White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques (/Thread-White-Supremecists-Slay-49-in-NZ-Mosques) |
RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Dill - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 08:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But communism as defined by Marx is the ideological communism. You're talking about people defending communism as an ideology, but to defend the ideology is to defend Marxist communism, not Stalinism, Maoism, or any of the perverted less-than-half-assed attempts at communist governments. Ideological communism isn't workable, especially on a nation-state scale. Pure democracy also isn't, nor anarchy, nor capitalism, nor many other ideologies. However, critiques of those ideologies should be based on the ideologies themselves, not the corrupted versions of them people throw together. I don't think Marx ever took time to describe what a state should look like, since his ultimate goal was a rather libertarian/anarchist disappearance of the state altogether. The only (quasi) state form he praised (that I can think of) was the short-lived Paris Commune. That was in his Critique of the Gotha Program, the German Social Democrats "reformist" platform in 1875. What people currently criticize as communism is usually a Marxist-leninist or Stalinist state, with its one-party rule and bureaucratized control of the economy. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Dill - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 08:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not insinuating anything. I think he was saying that white supremacists were responding to a perceived (and real) diminishing of white people proportionally to the rest of the nation. He called their political activity a "last ditch effort" and is probably right about that. So they are acting in self defense against a perceived threat to their race. The same reason the Klan formed up back in 1865, to defend white supremacy against the (in their view) upended status quo at the end of the Civil War, when free blacks would soon be voting. I believe MattC was describing the behavior of white supremacists, not defending it. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - michaelsean - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 09:49 PM)Dill Wrote: I think he was saying that white supremacists were responding to a perceived (and real) diminishing of white people proportionally to the rest of the nation. He called their political activity a "last ditch effort" and is probably right about that. Hmmm...if only someone had said that earlier. With like 90% fewer words. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - bfine32 - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 09:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Hmmm...if only someone had said that earlier. With like 90% fewer words. Well at least he said it. I always try to give credit when someone crosses the aisle in the name of civil dialog. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - fredtoast - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 05:22 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying here. Parts of your post are clearly about the entire world, but then you make a lot of comments about the United States and Donald Trump. So just to be clear, are you claiming that violent acts by white supremacists in the United States are declining? And are you claiming that there are more violent acts committed by Muslim extremists in the United States than white supremacists? If so what is the source for this claim? RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - GMDino - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 09:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Hmmm...if only someone had said that earlier. With like 90% fewer words. Yes, but you took Jesus' name in vain to 100 points to Hufflepuff. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - michaelsean - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 10:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, but you took Jesus' name in vain to 100 points to Hufflepuff. I’m thinking Harry Potter reference, but I’m stuck after that. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - GMDino - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 10:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m thinking Harry Potter reference, but I’m stuck after that. Jesus was not in Harry Potter. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - michaelsean - 03-18-2019 (03-18-2019, 10:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Jesus was not in Harry Potter. Well what the hell is Hufflepuff? Plus I was just claiming Jesus was black. I just punctuated it poorly. Jesus Christ? He’s black. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 03-19-2019 (03-18-2019, 10:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well what the hell is Hufflepuff? RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Belsnickel - 03-19-2019 (03-18-2019, 09:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Marx ever took time to describe what a state should look like, since his ultimate goal was a rather libertarian/anarchist disappearance of the state altogether. The only (quasi) state form he praised (that I can think of) was the short-lived Paris Commune. That was in his Critique of the Gotha Program, the German Social Democrats "reformist" platform in 1875. I'm aware, but that's still ideological communism. Both capitalism and communism, ideologically speaking, rely on little to no state. They rely on power solely in the hands of the people. I know most people are usually criticizing corrupted, applied attempts at communism when they are criticizing communism, but that is not the ideal version of communism. It's not the ideology. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - GMDino - 03-19-2019 (03-18-2019, 10:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well what the hell is Hufflepuff? RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 03-19-2019 (03-19-2019, 08:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm aware, but that's still ideological communism. Both capitalism and communism, ideologically speaking, rely on little to no state. They rely on power solely in the hands of the people. I know most people are usually criticizing corrupted, applied attempts at communism when they are criticizing communism, but that is not the ideal version of communism. It's not the ideology. I get the point you're making in this, and the previous, post. However, you're making it in a vacuum. At some point an idea must be judged by its fruits. In this case, communism, whenever put into practice in the real world has produced a single party autocracy often with an all powerful dictator at the helm. This is almost invariably accompanied by human rights atrocities, often on a vast scale. Even when it occasionally does not it results in an oppressive government that allows no dissent or variation of thought. So, I am forced to disagree. Communism, as an idea, is a polluted and dangerous ideology. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Belsnickel - 03-19-2019 (03-19-2019, 11:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get the point you're making in this, and the previous, post. However, you're making it in a vacuum. At some point an idea must be judged by its fruits. In this case, communism, whenever put into practice in the real world has produced a single party autocracy often with an all powerful dictator at the helm. This is almost invariably accompanied by human rights atrocities, often on a vast scale. Even when it occasionally does not it results in an oppressive government that allows no dissent or variation of thought. So, I am forced to disagree. Communism, as an idea, is a polluted and dangerous ideology. I would only make the argument that what is being called communism is not, in fact, communism. Communism has never been achieved. Soviet leaders, and others, have used an end goal of communism as an excuse to consolidate power. They saw in Marxist writings a way to foment revolution and they seized on that. Just looking at the Bolshevik/Menshevik split you can see the way Lenin, and later Stalin, saw the revolutionary ideals of Marxism as a way to really wrest power for themselves rather than for the people. Classical Marxism is dangerous in the way it requires revolution to reach communism. It is predicated on there being a violent revolution against the ruling class and at the end there is no such thing as class. There has always been a ruling class in every attempt at "communism," though, which means that communism has never been attained. I think the better argument to make against communism would be that it is unattainable and far too many have died under the guise of trying to attain it. This reliance on revolution, by the by, is why I am a social democrat. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Dill - 03-19-2019 (03-19-2019, 08:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm aware, but that's still ideological communism. Both capitalism and communism, ideologically speaking, rely on little to no state. They rely on power solely in the hands of the people. I know most people are usually criticizing corrupted, applied attempts at communism when they are criticizing communism, but that is not the ideal version of communism. It's not the ideology. I wasn't correcting you Bels, just tossing ins some additional info about Marx and the state. People largely identify communism with marxism-leninism and the Stalinist state form. Few actually read Marx anymore, and fewer still read Lenin or Stalin--at least in the US. Would be more accurate to say something like "wherever the Stalinist state-form has been imposed" or some such, when talking about what people usually call Communism. Viewed through the prism of anti-communism, numerous different "communisms" are melded into one under one label. That was one of the great deficiencies of US foreign policy during the Cold War. Also, "Marxism" as philosophy and social scientific practice has a much broader legacy than Stalinism as a form of political organization, and in Western Europe a rather positive one. Marx's description of capitalism as a mode of production still seems valid and useful for explaining current trends in globalization. PS In post #94when you use the term "classical Marxism" I assume you are refering to what is sometimes called "orthodox Marxism" or "marxism-Lenism." From 1848 on, Marx himself thought that the proletariat could acquire state power through the vote as well as through revolution, despite his later critiques of reformism. The idea of a vanguard party which seizes power and maintains a functioning core of the bourgeois state to bridge the gap between socialism and communism--that's all Lenin. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Dill - 03-19-2019 (03-19-2019, 09:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: I know Trump follows our message board pretty closely. This intervention is more likely to serve the resistance than anything posted here from the NYT. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Belsnickel - 03-19-2019 (03-19-2019, 12:19 PM)Dill Wrote: PS In post #94when you use the term "classical Marxism" I assume you are refering to what is sometimes called "orthodox Marxism" or "marxism-Lenism." From 1848 on, Marx himself thought that the proletariat could acquire state power through the vote as well as through revolution, despite his later critiques of reformism. The idea of a vanguard party which seizes power and maintains a functioning core of the bourgeois state to bridge the gap between socialism and communism--that's all Lenin. Interessant. I was unaware that Marx thought that way. I knew that was one of the splits (hence the emergence of social democrats), but I did not know that Marx himself had said that was a possibility. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 03-19-2019 To bring the topic back to OP, here's an interesting article from the BBC about the prevalence, or rather lack thereof, of right-wing terrorism. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47626859 It's an interesting read as it covers Europe and the Anglosphere. I found of particular interest that in Germany far-right violence was exceeded by that of the far-left. In any event, I suggest the read, I think it brings some needed perspective. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Belsnickel - 03-19-2019 (03-19-2019, 08:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To bring the topic back to OP, here's an interesting article from the BBC about the prevalence, or rather lack thereof, of right-wing terrorism. I found it interesting how much they show right-wing extremism is on the rise in both Western Europe and North America. I wonder if the trend is the same for other extremism over there, of if it is just right-wing extremism on the rise. It's also interesting that right-wing violence is the lowest category for their situation, but the highest here in the U.S. RE: White Supremecists Slay 49 in NZ Mosques - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 03-19-2019 (03-19-2019, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I found it interesting how much they show right-wing extremism is on the rise in both Western Europe and North America. I wonder if the trend is the same for other extremism over there, of if it is just right-wing extremism on the rise. It's also interesting that right-wing violence is the lowest category for their situation, but the highest here in the U.S. It is on the rise, but the number are still extremely low. As for lowest in the US, they didn't give us something to compare it to. Even so, at its worst right wing extremists killed 22 people in a year in the US. While this is of no solace to those killed or their loved ones, that's an incredibly low number. The same year right wing extremists killed 22 people, 2015, over thirty people were killed by dogs. Again, I must stress, I'm not saying right wing extremism is a non-issue or something we should ignore. However, the raw numbers rather suggest it's nothing close to the problem we're being told it is. |