectory:   tyranny.  Time and time and time again.  

A system time and time again good only at creating poverty and misery for it's people.  Blind academics who managed to create an entire theory according to which the Soviet price, in contrast to the market price, has an exclusively planning or directive character.  These geniuses forgot to explain how you can ‘guide’ a price without knowing real costs, and how you can estimate real costs if all prices express the will of the centralized system.  

It always comes back to tyranny and dictatorship

Quote

Sometimes it is argued that the personalities involved lead to tyranny, not communism or socialism. Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Erich Honecker, and Pol Pot are all bad people, but the personalities at the top matter little. Once a communist form of government is established, tyranny is the only result, 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

They sure as shit don't come from democratic, educated type societies.  They've typically (Germany as an exception) come from very poor, agrarian type societies that have had a long history of dictatorial type gov'ts. They also usually kill all the educated folks, the uneducated masses are easier to control, and keep quiet.

Capitalism might have problems, but I'll take my chances with that form of gov't over any other currently practiced around the globe.  It's no coincidence we're still the only true super power (China is a house of cards for many reasons).

[BabaYaga 15300]

Quote

A government that controls everything can quash dissent by changing the economic situation of anyone who is pointing out their defects.

Let this fucking sink in

[Armybrat 40850]

25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They sure as shit don't come from democratic, educated type societies.  They've typically (Germany as an exception) come from very poor, agrarian type societies that have had a long history of dictatorial type gov'ts. They also usually kill all the educated folks, the uneducated masses are easier to control, and keep quiet.

Capitalism might have problems, but I'll take my chances with that form of gov't over any other currently practiced around the globe.  It's no coincidence we're still the only true super power (China is a house of cards for many reasons).

Speaking of China, I notice all the panicky news about the impending breach of the Three Gorges Dam have disappeared.

[Dahobbs 17596]

32 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They sure as shit don't come from democratic, educated type societies.  They've typically (Germany as an exception) come from very poor, agrarian type societies that have had a long history of dictatorial type gov'ts. They also usually kill all the educated folks, the uneducated masses are easier to control, and keep quiet.

Capitalism might have problems, but I'll take my chances with that form of gov't over any other currently practiced around the globe.  It's no coincidence we're still the only true super power (China is a house of cards for many reasons).

Capitalism isn't a form of government. 

And, an educated country with a democratic government can be both "very poor" and "agrarian." Those aren't the contradictions that you appear to think they are.  

Edited August 10, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105154]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Capitalism isn't a form of government. 

But here's the rub -- if the purported form of government fails, Capitalism absolutely is a form of government.  When capitalist enterprises control the government, and make one set of rules for me, and the other for thee, then capitalism is your government.

Too much of anything, even a good thing, can be a really, really bad thing.  Our reflexive American defense of "capitalism," decrying any effort at reining it in, at providing basic safety nets underneath, etc., as "COMMUNISM!  YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER MURDEROUS STALIN!" will, eventually, be the death of capitalism.

Broken, unbalanced systems, which eventually tilt to authoritarianism and xenophobia as distraction from the actual problems a society is facing, is an age-old thing.  And the result is always the same.  We've spent so much energy blindly hating "COMMUNISM!  OPPOSE IT AT ALL COSTS!  ANYTHING THAT OUR OLIGARCHS OPPOSE MUST BE EVIL COMMUNISM!", that we've welcomed corporatist/fascist authoritarianism in through the side door.

I don't give a shit if the authoritarian fucking over my family and country is a purported commie, or a purported capitalist -- if they fuck over the rule of law, tilt the playing field in favor of their favored cadre, and demonize and harm other people in the process, I have a problem with them.  

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Capitalism isn't a form of government. 

And, an educated country with a democratic government can be both "very poor" and "agrarian." Those aren't the contradictions that you appear to think they are.  

 True we're a representative republic. It's the system of economics that our country employs, and is anathema to communism, and socialism (at its extreme end). 

[Dahobbs 17596]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 True we're a representative republic. It's the system of economics that our country employs, and is anathema to communism, and socialism (at its extreme end). 

I'm curious, how would you describe China? Is it communist?

[Huckleberry 32948]

2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Hint: Tribalism and Identity politics has never and will never unite anyone. Rather it creates divisions that help foster distractions that keep "the people" from focusing on the real issues, or divided enough to never form a majority. Machiavelli out front should have told you.

Taking a known issue and aligning it with identity politics and the further distracting the messaging with a Marxist message and claiming the issues are one and the same while breaking laws in said protests creates even further divide.

The result is a garbled message with three sides pointing fingers and Jack shit being done. This is exactly, nearly point to point the strategy the Machiavelli described. God forbid, as a white man, I point out down realities of a conflict and issues with our government that affect all people, primarily along economic lines, rather than race. Because that makes me a racist, or unable to recognize the reality of the issues. So let's all stay divided and bitch about issues in our own little tribes.

What would you say the ratio of your actually being called a racist on this message board to the number of times you claim you've been called a racist is? 1 to 10? 1 to 100? Even lower?

I mean an honest guess. You play the racism card more than anyone I've ever seen because you like to paint yourself as a victim of some nonexistent bogeyman, which is, of course, humorously ironic.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm curious, how would you describe China? Is it communist?

Stop it, go hump somebody elses leg.  They're basically a mafioso regime pretty much like the USSR was, and Russia is. They both claimed to be communist/socialist.  

[Brisketexan 105154]

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Hint: Tribalism and Identity politics has never and will never unite anyone. Rather it creates divisions that help foster distractions that keep "the people" from focusing on the real issues, or divided enough to never form a majority. Machiavelli out front should have told you.

Taking a known issue and aligning it with identity politics and the further distracting the messaging with a Marxist message and claiming the issues are one and the same while breaking laws in said protests creates even further divide.

The result is a garbled message with three sides pointing fingers and Jack shit being done. This is exactly, nearly point to point the strategy the Machiavelli described. God forbid, as a white man, I point out realities of a conflict and issues with our government that affect all people, primarily along economic lines, rather than only along race lines. Because that makes me a racist, or unable to recognize the reality of the issues. So let's all stay divided and bitch about issues in our own little tribes.

It's the SNL skit of "Black Jeopardy" -- Tom Hanks working class MAGA white dude and all the black folks were the same people, living the same lives, with 90% of their experiences and perspectives in common.

But we have masters who are very good at keeping us divided on racial lines, on using buzzwords like "socialism!" to respond to every single idea that doesn't advance the wealth of the top 1% or so, etc.  I absolutely agree that a mob of angry black people pissed off at our police and our broken systems should be joined by a mob of angry white folks pissed about the exact same thing (and they are, but it's not the right mob of angry white folks - it's mostly educated, economically successful white folks joining them).  But they aren't.  Instead, we've done a fantastic job of segregating those groups and pitting them against each other.  Which serves only one end -- a divided people is easier to rule and manipulate.

[workswithseed 2112]

I still think it's funny that the Wall of Moms were called racist.

[Dahobbs 17596]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Stop it, go hump somebody elses leg.  They're basically a mafioso regime pretty much like the USSR was, and Russia is. They both claimed to be communist/socialist.  

It wasn't a trick. It was an honest question. Why do you take every comment as a personal attack?

Anyway, China may be communist in name, but certainly not by definition. Huge amounts of private wealth exist in that country. In many ways, China has a more pure form of capitalism than the United States: its businesses are largely unconstrained by laws or regulations on a variety of matters, from environmental, to working conditions, to enforcement of international norms. It is true that the Communist Party uses its position to enrich its members, both in power and wealth. But I have a hard time distinguishing this behavior from the behavior of the two major political parties in the United States. Is there really a difference? China now looks a lot like the United States of the robber baron era. 

[Dahobbs 17596]

5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Yeah, that what the point was of my post. 

It's also why I've honestly stopped giving any shits.

I've no interest in hashing out the same old bullshit along the same arguments that ultimately result in no change.

I am absolutely down for change of our policing policies.

I absolutely recognize that blacks face more issues than other races. I also absolutely recognize that the issues are more along the lines of economic divides than racial lines. Of which blacks are over representative.

I absolutely don't agree with the agenda of BLM because it's not based on actual obtainable changes.

This line of discussion has no upside. None. Zero.

Because you aren't going to address the crux of the issues.

 

What does the bold mean in context of the rest of your post? Are you saying we can't change policing policies? That it isn't attainable to address the fact that blacks face more issues than other races?  What are the unobtainable changes to which you refer?

[BabaYaga 15300]

17 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Stop it, go hump somebody elses leg.  They're basically a mafioso regime pretty much like the USSR was, and Russia is. They both claimed to be communist/socialist.  

XI's removal of term limits means he can effectually be president for life.  Something, something, something....Communism & dictators, dictators and communism.  Just a big coincidence.  

Consolidation of power in real time

Quote

he consolidated his political power as the party voted to enshrine his name and political ideology in the party's constitution - elevating his status to the level of its founder, Chairman Mao...He has amassed power the likes of which has not been seen since Chairman Mao Zedong.......There has been no national debate as to whether a leader should be allowed to stay on for as long as they choose. Quietly but surely Xi Jinping has changed the way his country is governed, with himself well and truly at the core.

 

[Dahobbs 17596]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

XI's removal of term limits means he can effectually be president for life.  Something, something, something....Communism & dictators, dictators and communism.  Just a big coincidence.  

Consolidation of power in real time

 

I'm not defending communism as a practical economic and political system if that is what you are thinking. But, all forms of power appear to tend toward the same place; we've even had a President here (jokingly?) suggest we do the same. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105154]

24 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

And you buy right into it. 

Huh?  I don't buy into it - I just see it quite clearly, and am incredibly frustrated by it.

Black people ARE shit on in our society -- both by racist institutions and by economic and political systems of broader impact.  Both are true.  And to the extent that there's any attempt to address the larger issue, it is delegitimized as a race issue, and black people are blamed for everything that happens to them (Chicago!  Broken families!), and the conversation is over before it starts.  Which utterly serves the interests of the oligarchs who run this shit.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Dahobbs 17596]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm saying that as long as we address policing issues in the US as a black issue nothing will change.

That addressing the policing issues in the US as a US problem can, ultimately create change.

That calling the police issues in the US a black problem allows the majority of non-black ignorant voters to not care as it's not their problem. 

That addressing the policing issues as a US issue and not a black issue and creating change will address the issue for all people including black people.

The WOD is the policy around which the poor have always been subjected to issues at a much higher rate. 

You can not address an issue and hope to obtain a majority when you only address the issues of that policy that only effect a minority.

Otherwise, you have a tribal approach to a national problem.

Tribalism fosters divide not unity. Tribalism creates a minority, of a minority. 

We can come together, and address the issues that effect everyone, or we can continue to identity politics, with some Marxism thrown in for fun, and continue to be tribal.

Which is, exactly what I believe is happening, why I think it goes nowhere, and why I'm tired of hashing out the same odd bullshit.

I don't really disagree with most of this. But  I think you misconstrue the point of Black Lives Matter and the related protests. The issue, as you rightly pointed out, is the negative effects of bad policing primarily fall on one group. The rest of the population doesn't have that day-to-day experience and so it is more difficult them to see the problem. The point of Black Lives Matter and the related protests is to raise awareness in that segment of the population that doesn't experience the negative effects. They need to know it is happening. 

The irony of your post is that you claim to disdain tribal politics, but in reality you are embracing it by outright rejecting Black Lives Matter. Look at your sentence in bold above. The ostensible conclusion here is that problems of a minority group are not problems.  Blacks are part of our joint community. A problem that they experience is problem for us all. 

You interpret a request for assistance as an attack on your identity, as blaming you for the problems. But it isn't that, and you need not interpret it that way. Millions upon millions of other non-black citizens have embraced the movement (as readily evidenced in the images from protests around country) precisely because they see it as a "US problem" and not merely a "black problem."

[Dahobbs 17596]

4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Well man, that shit isn't my problem.

Wow. How in the world can you square this with your other posts? 

[Dahobbs 17596]

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Broken, your sarcasm meter is.

Good to know. 

[bad_teammate 13211]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

And you think it's just a giant coincidence that a certain type of ideology promoting a bloated, centralized planning system always seems to engender these types of people who utilize their unchecked power for bad?

 

Unchecked power is absolutely a massive problem and it's not unique to Communism/Communist nations.

Despotism is bad.

Quote

A system time and time again good only at creating poverty and misery for it's people.

Power corrupts and coalesces.

 

[Dahobbs 17596]

8 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The point of Black Lives Matter

In 2020, NPR reported that Black Lives Matter demands were defunding the Police, halt the production of new jails, decriminalizing sex work, removing police from schools, exonerate protesters and abolish cash bail in Maryland.^[41]

I don't understand the point of this post.

All of the things in bold at the bottom would be societal wide changes, not changes just for black people. Everyone benefits, not just the minority as you appear to believe. 

Also, I understand that you don't believe protests are effective. But they clearly are as we've seen massive changes in how large segments of society approach this problem since the protests. That said, there is no doubt that something more than protests are necessary. Protests were a starting point to get the discussion going. They aren't the end goal. 

[BabaYaga 15300]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Unchecked power is absolutely a massive problem and it's not unique to Communism/Communist nations.

Despotism is bad.

Power corrupts and coalesces.

 

And yet one particular ideology facilitates this consolidation of power over, and over, and over.  Yet again, right in front of our eyes, it is happening in China.  Trying to correlate this with income inequality just shows you are either trolling with talking points or really just don't know what you are talking about.  

[Brisketexan 105154]

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And yet one particular ideology facilitates this consolidation of power over, and over, and over.  Yet again, right in front of our eyes, it is happening in China.  Trying to correlate this with income inequality just shows you are either trolling with talking points or really just don't know what you are talking about.  

So.,...right wing and fascist dictatorships, death squads, etc.....which we have seen repeatedly over the past century....aren't a thing?  Huh.

The key is authoritarianism and a consolidation of power for the benefit of an elite class.  Political ideology is just a tool they use to bring it about.  They use the tool that is most effective for the population they are attempting to manipulate.  Sometimes, it's easier to manipulate the masses with communist ideology, because they're poor agrarian types.  Sometimes, it's easier to just consolidate power with strong corporate interests who can effectively control the country (United Fruit, etc.).

The philosophy you are concerned about is authoritarianism and the erosion/circumvention of the rule of law.   Being okay with those things when they accompany "communism," or when they accompany "capitalism" is a real fucking problem.  And it demonstrates that you don't grasp that they are politics-neutral.  Political philosophy is a tool -- and when those in charge are using it to manipulate you as opposed to serving you, you should fucking put a stop to it.

[Huckleberry 32948]

2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Yeah, that what the point was of my post. 

It's also why I've honestly stopped giving any shits.

I've no interest in hashing out the same old bullshit along the same arguments that ultimately result in no change.

I am absolutely down for change of our policing policies.

I absolutely recognize that blacks face more issues than other races. I also absolutely recognize that the issues are more along the lines of economic divides than racial lines. Of which blacks are over representative.

I absolutely don't agree with the agenda of BLM because it's not based on actual obtainable changes.

This line of discussion has no upside. None. Zero.

Because you aren't going to address the crux of the issues.

 

You just completely dodged the question and are now accusing others of dodging the issues. That's both incredibly weak and also inaccurate. Plenty of people are addressing the real issues with current police policy throughout the United States. But you'd rather just play the victim and that's okay, too, if it makes you feel better. Nobody is going to force you to actually confront the issues and you seem to feel better if you lie to yourself and say "it's because people call me racist" even though people aren't calling you racist.

We all have our safe spaces, so no offense intended.

[BabaYaga 15300]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So.,...right wing and fascist dictatorships, death squads, etc.....which we have seen repeatedly over the past century....aren't a thing?  Huh.

Never said they did.  Nor are they even remotely comparable in scope or scale to what we've seen from Mao, or Pol Pot, or the other leaders referenced.  Outside of Germany, as already stated, it has been very difficult to replicate.  Communism, on the other hand has spread like an insidious poison and ended time and time again with the same horrible results.

 

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The key is authoritarianism and a consolidation of power for the benefit of an elite class.  Political ideology is just a tool they use to bring it about. 

No kidding, really?  Isn't that kind of the point of the thread?  And one particular ideology founded on the tenets of a centralized command and control method keep resulting in tyranny.  Everyone seems to be conveniently conflating corporate cronyism and tyranny.  

 

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The philosophy you are concerned about is authoritarianism and the erosion/circumvention of the rule of law.   Being okay with those things when they accompany "communism," or when they accompany "capitalism" is a real fucking problem.  And it demonstrates that you don't grasp that they are politics-neutral.  Political philosophy is a tool -- and when those in charge are using it to manipulate you as opposed to serving you, you should fucking put a stop to it

When control goes so far to the state, there is no circumvention of the rule of law, because they are the rule of law.  As stated, we are watching this unfold before our eyes again in China....who are now systematically rounding up the Muslim Uighars.  The only thing we are missing are cattle-cars.  

You seen to equate these equally, which could not be further from the truth.  Capitalism chews people up and spits them out.  No doubt, but there are fundamental differences you aren't mentioning that facilitate and check capitalism and allow communism to continue unfettered.  Namely private property rights.  Prices determined by market prices.  And a profit/loss system of accounting.  

 

[Dahobbs 17596]

21 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Do you actually contend that defunding of police is an actionable realistic goal for any group?

If BLM had ideas that were actually something that could be accomplished, I'd listen.

They don't, so I won't.

I've been down this road enough.

This "movement" as it stands isn't going anywhere.

Beyond that, Brisket keeps boiling the ocean.

Wake me up when there is a solidarity movement among all folks to make changes that are actionable and it is no longer in the identity politics realm with demands like "defund the police", because until then this shit is all jibber jabber bullshit and will go nowhere. 

In case you're not picking it up, I'm done discussion on the topic. It's fucking pointless just like the current protests.

Why are you boiling down an entire movement to a single goal? Your previous post attributed the following concrete goals to Black Lives Matter:

1. halt the production of new jails, 
2. decriminalizing sex work,
3. removing police from schools,
4. exonerate protesters and
5. abolish cash bail

Aren't those actionable goals? What does "identity politics" even mean here?

Me personally, I absolutely agree with #5. I think #s 1 through 3 should be done to some limited extent. I don't really think #4 can be done on a group wide basis, but would have to depend on individual facts and charges. 

I get that you're done discussing. It is why you're done that interests me. You say it is because it is pointless. I think it comes from a place of shame: in your mind, you feel that solving the issue means admitting a problem exists and admitting that you have some responsibility for it. Please note, I'm not actually blaming you for anything. I'm not calling you racist. I'm trying to explain the perverse psychology associated with your position. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17596]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

When control goes so far to the state, there is no circumvention of the rule of law, because they are the rule of law. 

When is this not the case (other than in anarchy)?

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

No doubt, but there are fundamental differences you aren't mentioning that facilitate and check capitalism and allow communism to continue unfettered.  Namely private property rights.  Prices determined by market prices.  And a profit/loss system of accounting.  

You just listed three things....that can and are rigged in favor of the ruling class in a purportedly "capitalist" system.  That's kind of the fucking problem.  The common theme that we need for good government is equal rule of law.  Right wing authoritarian states don't have that.  We don't have that.  We have private benefits (for the wealthy/large corporations) and socialized costs (for everyone else) in a jillion different respects, as just one example of the type of brokenness we're dealing with.

Again, I grew up a child of the Cold War.  I grew up believing that Communism was a grave threat.  And I continue to believe that it's a shitty form of government -- not necessarily because of what it proposes (if y'all want to all be hippies and share everything, go for it), but because of what it inevitably becomes because it fails to account for an check against human nature.  The problem is, capitalism is flawed for the exact same reason.  Once I have enough power and influence, I can re-write the laws to benefit me, and hinder anyone who could jeopardize my position at the top.

I'm not particularly interested in counting bodies and calling one extreme better or worse.  If you were tossed out of chopper by the Argentine junta, it didn't much matter to you that Pol Pot killed more people.

I'm anti-authoritarian, and anti-erosion/rigging of the rule of law, across the board.  I don't have much reason to worry about a commie takeover of the US, no matter how loudly I cheered during Red Dawn (and I did).  Our risk has always been "Capitalism" run amok to the point that the rule of law went to the shitter, and the mechanisms of preserving a functional democratic republic are actively damaged/destroyed.  I'll fight the enemy we have today.  If the commies try to take power in 10 years and build re-education camps, I'll fight them next.

[BabaYaga 15300]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

When is this not the case (other than in anarchy)?

Of course.  Yet one system repeatedly cascades into tyranny time and time again based upon how it is structured - hence the point of this entire thread.  

[wildcat09 29355]

Isn’t it BurntEyes that thought a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

32 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Do you actually contend that defunding of police is an actionable realistic goal for any group?

If BLM had ideas that were actually something that could be accomplished, I'd listen.

They don't, so I won't.

I've been down this road enough.

This "movement" as it stands isn't going anywhere.

Beyond that, Brisket keeps boiling the ocean.

Wake me up when there is a solidarity movement among all folks to make changes that are actionable and it is no longer in the identity politics realm with demands like "defund the police", because until then this shit is all jibber jabber bullshit and will go nowhere. 

In case you're not picking it up, I'm done discussion on the topic. It's fucking pointless just like the current protests.

I don't know why, but the phrase boiling the ocean made me laugh.... uh-lot.

[BabaYaga 15300]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Our risk has always been "Capitalism" run amok to the point that the rule of law went to the shitter, and the mechanisms of preserving a functional democratic republic are actively damaged/destroyed.  I'll fight the enemy we have today.  If the commies try to take power in 10 years and build re-education camps, I'll fight them next.

You're describing cronyism.  Now, what facilitates cronyism?  

[Brisketexan 105154]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Of course.  Yet one system repeatedly cascades into tyranny time and time again based upon how it is structured - hence the point of this entire thread.  

Every system cascades into tyranny, if you let it.  We just have shitty memories that don't go back very far.

Single-minded focus on the bogeyman of the past century (seriously, just the past century) is why we're facing an upsurge in right-wing authoritarianism, including right here at home.

[Brisketexan 105154]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

You're describing cronyism.  Now, what facilitates cronyism?  

Power.  Power begets power.  Power here comes from money.  Power in other places comes from other mechanisms of control.  Oh, and of course, what I described is ALSO what Americans are currently, vigorously defending as "our sacred capitalism!  Any change is socialism and death!"  They are one and the same...at least, here they are.

And we're so eager to condemn any regulation as "COMMUNISM SOCIALISM!" that we are letting fascism and cronyism in through the side door....and we're fucking CELEBRATING it.

But continue to focus on the red threat of the commies at our door, with their blueprints for the reeducation camps ready to go.  Seems to be working out great so far, with no ill side effects for us at all.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Brisketexan

[BabaYaga 15300]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Single-minded focus on the bogeyman of the past century (seriously, just the past century)

Maybe that is because it was founded just this part century.  Just a thought.  

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

BurntEyes is a stupid, ignorant, worthless piece of shit who has no understanding of anything. He has no capacity to do, and never will. 

He and everything he post are worthless pieces of trash that should be ignored, shit on, or mocked. His takes are wholly and entirely irrelevant. 

Engagement with him is pointless. He provides no value and never will.

He does now know this reality and is at least grateful for being shown the light of his own worthlessness. 

You ok there, buddy?

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Maybe that is because it was founded just this part century.  Just a thought.  

Would probably have a strong correlation.  Yet, we have had murderous, authoritarian regimes for millenia without it.....hmmmmm.....I wonder if authoritarianism comes from communism, or whether communism is just another system that can be manipulated for authoritarian ends?

[Nicole44 22060]

I don’t care what happens! Fuck it. 

[wildcat09 29355]

I would pay good money to see some posters have to live a week as, say, a miner living in a company town in West Virginia or Kentucky in 1915.

[BabaYaga 15300]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Would probably have a strong correlation.  Yet, we have had murderous, authoritarian regimes for millenia without it.....hmmmmm.....I wonder if authoritarianism comes from communism, or whether communism is just another system that can be manipulated for authoritarian ends?

Of course it is - which again is the point of this thread.  Not a reductionist debate in relativism.  How currently it is celebrated and openly welcomed with no ill effects to the untold horrors it has engendered in a relatively short period of time.  100 million in less than a hundred years?  Only the plague and malaria have that kind of a track record.  Yet we see open banners celebrating it's "intent".  Public proclamations that seem staggeringly brazen considering the end-state this type of ideology always results in.