Satire and counterpropaganda.
- This topic has 90 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Take a look at the Russian Tensions thread. It’s pretty unpleasant if not barking. But it does provide a salutary lesson in how socialists differ from the Left in general and British Bolsheviks in particular.
If you can come up with something mightier than Ernie the Fastest Milkman in the West – name it!Your are right. That thread has become toxic. We managed to stop it for about 24 hours the other day and discuss something else (anything) but then someone posted on it, not something new and relevant, but a direct question to our resident opponent there and it kicked off again.
Socialism is most definitely left-wing, if you have confused members who think otherwise that’s a different story. In a world where truth is optional and the Overton window has shifted far to the right – cognitive dissonance reigns supreme. Wasn’t aware it was a major factor on the left. But some examples would be nice, had a quick look, but 258 replies are a lot to scan.
We are not Leftists because we have no intention of running capitalism: neither in a right wing nor a left wing way.
We reject the left’s common notion, whether Leninist or Labourite, that socialism = nationalisation. We say it does not. We say that if a society is based on wage-labour and capital accumulation, that society is capitalist, regardless of who controls the state. In socialism (a.k.a. communism) there will no longer be a state as there will be no one to suppress; no wage-labour and no capital, as money won’t exist.
Yes, Socialism is a global ideology, I’ve made a huge point in my book about that (not in the free version, unfortunately). It’s right-whinge think tank nonsense to suggest National Socialism exists, a contradiction in terms. However right and left have nothing to do with capitalism. It’s about the ideology and the ideology of Socialism/Communism is most definitely left-wing. Capitalism is a right-wing ideology, Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism are attempts to limit the exploitation of the proletariat in a Capitalism environment. While Social Democracy only attempts to reduce exploitation under Capitalism, Democratic Socialism is intended to be used as a stepping stone to transform society from Capitalism to Socialism. And obviously, a resource-based economy does not require finance. The value of goods are based on sustainability, availability, labour intensity, mining/gathering, refining/processing. To achieve the consistent global values of a resource.
“The Nazi party were National Socialists?
National socialism is a contradiction in terms. Socialism is an all-inclusive global ideology spread to free the working class from the tyranny of Royalty and wealthy corporate elitists, by social ownership of the tools of production and resources. While Hitler’s nationism was an insular ideology built on prejudice.
This interview appeared in Liberty magazine on the 9th of July 1932:
“George Sylvester Viereck: I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home, the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.
‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal (health or well-being). Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.”
So the father of Socialism as history tells us is Karl Marx, yet Hilter denies this and goes on to say that he wants to take socialism away from the socialists. He was just as bad as modern-day Fascists with the levels of internal conflict. So no, Hilter was not a socialist as we understand the term, he simply wanted to use the term to draw the German working class into his war machine. No doubt a ploy of Goebbels, the father of propaganda.
Not to mention that the first thing Hitler did was to draw private industry into the government which is one of the main tenets of Fascism. The merger of state and corporate power.”
They are the ideological opposite, the antithesis. But no I’m not obsessed it’s a right-wing argument that is used to discredit the left and Socialism and is prevalent on social media. If you’d spent decades being subject to these revisions of history by right-whinge knuckle-draggers you’d no doubt be aware of that.
Nazi Germany was a capitalist state. Particularly obnoxious, the same as the Bolshevik state in Russia, but essentially no different from any other capitalist state. Wage-labour and capital accumulation the principal ingredients.
It is neither more nor less the “antithesis”, as you say,of socialism than any other bourgeois ideology.
We, well I in particular, would not use the word “ideology” in referring to our convictions. We do not follow anyone laying down an ideology and we reject leadership. The Leftist parties, like all capitalist parties, follow a laid-down ideology and a so-called “vanguard.” We are all equals and we have only come together because we independently agree with our party’s object and declaration of principles. We don’t follow anyone, nor an ideology.
We are not intending to “lead” people into socialism. That would be impossible anyway. We reject all minority action to overthrow capitalism, which can only be done by the workers themselves.Apart from your saying socialism must be global, which I agree with, I don’t understand a word of your definitions above stated. They make no sense to me.
Nazi Germany was a Fascist state since it merged corporate and state power with a dictator at its head. By definition that is Fascism and all the history books conclude the same. Ideology is a system of ideas and ideals that form the basis of an economic and political blueprint. You are misrepresenting what I said and the terms used. I’m not going to waste time in circular debate, please check the definitions of the terms I used and reread as many times as you need to. The idea that the far-left – Communism and far-right – Fascism are related is a new concept that right-whinge think tanks spread. They are polar opposites, to suggest otherwise is a form of cognitive dissonance and internal conflict. When a Communist state becomes a dictatorship it no longer has the right to claim itself Communism, It is no longer controlled by or in the hands of the workers.
Fascism was still capitalism. The state anyway is the executive arm of the capitalist class.
There is footage of Hitler, hat in hand, meekly visiting a steel magnate .
The Nazis took the fall, but the capitalists behind them were rewarded with bonuses after the war and are still here.
By Communism do you mean Bolshevism? Bolshevism is red fascism – capitalism with state ownership.
A communist (socialist) state is a contradiction in terms. Far from it being a new idea spread by the Right, as you suggest, we were exposing Bolshevism already in 1918.We don’t have blueprints. There is no blueprint for socialism. We exist solely as a tool for the workers to use when they are ready to. Once capitalism is overthrown, the Socialist Party will be no more.
No one has argued that Nazi Fascism existed outside of Capitalism – Fascism is the merger of capitalist entities with state entities – how many times do I have to define well-known terms? You are misrepresenting what I said. Nazi Germany was a Fascist regime within a Capitalist system. We are heading for a fascist corporatocracy right now. Look at current legislation such as The Elections Bill, The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Online Safety Bill, Judicial Review and Courts Bill, and Human Rights Act reforms. I’m not going to argue about your conflation of revolution and fascism. Were the French fascists during the French revolution? Conflation and cognitive dissonance seem rife in society these days.
“Fascism is the merger of capitalist entities with state entities.”
I.e. Bolshevism.
Our position has been held by us since 1904, so we are hardly bemuddled by “these days” jargon.
There were fascistic elements in the French Revolution: namely the petit-bourgeois Robespierrists – admired by Lenin.
Fascism had its heyday in the 1920s-40s, and does not really exist today as a movement. It’s in the mouths of the Leftists, of course, and they tend to apply it to everyone they disagree with – as is the case with those Lefties who support the present war in Ukraine (see “Russian Tensions” thread).
Capitalist entities only exist within capitalism! Fascism can therefore only logically exist in a Capitalist structure! How can Communism a replacement for Capitalism contain Fascism? You are conflating violent revolution and violent oppression under Fascism. Robespierrists were revolutionaries fighting for equality against brutal oppression. The French revolution and the American war of independence were both largely due to the writings of Thomas Paine who was present at both.
The Bolshevik states were/are capitalist states too. Communism (socialism) has never existed, save in its primitive form in hunter-gatherer societies.
The Robespierrists were a petit-bourgeois faction frantically holding power briefly from 1792-94 and ruthlessly murdering mostly members of the working class.
Btw, Paine was sentenced to death by the Robespierrists and only escaped due to a blunder. Washington abandoned him to his fate, not lifting a finger to save him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.