Big Brother

We will have our revolution one day, brothers. We will paint it all red.

The image displayed is from Antifaschistische Aktion, not the KPD. The fact that some people from the KPD started that organization does not make it the same organization as the KPD, obviously. There's nothing here that implies that anyone is a member of the KPD and suggesting that a symbol signifying opposition to fascism and the like is somehow indicative of supporting fascism or NSDAP is beyond ridiculous, just plain irrational nonsense probably rooted in you twisting things to suit your own erroneous beliefs.

Bark bark, !@#$. Why?

Yes.

Oceania has never existed. Oceania will always exist.

Nice.

Obligatory

Lmao sure buddy, I'll get right on that. Looks like Akuryo isn't the only one that's good at claiming everything is fascism.

Oh please. If you genuinely believe that the people who want to silence fascists are the same as the people they want to silence, you're the one with brain cell issues. It's difficult to even take you seriously when you just regurgitate the same old nonsense arguments some fool shoved in your head. Think for yourself. Besides, you're misinterpreting his post. He's implying that regular average people who aren't actually fascists will at times go along with and maybe even support fascists, not that they or literally anyone opposed to him personally are fascists. Stop twisting his words so you can go "lol anti-fascists r teh real fascists!!2" for the billionth time. The fact that you want to smear people who actually want to stand up to fascism sets of some serious alarms in my head man. It's not a good look.

>Actually taking PragerU seriously

I just assumed it was based on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn Why? Because it's the only cool option.

Ah, I thought I recognized the Star Forge on that flag. Good luck guys.

I think they're all made up.

Do you not? Smh, nerd.

DuckTales

Haha man, I wish I had been as motivated to write my own school essays as I was for writing that post. I guess there's something motivational about someone posting things that just aren't accurate. Probably explains quite a few long discussions on this forum. He's a lost cause though and I think I've made my points clear enough by now, doesn't seem like there's any further reason to continue.

No, they didn't. Who filled your head with all this nonsense? You're denying basic facts. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. Prehistoric society did in no way whatsoever have "pretty much all things that communist want". And they most certainly are not reactionary. Are you actually trolling or are you really this misinformed? Communism does not seek a return to prehistoric civilization. This is a lie and I'm starting to get fed up with you making up your own version of the truth instead of presenting the actual facts. Either you're a deluded fool or you're deliberately trying to mislead people. Wow. So you have no idea what prehistoric society is like, when capitalism came into existence or what defines capitalism. You're making up a fantasy version of what "society" was like back then just to fit your own nonsense narrative. Private ownership is something that came with agriculture, it did not exist in prehistoric society. You are simply not being truthful. If you were lazy during prehistoric times, you would most likely starve. It's unlikely that people back then decided to continue to share something with anyone who didn't contribute to the tribe. You're really just making things up at this point. Owning stuff was not in any way the idea of prehistoric tribes. You're lying again. The first documented cases of any discussion of private property like what you're referring to happened during Plato's time, which is still quite a bit after prehistoric times. So, you're wrong. Private property as a legal definition and as a form of commercial property came about in the 17th century. Not prehistoric times. Please, for the love of God, look these things up before you make yourself look like even more of a fool. You do realize there are books on the internet as well? And articles with references to books, peer-reviewed scientific journals and so on? Heh, if you only read physical books and nothing from the internet, no wonder your view of things is so skewed. No, ownership is not enough to qualify something as being capitalist. Like I mentioned before, the core characteristics of capitalism are wage labor, private ownership and market dependence. Meeting one of these criteria is not enough, you must meet all of them to qualify something as capitalist. And that's ignoring the fact that capitalism is also characterized by commodity production, capital accumulation, investments and use of price mechanisms. None of these things existed in prehistoric society. And if they one day decided or came up with the idea of owning things, that's fine, but that's not the invention of capitalism. Privately owning something alone is not enough. People owned things privately in feudalism too, at least some people. They still didn't live in capitalism, which hadn't been invented yet. If this is the kind of nonsense Will Durant is telling you, I doubt his books are useful for anything other than toilet paper. Your definition of communists or Christians are irrelevant. They're not true or accurate to anyone but you. The fact of the matter is that there are different kinds of communists, whether you like it or not, whether it fits your ideas of the world or not. The world does not shape itself according to what you think is true. As for whether or not they're relevant based on whether or not they took power in a country.. What? We're discussing the different branches of communism and they are relevant to that discussion. If you don't think they're important based on your arbitrary definition that's fine but they are relevant within the scope of this discussion. You don't get to dismiss things out of hand in a discussion because of nonsense like "they never took power so they don't matter". Look buddy, I just explained to you how not all communists want the dictatorship of the proletariat or the physical elimination of classes. Marxist-Leninists do, others don't. This is a fact and you need to acknowledge this otherwise we're just going in circles. You say communism wants total control of every aspect of human life, this is false. That's called totalitarianism and totalitarianism is not an inherent part of communism, nor is authority. They are arguably an inherent part of your own ideology of fascism though so good job on making yourself look like a hypocrite again. I mean, Communism has a dress code? Where do you get this nonsense? Out of all the stupid arguments against communism I've seen, that's one of the dumbest ones. You do realize that both socialism and communism have roots from libertarian ideas? That their goals are to maximize personal freedom? I realize it's difficult for you to see through all the lies and slander but if you read about the theory from the people who write it, aka actual socialist and communist theoreticians, this becomes fairly obvious. What you're doing is perpetuating the same red scare nonsense propaganda that isn't connected with the reality of things at all. If you want to be against communism, that's fine. But you are doing yourself a disservice by basing your opposition on nonsense and what has been written about communists by people hostile to them. If you want to find actual credible arguments against communism, you need to read Marx, Luxembourg, Lenin and so on. They are the best authorities on what communism actually is. As for communism and efficiency, you do realize that the entire Warsaw Pact (Romania, Hungary, Chzechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc.), the Soviet Union, China (to this day), Venezuela, Cuba, all use the capitalist mode of production? They did not and do not have socialist or communist economies, they have capitalist economies. Their economies were/are all characterized by the same things that characterize capitalism, market dependence, wage labor, and so on. Here's what you need to understand: a country being run by a communist or socialist party does not make everything in that country communist or socialist. It's very much recognized that China, run by the Chinese Communist Party, has a state capitalist economy. The same can be said of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. So, if they're all so inefficient and they all use the capitalist mode of production, I think it follows logically that it was their inefficient version of capitalism that contributed the economic collapse of the USSR. You're describing fascism, not communism. If you think there's individuality in fascism, if you think there's anything that isn't subservient to the state in fascism, you don't even know how your own ideology works. How sad. You are lying, albeit perhaps unknowingly. Yes, Pol Pot led the so-called Communist Party of Kampuchea. But you need to understand that calling yourself communist doesn't matter if you don't actually practice communism. They lied to you, they lied to get international support, like from China, which I already mentioned in my post, not sure why you felt the need to repeat it. They were supported by both the Chinese and the Americans. They wanted to use the Khmer Rouge as a buffer against communist North Vietnam. So, you have "capitalist" US, communist led China supporting a Khmer nationalist group (who lied and claimed to be communist in order to get support from China, I'm sure they lied to get American support too) in order to combat communist Vietnam. But it's no secret that the Khmer Rouge lied and manipulated, presenting themselves to some as communist while in practice embracing Khmer nationalism, agrarianism and autarky. Here are some excerpts from a declassified transcript (through the Freedom of Information Act) of a conversation between the Secretary of State of the United States during that time of the Cold War, Henry Kissinger, and Thai officials about Cambodia: If you would like to read the full document click here but do not for one second think that you're more informed on this particular subject than I am, you have done nothing but display your ignorance. This is false and I'm not going to spend any more time on it. Either you're unwittingly lying again or you're deliberately trying to mislead people. Regardless, it's just not true. To answer your question; yes, some communists can criticize fascism for being authoritarian without being hypocritical, namely communists that reject authority in favor of liberty. Communists who embrace authority and criticize fascists for being dictatorial are hypocrites, just like fascists who criticize authoritarian communists (like M-Ls) are hypocrites. I did not say that fascism is essentially or inherently racist. Please go back and re-read my post to verify that if you want. I did say that fascists are often racists (not always) and that European fascist movements have embraced racism. If you want to ignore the fact that fascists tend to put a lot of emphasis on race as well to make yourself feel better, that's okay, we all have our self-delusions. But it doesn't change the truth that nationalism and fascism often lead people to believe in racist views. Not always but often. I understand completely that maybe you're not racist and that you really need fascism not to be racist in order to feel comfortable with yourself, I really do. Sadly for you, that simply isn't reality. And again, not being anti-Semitic doesn't mean you can't be racist. It doesn't mean that racism didn't exist in those fascist countries. I mean, in Italy to this day, the audience of football matches make ape-noises and throw bananas at black football players. Racism existed and continues to exist in almost every Western country and Francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile and Salazar's Portugal are no exceptions. Even if you ignore racism completely, I'm not familiar with Salazar, but Pinochet and Franco both used the state to murder thousands of people, just like Mao, Stalin and all those so-called communists you hate. They're just as bad and you are just as bad for embracing their views. No dude, you're the one who's embarrassing yourself. Not him. The fact that you don't know or don't accept that a communist state is an oxymoron shows how embarrassing your lack of knowledge is. Communism is stateless, therefore there can be no communist state. The countries you're talking about were socialist states, or claimed to be, and their economies were all state capitalist, like I mentioned before. They were far more characterized by authoritarianism and state capitalism than they were by socialism. In fact, some people might even call those countries fascists dressing up as socialists. The things you are hating on, the things you are criticizing are things you yourself claim to be in support of. This is the definition of hypocrisy. If you are so opposed to state violence, to the collective taking precedence over the individual, to dictatorship, to lack of freedom, all of which are key characteristics of fascist states, then renounce fascism just like you renounce authoritarian communism. It should be easy. Renounce fascism and your hypocrisy will be at its end. That's all you have to do. Until then, your words are wind. Besides, if all these fascist states were so much better, efficient and successful, why aren't they around now? Where have they gone? Why have most of the population of Europe and perhaps the world rejected fascism and branded it as evil? If they were such great societies, why did they not last and why do so many people hate them?

No true communist would suggest a return to pre-historic society. The fact that there are some aspects of pre-historic society that one could find again in communist does not change the fact that there are also countless other aspects of communist society that didn't exist in prehistoric times and could not be achieved at that level of technology. As for your statement about laziness, you have no proof whatsoever to present and I should dismiss it completely as nonsense unless you do provide some proof. How do you imagine that there was any advancement from prehistoric society to agricultural and then modern society if the hunter-gatherers back then were just lazy and sat around doing nothing? How did agriculture come about in the first place if everyone living in prehistoric times was lazy and unwilling to work or think of new ideas? It doesn't make sense. And are you seriously suggesting that capitalism came into existence during prehistoric times? Are you joking? Why are you saying these things that anyone with an internet connection could invalidate within minutes, if not seconds? If you had bothered to actually learn about the things you're talking about before you talk about them, you'd know that the roots of modern capitalism originate during the renaissance. The core characteristics of capitalism are wage labor, private ownership of the means of production and market dependence. There was no wage labor during pre-historic times and no market to sell labor or goods. Arguably, means of production might have been privately owned but that becomes irrelevant when they consist of rocks and sticks you could find anywhere in nature. It's not the same as private ownership as it exists in modern capitalism. Your claims about the origins of capitalism are categorically false and you are lying to yourself and to others with that description of its origins. The only part of this segment of your post that has a shred of truth to it is what you wrote about communists and anarchists. However, it's only half the truth. You're ignoring the fact that there exists many different varieties of both communism and anarchism. The fact is that there are varieties of communism that reject the dictatorship of the proletariat in its entirety and seek solutions more similar to those typical anarchists seek. It follows from this fact that when you say "communists want the dictatorship of the proletariat" you are erroneously grouping every communist that does not want that in with those who do. It's simply incorrect and inaccurate. Some communists (like Marxist-Leninists) want the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some communists (like anarcho-communists) don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat. You should specify which variant you're referring to instead of wrongly putting them all in the same box, however convenient that might be for you. Your response is incorrect. While fascism and Nazism have characteristics that define them as inherently repressive and authoritarian, the same simply is not true of communism and to claim otherwise is contrary to the facts. Anyone that reads about communism, fascism and Nazism with a clear mind can attest to this. You're full of contradictions. You say you're not defending fascism (though you very clearly have been throughout this thread) and then in the next sentence you go on to claim that fascism works better than communism economically, which is a defense of fascism. Your defense isn't entirely wrong, depending on your perspective. In a purely theoretical and economical sense, fascism acts better for the few. In the same regard, communism acts better for the many. The forcible redistribution of wealth is a tenet of some forms of communism, you're right. And while there are some communists that would agree with the "physical elimination" of the bourgeois, there are also many that don't. Your generalizations just aren't accurate. As for the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer Rouge were not communists. In fact, they have been described as anti-Marxist.They primarily subscribed to Khmer nationalism and autarky. The fact that you're not aware of this fact is just another display of your lack of knowledge about these matters. The Khmer Rouge were brought to power, with American and Chinese support, as a result of an American bombing campaign in Cambodia (targeting the People's Army of Vietnam) which killed thousands of civilians and enraged the civilian population against the allegedly US-supported government at the time, causing them to join the Khmer Rouge in droves. As it turns out, having your loved ones killed by American bombs tends to make people angry enough to want to take arms. Regardless, while the Khmer Rouge might have employed left-wing rhetoric at times they were in practice and "behind the scenes" xenophobic Khmer nationalists who in no way sought to actually institute socialism or communism. Even ignoring this, it is a joke that you, a fascist, is criticizing anyone for wanting to destroy cities and their inhabitants. Fascism is built on the destruction of the individual in favor of the state. You have zero credibility in criticizing such actions when you are clearly willing to support them yourself, for the right cause. No, a lack of anti-semitism does not prove that they weren't systematically racist. If Jews were the only people you could be racist against, maybe that would be true. But that's nowhere close to being the case. So, your defense against fascism being racist is "but look at all these other guys, they're racist too!"? That doesn't cut it. You're basically saying that racism does exist within fascism and other nationalist ideologies but because racism has been present in democracies, socialist states, and whatever else, that's okay. Here's the thing, it isn't. I condemn any racism in the Soviet Union, China, the United States, fascist Italy and wherever else. I never claimed that racism is limited to fascism but the fact that it isn't doesn't excuse the disgusting fact that fascists are often racists. It is not an argument against the connection between fascism and racism whatsoever, nor is the claim that looking down on non-Europeans predates fascism. Fascism perpetuates it, which is only further grounds for criticizing fascism. Here's a piece of advice, if you want to criticize anything you better make sure you're not criticizing someone else for something you yourself support. It ruins any credibility you might have and makes you look like a hypocrite.