Stefan Molyneux

Users who are viewing this thread

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
giphy.gif
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Grandmaster Knight
Flin Flon said:
Jhessail was right about everything.
Thank you, glad that someone sees my genius. Though I'm a bit embarrassed about how quickly I blew up at Wheem back in 2014. Though he was an insufferable ****.

kurczak said:
I don't get either post.
Clearly you didn't understand the dog whistling that Anthropoid was doing. He couldn't post actual child pornography, so he posted an anime picture of a clearly underage girl, as an comment to his earlier "wish" that both he and his wife could be transformed to 9 year old physically.
 

RalliX

Count
M&BWBWF&SVC
Goddamnit. It’s really funny to look back at anarcho-capitalist me from 5 years ago.

Oh man did I have so many political phases.

Thinking about it now, an Anarchy would quickly turn into Feudalism.
 

Flin Flon

Jhessail said:
literal fart noises
Here's a genuine question: Do you think that we should, ideologically combat socialists and communists with any less diligence than fashy types, in view of that their ideas can be equally harmful?
 
Flin Flon said:
Jhessail said:
literal fart noises
Here's a genuine question: Do you think that we should, ideologically combat socialists and communists with any less diligence than fashy types, in view of that their ideas can be equally harmful?

Fascism is, by every meaningful definition, an anti-liberal anti-democracy reactionary movement which unites corporatism with political and ethnic violence. It's harmful to any liberal democracy and any clearly fascist party (post-1945) gets banned almost instantly.

Socialism is a vague series of ideas about wealth redistribution. Socialist ideas are already implemented into most governments and socialist parties have existed in democracies for decades.

Communism is the stateless end goal of marxist socialism and nothing like that has ever emerged in an urbanised society.

How do you define fascism and socialism/communism so that they are equally harmful?
 

Flin Flon

That's not exactly what I mean when I invoke those terms. We can have similarities with a fascist regime and not be a fascist government. So, public goods and social programs are not socialism as much as (in the hypothetical that fascists invented propaganda) propaganda is not fascism, despite both social programs and propaganda being conducive to 'their respective' ideologies. I can use both facets and not belong to either category (categories tend to fail to capture **** accurately anyway). As far as I know, among other things, socialism is the elimination of the free market; that being the most concerning part (whereas social democracy is still capitalistic). Things like market socialism exist but are, apparently, equally terrible.

I make the comparison not as to their beliefs, which I know are polar opposites (equality vs. supremacy), but as to their potential to ****ing lives up. Socialist economies tend to overproduce (wasting resources that could have been utilized to better lives) or underproduce (you're starving or being denied goods). I don't think we care as much about the intentions as we do about the adverse effects when we purely look at harm (I know I don't, anyway).

The difficulty is that most sane people align with leftist ideas, however if we share the same goal but a socialist's means of achieving it is measurably harmful, then I'm put in the awkward position of having to oppose him. So the question is: Do we permit socialists more leeway than fascists in spite of that both have the potential to destroy lives?

Important: When I say 'combat' or 'confront' idealogues, I don't necessarily mean we go to war. I mean we engage with them and their ideas through conversation, education, or otherwise. I don't hate nazis that can be reintegrated.
 

Sundeki

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Flin Flon said:
Jhessail said:
literal fart noises
Here's a genuine question: Do you think that we should, ideologically combat socialists and communists with any less diligence than fashy types, in view of that their ideas can be equally harmful?
Well, statistically speaking, Marxists are more harmful, most of the time. As a general rule, I think it would be fair to shut down any group that advocates and actively calls for mass violence of any kind. Of which Fascists and Marxists both endorse, in different ways. But at the same time, both groups don't represent any real political threat unless the existing political system is totally incompetent. So I don't really see much point in shutting down either, really.



NUQAR'S Kentucky "Nuqar" James XXL said:
Fascism is, by every meaningful definition, an anti-liberal anti-democracy reactionary movement which unites corporatism with political and ethnic violence. It's harmful to any liberal democracy and any clearly fascist party (post-1945) gets banned almost instantly.
Most Western countries have no explicit legal provisions against the formation of Fascist parties/movements. Even then, Fascism hasn't gained any real foothold at all, anywhere. It floats about in low single-digit % support almost all of the time, and has not represented any real threat to the continuation of polities in their countries. And that's because the emergence of Fascists as a significant political force has always followed the exact same set of prerequisite conditions: Economic collapse/hardship catalysing the emergence of Radical Socialists (generally of International persuasion, such as Marxists) to mainstream power. Fascists emerge as the radical counter-position to the Radical Socialists, and both sides grow by playing off each other, and by picking the disaffected from the political "center". What happened in the financial crisis in Greece is a good example of how it starts, but the downward spiral was stopped by the significant money inflows by the EU into the Greek financial system that prevented a total economic collapse.



Flin Flon said:
As far as I know, among other things, socialism is the elimination of the free market; that being the most concerning part (whereas social democracy is still capitalistic). Things like market socialism exist but are, apparently, equally terrible.
That definition is specifically Marxist. There are socialists all over the political spectrum, even right-wing socialists(although left-wing socialists refuse to admit it almost all of the time), and while many are anti-markets, many aren't. We've all fallen into this way of thinking that state-organized economics is somehow socialist and market economics is capitalist, but neither are really the case. One can use markets and be anti-capitalist. One can use the state as an economic entity and be anti-socialist.

Do we permit socialists more leeway than fascists in spite of that both have the potential to destroy lives?
I don't think it's possible to have a one-size-fits-all policy in these regards. As I stated earlier, a general rule should be that unless there is an explicit call for political violence, little is to be gained from shutting down either, as neither can gain steam unless something is terribly wrong with the status quo. It would be better to spend the time, money, and effort addressing economic shortcomings, and maintaining community health. Any means through which either group can gain traction is taken away from them, then, and as an added benefit; there's no move to the creation of a thought-crime policing state.
 

Flin Flon

The reason that one may think fascism isn't a threat is because we spend considerable resources combatting it. Liberal democracies pour incredible amounts into combating racism and promoting liberal values, among others. Still, the advent right-wing populism encapsulates the same sentiments as fascism. For instance, where I live they hold ~20% of the seats in parliament. Not something to be ignored. The idea that the status quo is capable of addressing these issues without intervention is not only wrong but also incredibly short-sighted and irresponsible.

Fascism won't pop into existence in its purest, 1942, Hitlerst form, but most likely should be associated with the (early) characteristics thereof. Such as: antagonism of non-natives, appeal to strength, cult leadership, etc. Even Trump's posturing and following exhibit fashy characteristics; very capable of eroding liberal institutions. Although a lot of these people are not full-blown fascists, they are capable of cultivating bigger followings and more extreme ideas (if left unchecked). For example, when Trump was elected, racist organization felt emboldened to come out of the woodworks and even march the streets. Democracy is not an intemporal entity. You need a sufficiently large liberal (middle)class to uphold democratic institutions. And again: Combatting does not necessarily mean 'shutting down'.

Yeah, Marixts are pretty insane, can't believe I forgot them.

'Socialists' is sufficiently accurate. It's not a semantic argument. :razz:

I agree that we should invest in solving issues at the root of the problem, which has been an effective solution to 'extremism' for decennias, but this isn't true anymore (the internet changed everything, is my theory). The West, for the most part, isn't even in a recession yet we're dealing with extremist populists gaining traction. The last 10 years has seen dramatic reactionary political movements against the status quo and they don't seem to have halted.
 
Top Bottom