Jump to content
Francoist

Is there any fascist alliance in politicsandwar?

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Francoist said:

Fascism is legitimate in the game. Communists hide their crimes under the disguise of beautiful words,  the words and actions of fascists are the same.

There have been dozens of different communist countries across the world, all of them were failures and full of crimes against humanity. Also, communists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat and elimination of other classes, it is beyond me how these beliefs are not evil in your book.

Fascism is not racist (francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Salazar's Portugal), Nazism is racist.

Plenty republics, democracies and every other form of government have been guilty of crimes against humanity all the same. Even the so called land of the free wasn't free for significant minorities until just over a half-century ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Matthew The Great said:

Sorry but I'm not, a large portion of Fascist leaders have their origins in socialist circles and groups. Including the leaders of 2 of the axis powers (Mussolini joined the socialist movement, and Hitler joined the NSDAP). You're right that Fascism has stark differences to socialism, but there is no denying that the ideologies roots lie there.

*Should Digress that I'm referring to the early 20th century fascist revival movements and not the early Italian model, not pre ww1 movements which were somewhat friendlier, and very unlike the fascism we think of today*

It's a pretty complex history, it's fair enough to argue that fascism as a concept has it's roots elsewhere, but the people who managed to put it in action started with socialism 

Read Mein Kampf and then come back to me on how Hitler and the Nazis felt about socialism and trade unions. Heck, a significant portion of Hitler's Anti-Semitic beliefs have their origins within how Hitler felt about trade unions and strikes which occurred during WWI.

Plus, the nationalist socialist element of the name doesn't actually mean they are socialist in origin. After all, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't exactly all that democratic and I would disagree with it being a republic either for that matter.

Facism is a right-wing ideology that was supported by conservative reactionies within central europe and stood in opposition to the socialist movement which is a decidely left-wing ideology. Hitler himself along with the Nazi party themselves were invited into the halls of power upon the requests of the Conservative German right.

Edited by Charles Bolivar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Francoist said:

 

Actually, those pre-history primitive tribes had what communists strive to be. A hunter always split all of its game among other tribesmen and there were no class, no inequality no state no justice system, but since this system rewards lazy people, after a while nobody hunts and they expect others to do it. Therefore, everybody became hungry, then they reached to the conclusion that every hunter should keep its game to himself, therefore the capitalism began.

If we apply the label of "capitalism" very loosely, capitalism began roughly around the same time as the advent of agriculture. If we apply the label of capitalism more accurately, capitalism itself has only been around for the last five centuries or so.

The hunter analogy is irrelevant to what capitalism actually is though. A better example would be of a tribal chief ordering the hunters to go out and hunt a bison whereupon the chief would take half the bison for himself and his own family and then provide the rest of the tribe with the other half whilst brainwashing the tribe into believing they should be thankful for their half-filled bellies since he had ordered them to go out and hunt the bison in the first place.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Francoist Almost every PnW alliance is a dictatorship of one form or another, though many do not style themselves as such. Those that do have "elections" generally have them once the leader needs to step down for some reason. If that is the fascism you are looking for, just browse the alliance page and pick one and you should do OK.

If you want an alliance themed after Franco, Mussolini, or Pinochet, I do not think you will find such an alliance. I would be pretty confident that Franco or Pinochet theme would not be against the rules, and I believe that to be the case for Mussolini as well. Contact Alex and ask if you are concerned.

Also remember that while those might not be against the rules (check with Alex), you may find it hard to make allies given that the population of the server is generally strongly anti-fascist, as you've seen in the conversations above.

As per the rules, https://politicsandwar.com/rules/ , Nazi-esque things are not allowed and you'll likely be reported and banned if you use them.

Edited by Rossiya
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

If we apply the label of "capitalism" very loosely, capitalism began roughly around the same time as the advent of agriculture. If we apply the label of capitalism more accurately, capitalism itself has only been around for the last five centuries or so.

The hunter analogy is irrelevant to what capitalism actually is though. A better example would be of a tribal chief ordering the hunters to go out and hunt a bison whereupon the chief would take half the bison for himself and his own family and then provide the rest of the tribe with the other half whilst brainwashing the tribe into believing they should be thankful for their half-filled bellies since he had ordered them to go out and hunt the bison in the first place.

The root of capitalism is the ownership which began in hunter societies, what they had was the most primitive form of capitalism, the capitalism was a quite little infant baby then. As I said before, Will Durant in his book describes that this how capitalism began, the ownership is the core of capitalism. I also think he is right.

What you are describing in your second paragraph is an early form of government, not related to capitalism.

18 minutes ago, Rossiya said:

@Francoist Almost every PnW alliance is a dictatorship of one form or another, though many do not style themselves as such. Those that do have "elections" generally have them once the leader needs to step down for some reason. If that is the fascism you are looking for, just browse the alliance page and pick one and you should do OK.

If you want an alliance themed after Franco, Mussolini, or Pinochet, I do not think you will find such an alliance. I would be pretty confident that Franco or Pinochet theme would not be against the rules, and I believe that to be the case for Mussolini as well. Contact Alex and ask if you are concerned.

Also remember that while those might not be against the rules (check with Alex), you may find it hard to make allies given that the population of the server is generally strongly anti-fascist, as you've seen in the conversations above.

As per the rules, https://politicsandwar.com/rules/ , Nazi-esque things are not allowed and you'll likely be reported and banned if you use them.

I just wanted to find an alliance who is symbolically fascist. there is no need for the government form of alliance necessary be fascist. As I provided a link in the first post, the game creator believes that fascism can be in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2020 at 12:10 AM, Francoist said:

Look, you are here for 5 years and still don't know that you are in a game made for fun,

If you are looking for a game made for fun, then you're in the wrong place. This game wasn't designed to be fun but to create frustration. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bird Shorten said:

If you are looking for a game made for fun, then you're in the wrong place. This game wasn't designed to be fun but to create frustration. 

pretty based and epic ngl

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Francoist said:

The situation that pre-historic tribes had are pretty much all things that communists want. While communism claims that it is progressive, it is actually very reactionary, it wants to destroy many of human achievements like government, justice systems, banks and etc. You can say communism is against civilization and wants to return to pre-history societies.

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. 

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

It is clear that you unfortunately didn't understand or properly read my previous post, so I am going to repeat it. We have a tribe here, all of them hunters, whenever somebody hunts they split it among all tribe members, this is the beginning situation for all pre-history tribes. Like any society, there are some lazy people in this tribe, they don't hunt (or hunt less) but still other people split their game with them. After a while the guys who hunt ask themselves why we should hunt when others are willing to split their game with us? It is better to let others hunt for me, so the number of active hunters is going to decrease while the number of lazy people are increased. So, there is no enough hunters in the tribe and there going to be a famine. Then all tribe members gather together to find a solution, what is their solution? Everybody hunt for themselves and keep the game for his family, there is no need for sharing. They are still a pre-historic tribe but people own their preys. In this way everybody had to hunt for themselves. This owning stuff is going to spread to other stuffs like spears and etc. The pre-historic tribe reached to the conclusion that not sharing the preys is the solution for the aforementioned problem, I never said tribes are lazy. Owing stuff was their idea. 

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.

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

Now capitalism is based on the ownership, when the ownership began the capitalism also began. A hunter who hunts more is going to have a better life than the neighboring lazy hunter. Because the active hunter has more preys, he can exchange them for better equipment, so he has better life, better equipment, therefore the inequality began. Now, when the active hunter dies, his children has a better start then the lazy man's family, therefore the gap between them can be widened after a while,  so we are going to have different classes, one poor one rich. It is primitive in nature, but the situation is quite close to what we have in a capitalistic country. The tribe had proto-communism and then proto-capitalism.  Marx also got some inspirations from this proto-communist tribes. Now, what is the source for the stuff that I said? Unlike you who apparently get all of the information from the internet, I sometimes read  books. The book who described this development of tribes is "The Story of Civilization by Will Durant, the first volume:Our Oriental Heritage, chapter one:The Establishment of Civilization". How capitalism is began and how was the primitive-communism is all described there. This is not some stuff that I invented myself, your lack of information about them just makes you the ignorant one here.

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.

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

A communist who does not believe in Karl Marx, is like a christian who does not believe in Jesus. You can consider these non-Marxist communists as a bunch of anarchists. They also never took power in any country, so they are irrelevant. 

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".

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

As I said before, the the dictatorship of the proletariat and the elimination of classes (and also eliminating religious beliefs) are some indications that communism is quite authoritarian and essentially evil. Communism wants total control of every aspect of a human life, it wants to impose its atheistic and materialistic views on everybody, it has even a dress code. If you are a rich people, then communists in the name equality will come to your doors and violently ask for all of your wealth that you and your previous generations made by hard working and then maybe shoot you. Fascism does not care about your religious beliefs or how you dress or your wealth, therefore clearly communism is more totalitarian than fascism. Communism creates equality by making all people poor (of course their leaders have quite a luxury life like Ceausescu). While in a capitalist nation, the middle and rich classes have a good situation. Fascism is based on the observation of human history (and even nature) that if you don't get strong, others will smash you. It is a bitter truth. While communism is just based on the fantasies that never going to work. Communism does not reward efficiency, therefore it is bound to fail. Since in a communist state,  people does not get fired for inefficiency, the system is inefficient and it is eventually going to fail. Refer to "The End of the Cold War by David Pietrusza" for more information about how this inefficiency led to the Fall of Communism.

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.

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

You always accusing me of lying, but you are the one that denying obvious facts, the official party of Khmer rouge was "communist party of Kampuchea", it tells you everything about them.  Khmer rouge also had support from other communist states like china.

They actually got closer to the communist "heaven" than any other communist states, because the eventual goal of communism is to destroy civilization. This is why Khmer rouge is described as the purest form of Marxism (and communism). 

Communism is built on the destruction of the individual in favor of the society. As I mentioned before, there is lot more individuality in fascism in comparison to communism. 

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:

image.png

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.

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

They actually got closer to the communist "heaven" than any other communist states, because the eventual goal of communism is to destroy civilization. This is why Khmer rouge is described as the purest form of Marxism (and communism). 

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.

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

A nation can be created from different ethnic groups, fascism concentrates on the nation, while the basis of Nazism is on race. The lack of anti-Semitic behavior in fascist countries that I mentioned shows that they considered Jews their own countrymen. I give you several examples of fascist states that weren't racist, so it clearly shows that fascism is not essentially racist.

So a communist can criticize fascism for being authoritarian and he is not hypocrite but the other way around is not correct?

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.

5 hours ago, Francoist said:

I think you are the one that embarrasses himself more than anybody by stating falsehoods. Your post is full of misinformation, as I said to big brother, in a communist state, you don't have religious freedoms, you cannot accumulate wealth, you  even have a dress code, so clearly communism is more extreme. Btw, Fascist states began in 1920's not 1930's, also as I said before economically communist states were all failures, while fascist states have a much better score in economy (for example refer to the Spanish economic miracle during Franco's reign). 

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?

Edited by Big Brother
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
 
noun
 
  1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
     
     
    Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
     
    As you can see, one definition does not relate to cruel dictatorships, and the other does. Communism is not supposed to be cruel and horrible, but Fascism is.
     

      

    7 hours ago, Francoist said:

    The root of capitalism is the ownership which began in hunter societies, what they had was the most primitive form of capitalism, the capitalism was a quite little infant baby then. As I said before, Will Durant in his book describes that this how capitalism began, the ownership is the core of capitalism. I also think he is right.What you are describing in your second paragraph is an early form of government, not related to capitalism.

    I just wanted to find an alliance who is symbolically fascist. there is no need for the government form of alliance necessary be fascist. As I provided a link in the first post, the game creator believes that fascism can be in the game.

    Also, an alliance that symbolically represents Fascism is still terrible, because it means that they are imitating people who committed terrible crimes against humanity.



     
     
Edited by PeeledTurnip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

2 hours of furious typing later...

image.png.1a781aee80d4e36c2631d161a709947e.png

You put more effort into your OWF posts than I do for school essays.

Edited by Changeup
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Big brother, using personal attacks and calling me fool, troll, hypocrite and etc just shows that due to your lack of dialectical ability, you are getting angry.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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. 

A civilization has some important aspects like government, hierarchy, trading, money, justice system, security forces and etc. Communism wants to destroy all of it, so what remains is pretty much something like a pre-history tribe.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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.

Believe it or not every political or economic process has a beginning and until it reaches the current form, it needs to take a long road. Capitalism as an infant began when the ownership began, like pre-historic hunter societies, some pre-historic agricultural societies shared all of their agricultural products in the beginning, they shared everything equally regardless of how much a person worked on the farm,  but again since this proto-communism rewards lazy people, they decided it is more efficient that families own their products.

Long before Plato,  coinage, trading system, merchants were present. It really shows your ignorance if you think private property began around 400-300BC, long before that in ancient Egypt in big cities there were many rich people who lived in their palaces, poor people lived in their farms, some of their farms were under rent of government, some other farmers owned their farms.

I just checked and it seems you wikipedia'd  "private property" and reached to the conclusion that private property was invented by Plato!!! It is written like this in your beloved wikipedia, "Ideas about and discussion of private property date back at least as far as Plato". It means philosophical aspects of private ownership were discussed by Plato. I know you only like to read short sentences, but please at least read it properly. Long before Plato, people owned houses, palaces, farms and other stuff in civilizations like China, Egypt, Assyria, India, Babylon, Achaemenid Persia and others.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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.

Well, you only cite information from wikipedia, since you don't like to read long books. So, the existence of books in the internet does not help you. You just want to find some information (preferably in short sentences) in the internet as fast as possible to counter my points.

As I said before, the development of capitalism began by ownership, it does not mean the current form of capitalism created by the hands of pre-history people. Please read my responds correctly, I know you don't like long sentences, but you may learn one or two things from my posts.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

 If this is the kind of nonsense Will Durant is telling you, I doubt his books are useful for anything other than toilet paper.

Now this is a really important sentence. As I said before, Communism wants to destroy the civilization, so it is completely normal for a communist to think that "the story of civilization by Will Durant" is just useful for toilet paper. Thank you for showing that I am telling the truth.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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".

If my definition of Christians is irrelevant, can a christian not believe in Jesus? These non-Marxist communist are some irrelevant and experimental political thoughts that suggested by some random dudes with minor effect on politics. If you insist to take them into consideration,  they are some sort of anarchists.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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.

Well your non-Marxist communists and anarchists still wants to destroy government, monetary system, police forces, judicial system and etc. Therefore, they want to destroy the civilization. They also want the forcible acquisition of wealth which is done by using force. They also want to impose their atheistic and materialistic views on the people. So, they are not very different than Marxists. 

Both ideologies wan total political control, but As I said before, fascists don't care about your religion, wealth, while communists want control over your beliefs and money.

Communist dress code is different in every communist country, some like north Korea or Maoist china or Khmer rouge had a really strict dress code, others just wanted you does not look like a bourgeoisie person (fancy dress and lux stuff).

In practice we have seen the soviet union that was created by Lenin (and other communist countries by Marx and others' ideology) what have done in practice. Also, if you want to learn the truth about anything, you need study its supporters and opponents's views. For communism you just read the communist books (if you read them actually) but not their opponents. That is way you are dogmatic about communism.

About your third paragraph, if you really think the Maoist china and current china both had the same capitalist mode of production, then you are clearly ignorant. Actually Mao tried his best in Great Leap Forward to create a socialistic mode of production but it lead to death of millions. Communist states tried their best to have a socialistic mode of production, but it never worked, so they had to retain some capitalistic aspects. Even if what you said in this paragraph is true, then why they couldn't achieve a socialistic mode of production? Isn't it because it is impossible and only will lead to famine and chaos?

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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:

image.png

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.

In comparison to communism there is more individuality in fascism. Refer to stuff I said about religion and wealth. You don't read my posts correctly.

The nationalism in Khmer rouge is like socialism in Nazism. If Khmer rouge is a nationalistic group, then Nazism is also socialist. 

Also, the use of communists by foreign powers is not something new, Lenin and other comrades, came to Russia by using German money and train in 1917. Supposedly Khmer rouge got support from USA, does not prove that they are not communists.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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.

You are just saying just because they got money form US, they are not communist. It is false. They got closer to your communist heaven more than anybody else. Their good rival is Maoist china.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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.

There is no "communists that reject authority in favor of liberty", maybe you are talking about social democrats. A communist needs authority to run his plans.

A nationalist prefers his own countrymen (which can be consisted of various ethnic groups) over foreigners. That does mean putting priority on your own people. It is not related to the race,

Both ideologies kill their opponents, but the economy of fascist or right-wing states is better than communist countries. The fascist states also do not care about people's religious beliefs or wealth. Everything bad in fascism is worse in a communist country.

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

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?

As I said I know the communist's dream is something like a primitive tribe. In your recent post, the stuff you said about Plato, Will Durant and Khmer rouge was really bad and embarrassing. Also, the communist countries only going to remain in their dictatorship of proletariat phase, creating their heaven is not possible unless you return to pre-history.

My whole point here was that communism is worse than fascism. I am comparing these two. That doesn't mean fascist states were the best places on the earth. Usually these fascist states were created (by army or by popular support) for confronting the red threat, usually after a while they get softer and transfer the power to civilians. Communism does not give up the power unless they are faced by a bloody revolution or a total economic collapse.

3 hours ago, PeeledTurnip said:
com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
 
noun
 
  1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
     
     
    Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
     
    As you can see, one definition does not relate to cruel dictatorships, and the other does. Communism is not supposed to be cruel and horrible, but Fascism is.

Refer to my points regarding the dictatorship of proletariat, elimination of classes, communism views about religion, wealth and other stuff in comparison of fascism and communism. Please try to put more pressure on yourself and do not make a conclusion just based on reading two sentences in a dictionary.

Edited by Francoist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Francoist said:

Big brother, using personal attacks and calling me fool, troll, hypocrite and etc just shows that due to your lack of dialectical ability, you are getting angry.

 

On 7/13/2020 at 5:54 PM, Francoist said:

You know Japanese that you love their manga and anime so much are overtly nationalist. Most of their prime ministers visit the Yasukuni temple regularly. They also deny the Nanking massacre.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hime-sama said:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

No, I was just giving some information about your love, Japan. Was my information incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Francoist said:

No, I was just giving some information about your love, Japan. Was my information incorrect?

You're the last person I would go to for correct information, get it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Changeup said:

image.png.1a781aee80d4e36c2631d161a709947e.png

You put more effort into your OWF posts than I do for school essays.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Big Brother said:

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.

Most of his evidence can be refuted with "citation needed" he's literally got nothing as far as "prehistoric times" goes. Literally him below. 

 

Edited by PhantomThiefB
spelling lol
  • Haha 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what this is all about but Foxunism is the only ideaology worth supporting.

Prove me Wrong!

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PhantomThiefB said:

Most of his evidence can be refuted with "citation needed" he's literally got nothing as far as "prehistoric times" goes. Literally him below. 

 

Some people called me a troll in this thread, look who really is a classic troll. I cited "The Story of Civilization by Will Durant" and "The End of the Cold War by David Pietrusza". You didn't even try to read my posts (I know it is hard for you to read long texts), so I'm quite sure you have never heard of these books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you're confused. Communism is not about brutally suppressing your subjects. And that's why it's accepted by most people here, and not fascism. If you want to go and support Fascism, go ahead. Just do it somewhere far far away from this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Havgle said:

It seems you're confused. Communism is not about brutally suppressing your subjects. And that's why it's accepted by most people here, and not fascism. If you want to go and support Fascism, go ahead. Just do it somewhere far far away from this game.

Having fascist alliances is legal in this game. It is not for somebody like you to decide where should I go. If my presence bothers you, you can get out of this game. Also, read my previous posts about dictatorship of proletariat, elimination of classes, communism views about religion, forcible acquisition of bourgeoisie's wealth. All of these are done forcefully and violently in a communist country.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm way too lazy to read all of this, but fwiw the concept of some idealized racial and ethnic is the foundation of fascism.  Fascism is only functional insofar as ethnonationalism is enforced.  People buy into the rigid social structure, bigotry and economic controls for some semblance of its "for the party" or "for the country."  This presents as some master race like the aryans in Germany, or–with your beloved Franco–the brutal crusade against the 'Jewish Masons' and the 'Moorish communists.'  Fascism is inherently a gateway to allowing bigotry, and I've got the lineage to understand that personally.  Understanding that institutional oppression towards "the other" enshrined in fascism will help you to understand why it's mostly not tolerated in Orbis even if it's allowed.  

Speaking from experience, the models that do best here are meritocratic and usually authoritarian/benevolent dictator-type of governments.  If you're here for fascism, you're pushing the wrong level, and I'd suggest you reevaluate your priorities.  It's not a joke to some people to even RP prejudice, racism or any ideology presenting some form of structural violence as a tent.  

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I'm way too lazy to read all of this, but fwiw the concept of some idealized racial and ethnic is the foundation of fascism.  Fascism is only functional insofar as ethnonationalism is enforced.  People buy into the rigid social structure, bigotry and economic controls for some semblance of its "for the party" or "for the country."  This presents as some master race like the aryans in Germany, or–with your beloved Franco–the brutal crusade against the 'Jewish Masons' and the 'Moorish communists.'  Fascism is inherently a gateway to allowing bigotry, and I've got the lineage to understand that personally.  Understanding that institutional oppression towards "the other" enshrined in fascism will help you to understand why it's mostly not tolerated in Orbis even if it's allowed.  

Speaking from experience, the models that do best here are meritocratic and usually authoritarian/benevolent dictator-type of governments.  If you're here for fascism, you're pushing the wrong level, and I'd suggest you reevaluate your priorities.  It's not a joke to some people to even RP prejudice, racism or any ideology presenting some form of structural violence as a tent.  

You are deeply mislead, fascism is based on nation, a nation can be consisted of different ethnic groups. Also, there were no systematic antisemitism in Francoist Spain. Moorish communists?? There were no moors in Spain since their prosecution after Reconquista. You are just making a baseless story all by yourself

Communism doesn't have "structural violence"?  It wants to violently destroy many aspects of a civilization. Communism created Millions of victims. Why are  you not opposed to communism? Communism is a joke for you? If you can tolerate Communism, then tolerate fascism as well.

Edited by Francoist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I'm way too lazy to read all of this, but fwiw the concept of some idealized racial and ethnic is the foundation of fascism.  Fascism is only functional insofar as ethnonationalism is enforced.  

Do you make a distinction between fascism and nationalism? Additionally, can a nation act in a way that can be interpreted as nationalistic but still be morally acceptable? Not interested in arguing, just wanting to pick at your brain.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

economic controls for some semblance of its "for the party" or "for the country."  

Isn't this okay though? I find 'third way' economics appealing. Communism has a shitty track record historically, and I'm strongly disillusioned with the state of corporate control, power, greed, and influence here in the United States. Seems like with a 'fascist' economy, you can get the best of both worlds: Free market playgrounds for the best of the best to succeed, and the economy exists only to serve the people (unlike now in the US, where it seems people exist to serve the economy). 

Perhaps I'm ignorant and don't know what I'm talking about. Again, I don't want to argue. I know these things are hard to talk about. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Francoist said:

Some people called me a troll in this thread, look who really is a classic troll. I cited "The Story of Civilization by Will Durant" and "The End of the Cold War by David Pietrusza". You didn't even try to read my posts (I know it is hard for you to read long texts), so I'm quite sure you have never heard of these books.

Neither of these books are related to "Prehistoric times" Try again.😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, PhantomThiefB said:

Neither of these books are related to "Prehistoric times" Try again.😂

The chapter one:The Establishment of Civilization in the first volume of The Story of Civilization, is mainly about pre-history. Check it out before you make a troll out of yourself.

The other book was cited for the other stuff that I said about communism.

Edited by Francoist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.