PURE IDEOLOGY IRL

ITT: Post times you've heard people spouting pure liberal/reactionary ideology IRL

Today I heard

Other urls found in this thread:

zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/
instagram.com/marnik.minelli/
youtube.com/watch?v=s6zO-qhQx_8
youtube.com/watch?v=nYaN9z0OqDg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Honestly, they're right, so long as the existing system is stable. Part of the absurd success of American social control is that violent oppression is minimized, in favor of consumerism, informational overload, propaganda etc.

I'm not American

Fascism is extra-parliamentary and outside academia but it still thrives

Maybe, but they're not really a threat, so it's better to let them be in order to keep up a pretense of democracy and freedom. Which is no doubt the same reason we are tolerated too.

Hitler himself said that the only thing that could've stopped the Nazi movement was if their opponents had brutally smashed it from the outset

zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/

I've told this one before, but it still makes me mad to this day

is it tho?

t. not very familiar with the origin of the term

The definition of socialism has nothing to do with what a government does, but rather the relationship the working class has to the means of production. What you're thinking of is most likely state capitalism.

thanks

then why did that kid say so? is it because of video games having socialism as "government control"?

I'm not anti-antifa but I'd point out:
1. Hitler's opponents actually did try to do that (there were street fights between German communists and Nazis all the time)
2. the bourgeoisie brought them to power through legal means–they never needed a majority to control the government thanks to Hindenburg making Hitler chancellor and the bourgeois parties voting for the enabling act
So from that we can assume that while the streets were a factor the victory of the Nazi party wasn't mainly made in the streets, nor in the court of public opinion. In fact, the Nazis were actually bleeding both hardcore party supporters and potential voters around the time the Reichstag Fire occurred.

The key difference between now and then is there is no revolutionary communist or even anarchist movement capable of overthrowing the system, yet. So, at this time, I don't think it suits the bourgeoisie to do away with the facade of liberal democracy.

It seems that right now that the fascists act as unscientific revolutionary parties or tails of the mainstream conservative parties and that's why they are kept out of power in the West. In Ukraine, however, the West invested quite a great deal of resources in bringing the fascists to power and they've done their best not to overturn the apple-cart for their Western masters.

Because he's a goddamn idiot and a high class defender of the status quo.

Well yeah, which is why I said

The Weimar republic was a trainwreck, allowing these nutters to reach power. Violence against fascists back then was fully justified.

Think of it this way: the more stable your system is, the more you can rely on "soft" social control methods (as opposed to violence and censorship), which in turn adds to the apparent legitimacy of your system, which in turn makes your it more stable.

Here, The Chompster said it better than I ever could.


I vaguely recall reading once that in chaotic Weimar, there was little distance between discourse and action. Back then, an anti-semitic public speech could turn into a pogrom with disturbing ease. Ten years ago, Nazi speech would get laughed at. Today Nazi speech is the one doing the laughing, but it's still a tolerable level.

You should explain to him that the definition of Socialism is usually agreed upon, while the routes towards it, such as Bolshevism or the reformism of the European model are different approaches to achieving it, hence the popular misconceptions that Swedish welfare state or that planned economy are "socialism"

I'm not sure, but I think I'd be able to make this point without dropping much spaghetti or sounding too autistic.

lol no it fucking isnt

How the fuck is it that "fascism" is continually brought to power through completely legal means wherever it arose yet it's "extra-parliamentary" as if they're the edgy underground usurpers of the system

FASCISM IS WHAT CAPITALISM DOES IN DECAY

IT IS NEVER EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY

IT IS ALWAYS PARLIAMENTS FALL BACK PLAN

Fascism will never die because the state demands it


go back to fucking reddit

Hitler said a lot of factually incorrect and generally stupid bullshit. His book is packed with it.

Some of my friends during the protests:

...

well color me surprised

To you…

Fascism came to power through violence in Germany and Italy. The fascist parties never gained a majority through open elections.

It had paramilitaries and was certainly against bourgeois parliamentarianism. The fascist parties built up a whole network outside the state.


You can't let fascism get into power. Then it's too late.


Sure, but I'll trust him on how his own movement could've been stopped.

Well obviously. But the threat is still way too low, enough to warrant ye olde fed surveillance, but not enough to need skulls cracked.

They were not being ironic as in "no you aren't that crazy, as I am mimicking the argument an ignorant person would make" but quite literally "Che and Stalin are equally as bad and this statement is unironically akin to 'you are as bad as hitler' statements"

I know that it doesn't perfectly fit Zizek's definition of ideology. But it made me mad.

My Friend's entire Instagram account.

instagram.com/marnik.minelli/

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean

Just seems like a normal dude tbh fam

The other day my mom and I were eating supper and she said that if you don't have something that can make money it's useless. I told her that was a very capitalistic thing to say. She meant stuff like hobbies or just general skills aren't useful if you can't make money from them.

I was actually pretty surprised.

He has some pretty fascist views and he's a huge Ayn Rand fanboy.

How could you have that creature as a friend? Did he have plastic surgery?

I watched this video
youtube.com/watch?v=s6zO-qhQx_8

No.
He's gay, looks like he enjoys black cock.
Actually he approached me on OkCupid, then he fell in love with a Russian friend I also met on OkCupid. It's a gay triangle, the Russian guy hates him.

This was all happening in the same town as a fight for fifteen protest BTW and not one of them was interviewed.

I love seeing poor people have rich peoples concerns, amazing. I'm surprised they didn't bring up the "45% corporate income tax" and balancing the budget as a main concern of theirs.

Many poor Americans like to believe they're just millionaires on hard times rather than accept the fact that they're completely destitute.

porky only shows people with porky concerns on the news dude

He looks like a bogdanoff

dafuq is that supposed to mean

I meant to say Treaty of Versailles

My opinion on the whole "nazi punching" thing is that it is justified even in the "peaceful debate" stage but specifically against the leaders/preachers and not against the ground level supporters.

It's not about discrediting fascism, but discrediting its would-be leaders. The whole ideology is "follow my example and do as I say and I promise you strength, beauty, wisdom, etc." and the whole appeal falls apart if the leader is publicly emasculated or humiliated in such a visceral way. Just look at Spencer post-punch and the reaction to it. Sure, according to the aut-right his attacker was "probably some limp-wristed degenerate" or whatever and they certainly aren't personally more inclined to the left because of it, but you're also getting a ton of "…well it's not like I ever liked that faggot Spencer anyway" type denial and backtracking as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=nYaN9z0OqDg
I'll just leave this here.

So it pussy to not want to punch Islam, but it's bad to punch Nazi's? Is that the moral of the story?

Also antifa/liberal thinker.

I get what you're saying, but honestly, I think Spencer came out looking the better for it. Maybe it's just my liberal indoctrination, but I can't help but sympathize with a person being attacked.

What you really need in order to discredit them is humor. It's a vastly underrated tool when it comes to ruining someone's image. And the interesting thing is, there seems to be a strong correlation between authoritarianism and lack of humor. Look how much Bolsheviks and Nazis prized solemnity and pomp. Having a sense of humor humanizes you to other people. When the next big socialist movement comes, I hope they understand the importance of taking some things lightly.

Big caveat: the aut-right. I'm honestly baffled at how babby porkies and petty-fash managed to churn out so much comedy these past couple of years. This much touted "meme war" that they won is largely due to humor.