What is so wrong/threatening about fascism that demands us to have anti-fascist groups in 2016?

EBIN xDDD

Fuck off!

That's true. Do fascists kill the ancaps too, though.

Gee, nothing at all, OP.

I'm quoting antifas I personally know who want.to shut down a show by a neo-pagan group because it's 'fascist'.

A lot of "neo-pagan" metal groups are, in fact, fascist. The greater Asatru community doesn't typically like their appropriation by white supremacists either.

If that were the case i don't think I would be bitching here with you guys.

There could be a Nazi masturbation fantasy going on outside and right-wing death squads in the streets and you wouldn't move your fat arse out of the basement you failed abortion.

Not until they came to stick you in the gas chamber that is. :^)

most ancaps are pro-fascism as a defense against commies

I am ready to die for my sins.

Good.

So is there more to your ideology than democidal impulse? The best argument I've gotten so far is that anti-fascists need to exist because the "far-right" bands will beat up the gays and gas the jews (even if some of their members are gay and/or jewish).

nice obserbaition, comrades

Fucking liberal sectarianism, that's not what fascism means.

There has to be some kind of bait for a thread to be considered as 'bait'.

It's a grotesque form of capitalism. It should be opposed on those grounds alone.

So was Ernst Rohm and a bunch of other brownshirts. Didn't work out so well for them. History aside fascism has taken on unique attributes in every country it's popped up in. Gays and Jews might not be an issue for 21st century fascism.

So you honestly believe that Ernst Rohm was purged because he was gay? Hitler was pretty okay with it, until they had other problems.

On your point on capitalism: This is just playing with definitions. A socialist, a fascist and an an-cap will have a different revision on what is capitalist and what isn't.

You're missing the fact that gay nazis had to be heavily closeted, and often requested assignment in Italy for it's more tolerant stance on homosexuality.

And rightists wonder why they have a persecution complex

Kek
I guess the main reason he screwed up then is that he wasn't violent enough, *sniff*

What? Ernst was more of a fascist than Hitler. Hitler aligned himself with the royalist/conservative corporate class (military, industrialists) and had to purge the extremists.

I don't think that's the real reason. But it was the parties justification.

There is only one definition of capitalism. I don't give a fuck about special snowflake alt-right shit.

You're missing the fact that Alan Turing was chemically castrated in democratic UK in the 50's or something, while the KKK was somewhat popular in America. Those were the morals of the time . Germany was socially progressive if anything, in sexuality and gender relations (and even race).

It's established history, from your side even. Ernst Rohm wasn't purged because of his homosexuality. It was only made public after they split with Hitler to smear him (as it still happens today sometimes).

Yeah, the marxist snowflake definition is the only one then.

We need fascism to be a boogey man to keep us voting for liberals or else who knows what will happen?

Read the news, idiot.

we had a choice, and our choice was to do nothing, and now we're going to get cucked by BFC

Among other reasons, yes. Not that Hitler cared all that much, but a gang of teenagers in silly uniforms that incite violence and harass passersby lead by a homosexual didn't sell well to the conservatives horrified by the "decadence" of Weimar Germany, and Hitler needed their support. So he had Rohm killed and axed the SA. In doing so he was able to get the support of the aristocracy and other German conservatives.Combined with the liberal support he got for fighting the communists, he was a shoe in for leading Germany.

As a socialist, you should know that the problem was mainly that Rohm wanted more populist policies than Hitler and he wanted to replace the army officers with his "boys", much like Stalin and the commissars.

Uh no. The glory days of the KKK were long gone by then. They peaked in the 20's and became much less mainstream/popular through the 30's, believe it or not (this is coming from memory, I'll check my notes).

Should mention that the USSR allowed women to serve during WWII

It's a wage-labor economy grounded by claims of private property "rights," plus some other conditions. Any other definition is just mystifying what is a clear material relationship.

The mere fact that the whole thread about fucking FASCISM which is your number one enemy devolved into a discussion of LGBTQ rights and Jews should tell you something.

The rest of your post relies on loaded definitions, starting with how Germany "enslaved" its own people, and leading up to your economic theory.

Nope, private ownership of the means of production is the only definition anyone with a lick of education goes by.

Fine, I'll talk about fascism:
It's nothing more than capitalism in decay, when the mask of the "democracy" is lifted to reveal the true face of the ruling class and the state. All fascist revolutions occurred in reaction to attempts at socialist revolutions in their respective countries.

also here's a link to fucking wikipedia article to inform you that yes, the Germans enslaved some of its allies and its own civilians: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II

And I would love to know why, in your opinion, the definition that capitalism is an economy based on wage-labor and private property is "loaded." What is it then?

Oh.. Private ownership of the means of production.. I see you just introduced a couple of more undefined terms here. Even if I overlook that, I kind of systems before 'capitalism' that suit your definition, so it isn't unique to capitalism and therefore it's not a proper definition.

Even if I overlook that, I can think of other kinds of systems that suit your definition*

(And I mean feudalism and older systems)

brevick

and olso bombing

You use a marxist term (capitalism) that itself relies on other marxist terminology and concepts (like value, wages, labor, property etc.) to define. A classical liberal has a different idea of value, labor and property for example.

The fact that some of the Marxist terms have been accepted by a wider audience, is an ideological concession and not an objective necessity.

Anyone that isn't a Marxist, can at least not care about what you're saying, or at worse tell you to fuck off if you try to enforce your ideology.

Stop playing dumb.
During Feudalism, the peasant did in fact have a claim to the land they had. It simply was a matter that they were only permitted to "own" that land by paying their lord (and the tithe tbh). This is coming from my memory awhile back so correct me if I'm wrong fam.

Today the workers do not own any portion of the means of production (which is essentially "capital"). They are all claimed by the capitalist class. In effect the worker is forced to sell the only thing they possess - their labor power - to these capitalists in order to meet subsistence.

thanks but no thanks

You said private ownership of the means of production. In Feudarchy, it was even more absolute than it is in capitalism, so by your definition feudarchy is more capitalistic than capitalism.

BUT STILL, even if your definition was somewhat solid, it doesn't matter. No one cares.

Those aren't Marxist terms. They're economic terms.

There are various schools of economics. Value has a different meaning in those schools.

Can you expand on how fascism would oppress you?

I guess you dont have that lick of education he was talking about

Capitalism isn't a Marxist term, nor are the concepts of value, wages, labor, or property. There are definitely Marxist contexts to these words, however. And no, the Marxist haven't won over the populous when it comes to these contexts. The standard approach to economics today in academia is bourgeois supply and demand analysis. What world are you living in?

Plus if you want to start talking about ideology you have no idea what kind of room you're walking into. Marx himself was an enemy of idealism, why else would he try to find some basis in material reality for his definitions and theories?

I have more than the minimum education that is required to parrot something. You still don't understand that concepts =/= reality. Go back to school.

A lot of terms that the majority of (liberal) people are okay with, like wage-slavery, are Marxist. The Calvinist populations wouldn't ever use such a thing, even as a joke.

I think this is a meme of yours, but may I use it? Trying to find a basis for your ideas in material reality is in fact pure ideology.

And Capitalism as a word was popularized by Marx and adopted by liberal capitalists for lack of a better one.

It wasn't private property that the peasants were "renting" during feudalism. They may have insignificantly had claim to the land, but it was still a claim respected by the ruler when it came to inheritance and what-not.
And just because you don't care about learning anything doesn't mean no one else does :^)

Yeah. They have various interpretations on how to determine value but there is an agreed upon definition of what the concept of value is.

You aren't learning much. You should be treating Marxism like another chapter in human thought, not as your Bible. If you start to really think about the things you're telling me, you'll see the gaps for yourself.

No, they don't. Even in its most primal form, the concept of value depends on how that value is determined. You can't seperate those.

But you even engaging in any level, you are just trying to throw the terms out

Evidently you have contradicted yourself here
here>>841401
here>>841365

And several other places. So make up your mind and decide what the problem is. Is it that liberals use Marxist lingo, they have their own lingo and thus Marx doesn't apply universally, that the definitions are inaccurate, that the definitions are inadequate, what?

You are just going in circles and moving the goal posts. You havnt even given any reasons why a fascist economy works better according to any of those points.

By the way, on your example. There were people in Feudalism who were basically slaves, and didn't have claim to any land, much like wage-laborers today. Also, in capitalism, we have self-employed people who "own" the means of productions. So it's not absolute.

Lol

And I'll correct myself, he didn't try to apply theories and definitions to an irrelevant material world - he pulled them from it. This is opposed to something like, say, the divine right of kings employed during the middle ages which added elements of idealism to justify a material relationship.

1) lack of civil liberties
2) deeply authoritarian
3) I may probly won't fit the ideal volk so ill be a 2nd class citizen

4) even if I do as Bakunin said, if someone is unfree than I am unfree, no one is free till we are all free

You may have utterly been BTFO on the economic front, but on the cultural front you aren't doing too bad. A lot of the everyday language we use has Marxist influence. As I said, even the economists who oppose you, actually spend much of their lives trying to refute Marx. So that's something.

But on the point about idealism vs materialism, it isn't as simple. The material is mediated by the human experience. We can only know impressions of it. So every attempt at 'pure materialism' is futile. Even physical calculations have a degree of idealism in them.

But dude, what are those civil liberties? Aren't you just telling me a meme here? And what does authoritarian really mean?

The latter point ( that no one is free till we are all free) is purely idealistic - we haven't even defined freedom. Most people think they are free today in the West, but do you agree with that point? It's a relative thing.

Serfs? Anyways, beside whatever qualitative similarities you can draw, feudalism is different from capitalism when it comes to the relationship between ruled-ruler.
Of whom are referred to as the petty-bourgeois. Do you know a lick of what your talking about or should I just call you out for pulling your knowledge straight out of your ass?

You're factually wrong. Marx never used "capitalism", but he did use the term CAPITAL.

How to spot an American 101.

Nice trolling, faggot.

...

That's what you say. It's not a definition.

I'm not American and how is this trolling. You're trolling with your CAPS LOCK FAGGOT

You just remembered to add social relationships to the definition, when it is the second pillar of Marxism after the nature of property ownership and you're calling me out on the knowledge of your "discipline"?

Not really. The majority of economists - especially in the U.S. - never pick up his books, or even hear his theories and ideas mentioned in lectures beyond some quick quips on the "failure of central planning" or something irrelevant to him.

God did you just learn about David Hume in philosophy 101? Besides, if we are to accept your word for it - that we cannot escape abstractions in viewing the material world to thinking about it (the idea) - why shouldn't we attempt to minimize this obscuring?

You're still factually wrong, faggot. Marx didn't "popularize" the word capitalism - he never used it.

The rest of your posts a purely bait.

It would be more wise to work with abstractions. This autism of defining every little factor in the system and inventing a metaphysical system to connect them and present their "struggle" is just that - metaphysical. Lenin could very well be compared to Aleister Crowley.

Well fuck, I'd love to see capitalism or feudalism to function without any grounding in society.

But Marxists LARP about whether to attack the pure ownership structure or the social relationships that stem from it, it's a pretty big thing in commemism that even I know about.

Marx did popularize the word capitalism, even if he never used it, which I trust your word for.

Never trust a leftist on anything
he use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital.

It's pretty established that the base - private property - needs to be wiped out to affect the superstructure. The social relationships are fought in the sense that their justifications are antagonized, to reveal the underlying class dynamic.

Good luck on attacking an ideological conception ("base"). You're similar to a medieval magus. It's fascinating.

How the hell does that get around the metaphysical problem? Also aren't you the one trying to limit and dispute every tiny little definition Marxism uses to show that its wrong somehow?

You still havnt even brought a consistent argument why the theories are wrong or why we should trust fascism instead.

But you are the one that's arguing we should be very specific with our terminology. And yet you wont admit you made a mistake in implying Karl Marx popularised this very specific term.

Either stop being such a faggot for particulars or have a bit of consistency.

There isn't a metaphysical problem. There is a stupidity problem. The "people" aren't too dumb or brainwashed. The "porkies" aren't to blame for everything bad that happens.

You're left behind because you read something that made sense once and you cling on to it.

But anyway, it would take years to reach the point of discussing on commonly accepted terms.

I don't want to sell you fascism.

As my OP says, I don't understand why you need to physically confront other people for people as dumb as the shirt they were or the band they listen to. And you're supposed to be the "educated" ones.

The "base" doesn't have an ideological conception - it is born only through analysis of the real world. All that "base" means is the material relationship, which is established by private property in capitalism. So when we say "abolish the base," we mean "abolish private property."

btw please stop adding smartass comments to everything you write. It makes you out to be a fucking stupid twat which I'd hide in online conversation

You're adding smartass comments. I'm honestly fascinated. Is it wrong to be enthusiastic when talking to people?

The base in itself is an ideological conception. Show me a base. The base only exists as part of the Marxist framework. Otherwise, it's a factory, a workplace, a bank acount - not a base.

Not even once.

Then why the fuck are you trying to present it as an abstraction

So not going to back that up with analysis of social relations? :)

I'll make it even simpler. Why does your literary/eccentric/occultist/hobbyist clan want to tell me what music I can listen to? Can't you analyze all the things you want to without getting into our feet? I literally have no problem with you if I never see you.

On an image board when you're "discussing" a topic you still haven't put any real arguments forward about yet, yes it is wrong/annoying.

I asked a question, it's very specific, it has to do with why communists want to limit my civil liberties. A bigger question is why our "fascist, opressive, patriarchical" system allows you to do so.

Christ, the "base" is a way to understand it, in the same way someone understands that water must first reach 100 degrees C in order to boil. Quantity (the matter) precedes quality (the idea). Can't boil it down much more than that.

fascism does not have a good track record on these.
yes but I oppose them to

Gonna need an argument/explanation here, communists don't want that
Allows us to do what?

You have a very bourgeois/legalist conception of liberty for an anarchist. I think there's more to liberty, like the discipline and well-being of my people.

There is a band coming in my town next week. It's a Neofolk band. They are mainly spiritual, but I don't doubt (some) of their fans are fascists. A group of antifa and anarchists have already threatened the venue's owner and declared that they will come to break this event up. The police is tolerating it. Why is this happening? The band doesn't even reference Hitler or Nazi Germany.

Because its a suppression of fascist politics. Now answer the dozens of questions you have either avoided or failed to adequately address

What does suppression of fascist politics mean? Who are you to suppress anybody?

Whoops, that's a funny looking not an argumen you've got there friendo

Also, if you are worried about the suppression of civil liberties, why arent concerned about potential suppression under facist regimes?

Why are you again not aware of this basic inconsistency in your reasoning?

It means being antagonistic to proto-fascistic elements whenever they arise. And I think that it's alright to suppress a group when you consider that they literally want to kill us.

I am worried about everything. That's not the point here. From the first post I've stated the topic of this thread and it isn't an exposition on fascism.

That's a funny way to answer questions. I'll answer these two if you can put into very plain and consistent terms why you have a problem with Marxist terminology.

I have no problem with it as long as you acknowledge it as a theory and nothing else.

So.. it's a pre-emptive attack on a perceived enemy? Literally Hitler.

Then you should satisfied with the answers given if you don't have a horse in the race. Fascism is bad because of its shitty economic theory and suppression of civil liberties. Antifa only suppresses political expression of fascists. That might seem contradictory but you havnt even demonstrated everyone on this board supports this decision, you just made that assumption

It doesn't seem contradictory. It is
At the end of the day, the ones with limited liberties are the fascists, therefore yoir assumptions were all wrong. Not to mention thatnid you get hurt "suppressing" you blame the others.

Cool, so what's wrong with the theory and why dont you thin we can use it to adequately perceive real life? Keep in mind fascism has its own theories about human behaviour so if you apply the standard to one you should apply them to both.

To answer your question about suppression: Its not mine or anyone else's right, but its the simple reality of politics. Every regime or country has suppressed what they see as dangerous political expression and the Anitafa are no different

Yeah bt now they cant suppress us in turn. Its basic logic

If every regime does the same shit, why don't the antifa go to stop a communist concert? Or why don't they protest themselves, since they're the oppressors now?

If it's so basic and cynical, I don't see someone should call out one group and not the other. Just because they say they're the good guys?

Solidarity in a common cause. Again, basic logic although this board can demonstrate the animosity between those two camps as well

This is literally political science 101 friendo.

Well, not all regimes oppress the same forces. That's the beauty of the socialist government most of us want to instate. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat uses the state - the tool of class oppression - to wage a war on the bourgeois class, overthrowing them in order to unite the world under Socialism. So long as the material condition of the average person falls - as it is projected to considering the substantially ignored threats of climate change and crises in the economy - the contradictions of capital will become more evident. Only when the world is ripe for it will real, lasting change be affected.There's a lot of theory your missing out on.

Authoritarian ideologies attracts psychopaths, and they are dangerous. Reason enough to smash them when they show their faces in public.

It's a shame so many good bands have fascist aesthetics. Boyd Rice/Death In June tickles the eardrums nicely.

Maybe they're just trolling us all.

I wouldn't be surprised, fascists are the original edgy teenagers

Edgy teenagers make the best music, tho.