U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Never.  Grew up about an hour and a half away from Buffalo.  The city was shit but the wings were delicious.

Ok, so you're fan of The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D’Souza then eh? Because you spewed some seriously misinformed bullshit trying to call Nazism socialism, which is something the right does quite often.

Hitler displayed little regard for the tenets of socialism and despised socialists themselves.

Hitler and his party saw socialism, communism, and leftism as threats to everything they hoped to achieve.

Hitler upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference since he believed owners and managers should have the freedom to run their businesses how they saw fit. Capitalism was very much left in place in Nazi Germany even though he used the word socialist / socialism and anti capitalist talking points to gain favor with voters. It was a tactical move. 

German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest on the Nazi's use of socialism / socialist:

This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.

 

From historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich: 

In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.





And even though they continued with certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis restricted their availability to “racially worthy” (Aryan only) beneficiaries. Regarding labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, who's primary task was increasing productivity, not protecting workers (something capitalism is all about).

On the opposite spectrum of socialist ideals of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the Nazi created a party-run police state that had governing structure that was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As for another socialist ideal, the redistribution of wealth, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, well that was completly rejected in favor of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.”

So yea, they were not socialists. Their actions prove that.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

Added my ETA above before this post.  It's actually not a great list and doesn't capture it.  

 

7 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

ETA:  [..]

It was more about stuff about how the DC press would insist that Paul Ryan had Very Serious points since he held big pieces of paper and looked serious.  

Tom Friedman is Very Serious, and David Brooks is too.  

I'm not sure the press ever thought Paul Ryan was Very Serious.  Until he became Very Serious by being Speaker.  He had his little "let's defund basic social safety nets" when he was on Budget and Ways and Means, sure.  But gotta say, that's a bad example.  The media DGAFs about Paul Ryan nor anything that won't get them views.  The rambling Alex Jones' and such are much more profitable.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Ok, so you're fan of The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D’Souza then eh? Becuase you spewed some seriously misinformed bullshit trying to call Nazism socialism, which is something the right does quite often.

Ohhh..man.  Dinesh D'Souza?  What?  Right, I lay awake reading Dinesh D'Souza.  Damn, can't get over how stupid that is - on so many levels.

I didn't read most of the rest of your post because I learned it in grade school.  You know what's also a grade school-level challenge?  Getting my point about capitalism vis-a-vis socialism.

[DMC]

Ugh.  It's the teacher in me that wants to do this:  @Sword of Doom, this reply lacks any semblance of use:

13 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Ok, so you're fan of The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D’Souza then eh? Becuase you spewed some seriously misinformed bullshit trying to call Nazism socialism, which is something the right does quite often.

It's assuming the worst (and actually reading a book by D'Souza could only be described as the worst) about people you are discussing politics with.  You..don't really understand the difference between concepts like fascism, capitalism, and socialism.  The latter two are economic models for how governments regulate how currency is allocated.  Fascism - gasp - is on an entire different sphere.  As a concept, it is an idea in which the government dominates all, including ensuring only industries that are complicit remain unencumbered.  It is not capitalism.  It is not socialism.  It has absolutely nothing to do with either.  That's as simple as I can explain it little guy.

[DMC]

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

Thanks for the link.  Browsing over it, the VSPs seems to have pretty diverse views.  Could their views be more diverse?  Sure.  If that's your point I suppose I agree.  Also, like how Krauthammer is on there.  Dude's dead, get on it wiki.

Just finished reading.  @Triskjavikson, I'd advise getting out of there.  Even the basic article is rank with bitterness that sounds like a prelude to scary talk.

[Bonnot OG]

Gotta love liberals and how misnformed they can be at times. It's really scary when they are teachers though. 
I do like when they get corrected on some really asinine bs they try and spew and how they then try and play it off like they are purposely not responding because it is beneath them to, when it's evident they just have no response to conjure up.

No amount of arrogance nor a condescending  tone will change that.

You made the a ridiclous attempt at calling / implying that  Nazis were socialists because of National Socialism / National Socialists being in the names. Sorry if I, a person you think is a "kid", embarassed you by correcting your complete and utter disregard for history. 


Oh, and I did find it funny you said you didn't read what I wrote, but you also make the claim you know that is was something you learned it in grade school. If you really didn't read it, maybe go back and do so,  it will help correct what you are clearly misinformed about. 
 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Gotta love liberals and how misnformed they are. It's really scary when they are teachers.
It's even better when they get corrected on some really asinine bs they try and spew and then try and play it off like they are purposely not responding when it's evident they justy have no response to conjure up.

Please cite.

[Seli]

 

12 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Since you're not a US citizen, you probably aren't aware, but cops in the US tend to side with white supremacists and fascists.  They think of themselves as a militarized force at war with the non white, non-mainstreet, non-cornfed whiteboy America.  The mask is a an attempt to even the playing field.

One would expect anyone with some degree of historical knowledge to realize that this is a near-universal rule. Which was clear in Weimar germany as well for example.

Conservative terrorists and conservative violence is generally taken less seriously than their progressive-ish counterparts. Probably because they to a much larger extent to the status quo.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

Conservative terrorists and conservative violence is generally taken less seriously than their progressive-ish counterparts. Probably because they to a much larger extent to the status quo.

 

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

Please cite.

 

[Serious Callers Only]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html

 

been posted yet?

[Bonnot OG]

15 minutes ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

 

One would expect anyone with some degree of historical knowledge to realize that this is a near-universal rule. Which was clear in Weimar germany as well for example.

Conservative terrorists and conservative violence is generally taken less seriously than their progressive-ish counterparts. Probably because they to a much larger extent to the status quo.

Look at Cointelpro. Now while they say they a targeted the KKK as well, they had no issue financing, arming and crontrolling an extreme right-wing group of former Minutemen by transforming it into the Secret Army Organization, which targeted groups, activists, and leaders involved in the Anti-War Movement and used using both intimidation and violent acts to disrupt them.


Also look at hw Cointelpro targeted the Black Panthers and look at how they murdered Fred Hampton.

Cointelpro tactics are still used today, just keeping the status quo going with them as well.


 

[SweetPea]

9 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

SweetPea has never heard of the Proud Boys but has detailed info on the practices and motivations of antifas. What fucking disingenuous bullshit. Fuck your selective outrage, Nazi apologist.

Maybe because Antifa has groups all around the world, not just in the US, and they keep being violent assholes everywhere they go.

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But we are precisely talking about incitement to violence...  

You're avoiding the deeper issue: how do you fight violent ideologies when the state is no longer on your side? Should you really be so quick to defend free speech and condemn violence then?

You cannot always defend the rule of law and condemn violence. Well, I guess you can condemn violence in all situations, but in this case you can't treat violent ideologies like any others ; and then you'd need the state to treat all violent ideologies equally.
The reason why the antifa are repressing free speech in the US is because the state is letting violent ideologies run wild. Some reactions are strong, yes, but you can't just dismiss what they're fighting against.

Two things here:

1. People will describe many things as incitement to violence, in the same way that people will call everything sexual harrassement nowadays. It doesn't make it true. There are legal definitions as to what constitues incitement to violence. Being offended is not enough.

2. I absolutely want the state to treat all violent ideologies equally. It's you who doesn't want that, otherwise, you wouldn't be here defending Antifa.

7 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Also, preaching fascist ideologies is preaching violence. Seeking to deplatform that as a private citizen with in a sort of movement like Antifa is not an infringement on freedom of speech, nor should it ever be considered that.

Another example of what I've been talking about: you, and other violent people like you, think it's okay to commit violence against and deplatform people if you don't like what they're saying. If I adhered to your logic, I would have every right to deplatform you because I don't like your hateful rhetoric. And that's exactly what it is. I haven't seen a single positive post from you so far. Only hate filled ones. Reflect on that for a moment.

Quote

America's fetishizing of "free speech" is wrapped up in some facile bulshit. It never asks the questions about nazis, why are they preaching, what do they seek to gain from their rallies and their speeches at schools. The answer to those things is recruitment. They look to recruit at their rallies on top of terrifying the marginalized that they will no doubt commit genocide against once they grab power.

Ah yes, genocide is on the corner, no doubt.

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don’t think this correct. I think the general debate among progressive/liberals on these threads has been whether it is okay to use violence against Nazis specifically and not conservatives in general.

Yes, and it's going to be the progressives/liberals that determine who are the nazis and who are simply conservatives. You really don't see the problem here?

6 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Fuck's sake. I'm going to guess you're one of the astounding number of people who thinks it's tougher for white people than minorities in this country. One of those up-his-own-ass dipshits who thinks being accused of racism is worse than suffering from racism.

You're implying white people can't suffer from racism.

6 hours ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

Well gee, I guess I missed that. No information on his/he page or on his/her avatar. But a troll for an avatar.

That's not a troll, that's Ebu Gogo.

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Do you have a source for this? Because antifa has so far moved against white supremacist rallies, Milo Yiannopolis (who called for killing the press recently), and Ann Coulter (who called for outing transgendered people against their will). There are no centrists that I could find, no libertarians I could find, and no 'supporters of free speech' unless you're talking about openly racist people wanting 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' as free speech supporters. 

antifa is absolutely violent at times. Violence does not equal fascism. 

Here's one.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SweetPea said:

Yes, and it's going to be the progressives/liberals that determine who are the nazis and who are simply conservatives. You really don't see the problem here?

Well, I think distinguishing between the two is reasonably easy enough.

But, where I see the real problem here is with you. You say you're against facism, so that is why you keep on bringing up Antifa.

But since your such an anti-fascist, and trying to establish your anti-facist cred on this board, why don't you tell us about the time you threw a fit when somebody like Joe Arpaio went around violating the 4th Amendment rights of latinos? And tell us about the time you threw fit when Trump pardoned him for it.

Or tell us about the time when you threw a fit, when you found out that many conservatives believed that Trump should be able to over ride court decisions he didn't like.

You keep trying to play this game here where you present yourself as a "principled anti-fascists". But, you know, I think your generally full of it. If you were a principled anti-facist, you'd be adamantly opposed to Trump. And if you think this is just left wing hysteria, just remember even George Will is saying go out and vote Democrat this November.

By continuing to harp about anti fa, while not acknowledging the actual situation the US finds itself in, you're coming off as alt right troll. The fact of the matter is that groups like Antifa have very little political power, meanwhile Trump is threatening our democracy, and the party that enables him holds more political power than it has since the 1920s. Your sense of magnitude and proportionality here is way off base. And because of that you're really ignorant of the situation here or you're being completely disingenuous.

Your mindless both sides horseshit is getting quite tiresome.

 

[Serious Callers Only]

He's a troll and has always been folks. This is typical, as fox news shows really.

Democracy has been under memetic attack for a while (and other things like equality, decency, empathy, the right for teenage girls not to have 'legal' counters by idiots). The USA seems uniquely weak to this sort of attack because of their constitution, private propaganda arm of the right interests called 'fox news' (and recently facebook) and disregard of the paradox of tolerance, but vast parts of it are psyops techniques like 'whataboutisms' and projection.

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Another example of what I've been talking about: you, and other violent people like you, think it's okay to commit violence against and deplatform people if you don't like what they're saying.

Not really.

You keep saying this as if people are talking about deplatforming anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. But they're not. They're talking about a very specific group of people - fascists. Contrary to what you keep asserting, the people you're arguing with are very clear about who is a fascist and who is just someone they disagree with, and about the fact that they do not approve of deplatforming the latter.

You're the one desperate to obscure the difference, because you need that smokescreen to (as OGE says) make it look as if you're arguing a point of principle instead of being solely interested in attacking anti-fascism.

It's not working.

[Rippounet]

58 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

2. I absolutely want the state to treat all violent ideologies equally. It's you who doesn't want that, otherwise, you wouldn't be here defending Antifa.

And here comes the fault in logic. You're saying the law treats everyone equally while admitting that it targets antifa specifically.

And the reason I'm taking the time to answer you is because I'm still processing the fact that the US is considering a law to specifically target violent groups that oppose its policies. The reason it's bad is because existing laws are more than enough to deal with violent groups on principle ; in this context, creating new laws is an obvious way to silence dissent. That's how autocracies are born: they need to fabricate foreign and domestic threats to legitimize their abuses of power. It's one of the red lines I'd thought of shortly after Trump came to power, but I don't think I seriously imagined it would be crossed. That is has been crossed that fast means that the worst-case scenario is coming to pass. Trumpism is indeed a threat to everything that the US was supposed to stand for. The next elections will determine how far down the rabbithole the country will fall, but either way there are very dark days ahead, and even if the liberals make a come-back the country will still be torn apart because of the rise of the far-right.

It's hilarious that you seem blind to the irony that you defend such a law in the name of free speech, while ignoring the possibility that its aim is to suppress anti-fascism. Despite pretending the contrary, you've already chosen sides. That you've come here to troll us with your false equivalences shows that you're even an active participant in the process.

58 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

1. People will describe many things as incitement to violence, in the same way that people will call everything sexual harrassement nowadays. It doesn't make it true. There are legal definitions as to what constitues incitement to violence. Being offended is not enough.

Yeah, right. This is the kind of people we're talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I

These are the people that the antifa are fighting. If you can listen to them and think they are not inciting violence, then you're a nazi apologist at best and an alt-right troll at worst. Of course, there's always the possibility that you're not smart enough to see beyond the small subtleties in their discourse, but since you're not even trying you don't get my sympathy for that.

Edit: oh, and while we're at it... these groups would be illegal in my country. As you say, there are indeed legal definitions as to what constitutes hate speech. It's just that hate speech is protected in the US.

58 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Ah yes, genocide is on the corner, no doubt.

Well, the antifa are the ones stepping up to prevent that, you're certainly not. Think of their methods what you want, but they understand what's going on and are doing something about it. While you can't even bring yourself to condemn neo-nazism.
 

58 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Another example of what I've been talking about: you, and other violent people like you, think it's okay to commit violence against and deplatform people if you don't like what they're saying. 

Yes, absolutely, when these are people calling for a white ethno-state. It's not like the creation of such a thing would be violence-free. We're talking concentration camps, mass deportations, separation of families, inhumane treatments bordering on torture... At best. These are all things that are already happening right now. At worst, in the near future, we're contemplating harassment, open violence, assaults, lynchings... Everyday the US state refuses to act against neo-nazis while implementing racist policies encourages them to be a little bolder. Hate crimes are multiplying, racial violence is spreading like wildfire...
There is no middle-ground, no "moving to the centre" when confronting those despicable ideologies. There are only those who see them for what they are, and those who are complicit. I usually wouldn't condone the actions of antifa, but in this context they're unambiguously right. It's time to wake up to that.

Most of the regulars here know fascism when they see it. You don't. It's really that simple.

[Serious Callers Only]

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Bonnot OG said:

Gotta love liberals and how misnformed they can be at times. It's really scary when they are teachers though. 

You made the a ridiclous attempt at calling / implying that  Nazis were socialists because of National Socialism / National Socialists being in the names. Sorry if I, a person you think is a "kid", embarassed you by correcting your complete and utter disregard for history. 

 

Okay let me take a stab at this.

I agree that right wing arguments that Nazism was really a left wing movement is pretty much horseshit. And it was been a favorite argument of many conservatives and I’ve brought this up before with regard to Jonah Shitbirds book “Liberal Facism”.

 Cetainly Hitler was prone to saying different things to different groups when he needed to. And certainly, he was able to get support from from industrialist/capitalist like the Becksteins, which makes him a very odd kind of socialist.

And for conservative sorts of people that say, “what about the manifesto Hitler hammered out with Anton Drexler and what about Gregor Strasser?” And the answer is “well what about it?” Hitler so dominated the Nazi Party it became whatever he wanted to be.

And to the extent Hitler showed much interest in economic ideas, his main economic idea was basically to put the whole of Eastern Europe into a state of serfdom, which it seems to me isn’t exactly a key point of “socialism” (however you define it).

Now turning to the debate between capitalism/socialism.

I’m generally a fan of market based economies. I think price signals generally does useful things, like telling people what to produce. I think the bit of de-centralization that comes with market based economies brings real benefits and is better than a purely command economy, for the reason it would be extremely difficult for one body to know what to produce, given the complexity of any economy.

Now just because I’m generally a fan of market based economies doesn’t mean I’m exactly happy with how the current American economic system operates, as I think things have gotten to skewed towards business interest, fucking over labor basically, and free market fundamentalism has led to a lot of very bad policy outcomes.

Even though, I think the price system does useful stuff, in signaling what to produce, the same price system can sometimes fail. I’ve ranted several times about the mindless Walrasianism of people like Robert Lucas upon this thread, probably boring several posters here to tears.

One of the biggest examples being that it doesn’t always coordinate economic actors intemporal decision making, leading to aggregate demand failures, and leading to high states of unemployment which can persist for quite awhile. And then of course, the price system doesn’t always work in other context. For instance we have every reason to believe that financial assets can get mispriced, leading to some big problems. And in the area of the healthcare, we have known for a long while , ever since Arrow wrote his paper in the early 1960s, that there is a large role for the government to play in that area. And then of course, we are getting stronger evidence that workers, to a large extent, aren’t simply getting paid their marginal product as neo-classical economic theory suggest. But, then of course even if they were, how one obtains a particular marginal product can often be a matter of luck ie how you came into this world being an example, an obtaining a particular marginal product isn’t just a simple matter of “just desserts” as many conservatives would like people to believe. The point here being is that there is no particular reason to believe in the in type free market fundamentalist horseshit that US conservatives and the Republican Party often pushes.

Perhaps you could keep a market based system while outlawing the private ownership of capital. But, the how this would work and the institutional changes that would need to be made to make it work successfully is something I’m not quite sure about, as I think it would require a bit of deep thinking, that I really haven’t thought about. This is something that would, it seems to me, have to be thought about very carefully or it could go badly.
That doesn’t mean, I don’t think the US needs some big institutional changes. One would be reversing the Supreme Court’s current trend of equating the giving of money with “speech”. I think the Court really needs to re-evaluate this. Also, certainly, I’d like to see labor in this country be given more clout in this country and I’ve talked about how I’d like to see this done.

I’m certainly more “centrist” in my policy ideas than you are, but I get the frustration with many so called “centrist”.

The problem with so many so called “centrist” is many of them don’t know what in the hell they want or even if they did wouldn’t have one iota of a clue how to get there. That or they change their minds like they change their underwear. And of course at their worst, many so called “centrist” engage in mindless “both sidism”, often being disingenuous or trying to look like the “reasonable voice in the room” when in fact they aren’t.

A real and credible “centrist” and not one trying to put on airs of being “reasonable” should be flamingly pissed off with the direction of this country, right about now, and should be flamingly pissed off with Trump, the Republican Party, and conservatives.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

A real and credible “centrist” and not one trying to put on airs of being “reasonable” should be flamingly pissed off with the direction of this country, right about now, and should be flamingly pissed off with Trump, the Republican Party, and conservatives.

Yup.  There's absolutely no reason to hate on "centrists."

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, DMC said:

Yup.  There's absolutely no reason to hate on "centrists."

While my preference for a strong welfare state and my Keynesianism makes me certainly left of center with regard to the US political spectrum, I'm probably more "centrist" than some on the left.

As such I don't have a big problem with centrist per se. But I do have a problem with "centrist" that engage in "both sidism", in attempt to look reasonable. Given the situation we find ourselves in, there is nothing reasonable about that approach. Many of these kind of "centrist" are simply being lazy, and rather than trying to grapple with the issues facing us, just mindlessly declare it's both sides. No it really isn't. And then there are others that can't make up their mind and actually take a position. And then some "both sides" centrist are just being disingenuous.