General News Thread

[SpoonyViking]

I'm not a fan of Fascism, but labeling its symbols as hate speech opens the door to labeling any and all political symbols as the same.

Not really. We can - and should - talk about the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communist Party or the Khmer Rouge, and so on and so forth; but there's nothing in any Marxist or Socialist ethos which intrinsically calls for acts of violence. Fascist ideologies, however, are predicated on having an enemy which must be fought; violence is an inherent part of its DNA. It's the difference between a steak knife - which can be used to commit violence, but doesn't have violence as its purpose - and a pistol, whose sole purpose is causing injury or death (or threatening the same).

[Twelveseal]

Hmmm, fair enough. One could debate the nature of the revolution as seen in traditional Communist thought, but it's certainly true that it isn't exclusively interpreted as violent in modern politics.

[Maltese]

but there's nothing in any Marxist or Socialist ethos which intrinsically calls for acts of violence.

From The Communist Manifesto:

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

[AsGryffynn]

From The Communist Manifesto:

One could argue it's not necessarily violent. On the other hand...

a) Overcoming the class struggle. Considering all those who contribute to production as interested in the same great common enterprise: For the same reason, the union will not be horizontal, but vertical, at the service of that common enterprise.

b) Guarantee of a vital and human minimum to the worker.

c) Guarantee of his participation in economic, social and political life, through the Trade Union Organization.

d) In turn, the State discharged itself from multiple arbitration, and even economic issues, to focus on its specific political function.

e) Organize the socio-economic life on this corporate basis, on this premise (and the other natural units of coexistence, mainly the family and the municipality) the representative structure of the State will be built.

Political Structure of Spain, Textbook of the subject Formation of the National Spirit

Do be aware this was declared by Primo de Rivera, not by Franco, so the goals could've easily changed throughout the Civil War.

[LegalLoliLover]

Not really. We can - and should - talk about the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communist Party or the Khmer Rouge, and so on and so forth; but there's nothing in any Marxist or Socialist ethos which intrinsically calls for acts of violence. Fascist ideologies, however, are predicated on having an enemy which must be fought; violence is an inherent part of its DNA. It's the difference between a steak knife - which can be used to commit violence, but doesn't have violence as its purpose - and a pistol, whose sole purpose is causing injury or death (or threatening the same).

Between the ideal and the tangible, the tangible is always more important. Fuck, there was an episode of My Name is Earl where a pistol was used exclusively to save someone's life without killing anyone (via popping apparently very strong balloons in turn as to allow someone to safely drift downwards slowly, as opposed to letting them float into space or plummet to their doom).

[aldeayeah]

Both my grandpas were drafted and wounded in the Spanish Civil War (one lost a leg), my wife's great-grandpa went to exile never to return, and her great-grandma was beaten to half death. And the son she was expecting (my wife's grandpa) was shunned, denied a surname and raised as a bastard. All thanks to that bunch.

So I guess you'll understand me not being thrilled about clowns of all sorts parading their symbols.

[Twelveseal]

Yeah, that's fair.

[Spinach]

That settles that, as far as I'm concerned.

[SpoonyViking]

From The Communist Manifesto:

"The existing social and political order of things". That doesn't (necessarily) mean "let's put all landlords and factory owners against the wall and shoot them" or similar.

[Trubo]

Not really. We can - and should - talk about the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communist Party or the Khmer Rouge, and so on and so forth; but there's nothing in any Marxist or Socialist ethos which intrinsically calls for acts of violence. Fascist ideologies, however, are predicated on having an enemy which must be fought; violence is an inherent part of its DNA. It's the difference between a steak knife - which can be used to commit violence, but doesn't have violence as its purpose - and a pistol, whose sole purpose is causing injury or death (or threatening the same).

To add onto what Maltese posted, this.

To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party[the bourgeois], whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.

Also, what is a "forcible overthrow" if not a violent act?

[SpoonyViking]

None of that is inherently built into the ethos that workers should have control of the means of production, though; that's just Marx and Engels being pragmatic and saying "yeah, be prepared to fight for that, because the bourgeoisie won't relinquish socio-economic control through peaceful means". In a peaceful societal transition (which may or may not be an utopic notion), that wouldn't be a necessary measure. It's quite different from a philosophy built upon the idea of a palingenetic ultranationalism, which demands not only the existence of an enemy, but the individual's heroic sacrifice against said enemy.

[OverMaster]

My opinion of Franco matches that of a certain famous Spanish cartoonist who lived through the Franquism.

[RacingeR]

But even if I was actually advocating for Francoism, I'd associate said ideology more to [...] and to a lesser extent, Peronism.

Ahahaha.

No.

[OverMaster]

By the way, in Spanish we call it "Franquismo", so I'm not used to "Francoism" to denominate it, but I suppose that different language, different phrasing and all that.

[Twelveseal]

Pretty much. It's just a translation thing.

[Trubo]

Amazing how Trump isn't out of office yet and I'm still dreading the next four years and potentially a Harris presidency attempt.

[Trubo]

The saddest thing is that this sounds like something Trump would say and how he would say it.

[Mattias]

Yikes. Angrily stating that you beat you're opponent as accomplishment #1 is never a good sign, makes anything you actually do accomplish seem like it's less important than you gaining power.

On the other side asking someone why he hasn't fixed things when he still hasn't started the job is pretty dickish, too.

[Trubo]

On the other side asking someone why he hasn't fixed things when he still hasn't started the job is pretty dickish, too.

It's not like he's been in DC for the better part of 5 decades in the House, Senate, and as Vice President, all while setting in stone how fucking terrible a record he has on nearly every important issue in the modern day.

Even setting that aside, Biden could have been using his status as the Dem nominee to take the 1.8T deal from before election day rather than settle for the objectively worse deal being pursued now. Biden could be giving daily press conferences or even simple statements of all the things he will be doing in his first 100 days. But nope, of all the things he chooses to do, he actively scorns the people he "considers" his base and worked to get him elected.

[Maltese]

Even setting that aside, Biden could have been using his status as the Dem nominee to take the 1.8T deal from before election day rather than settle for the objectively worse deal being pursued now. Biden could be giving daily press conferences or even simple statements of all the things he will be doing in his first 100 days.

That would not have been playing to his strengths. It was significantly more effective to let the race be "Donald Trump versus The Absence of Donald Trump".