Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
Bologna Massacre was by neo-Fascists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclei_Arm...
IE not Marxists. Marxists aren't the only group to engage in violence to further their cause. To state that all violent riots or political violence is inherently marxist is a novel interesting take but you're still extraordinarily wrong. And it astill isn't morally right to kill others of a differing political opinion to yours.
This is were you simply fail to try to even read what i write.
Yes i do claim that neo-fascist organizations engaging in political terror are acting as marxists, because being a marxist doesn't require you to share ALL marxists values, just at least one of the core ones.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to call a fascist anyone who didn't share ALL elements of mussolini fascism , do you see why? and instead you and most others use fascism to define people, ideas, regimes that share at least something significant with that mussolini did, said, thought.
And i think that's proper if some core tenet of fascism , that didn't exist before fascism, is shared.
I don't know what's crazy or strange in calling neo-fascists marxists btw, fascism itself was just a nationalistic variant of marxism.
This isn't your "assessment." It's just you trying to save your point by defining Marxism in a highly idiosyncratic way.
Also, it is terrible logic to say X is a tactic used by Y group, therefore all people who use X tactic are part of Y group. By your logic, right wing political violence, by definition, would be impossible.
And by your logic, any government that engaged in propaganda was fascist because fascists engaged in propaganda.
Modern propaganda wasn't invented by fascists though, unlike the tenets of marxism. But if a government does a lot of what was in goebbels list , then i think you can start considering that government nazi-like yes.
Which btw is what Eco did when he wrote about the concept of ur-fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
Let's say that what i am attempting to do is to talk about ur-marxism
Is it possible to have an unjust law? Was it immoral for slaves to try and escape their masters in 1830?
I almost don't want to know your answer to that last question.
You are asking a libertarian leaning miniarchist if it's possible to have unjust laws. Yes it is, many/most of them are right now in western countries according to my morals.
*it is still inherently immoral to break most of them*.
I had hoped that writing "democracy with a constitution that protects rights, et cetera" was enough to avoide the inevitable "but slavery" trope, but here we are.
No it was not immoral for slaves to try and escape their masters in 1830, because the law didn't protect one of the very basic rights of those people.
The fact that a very small list of very egregious violations of basic rights happened in the past, and to some extent in the present as well in some western countries , doesn't justify political violence to attempt a revolution to overthrow the governments and institutions that you dislike though, even if it can morally justify breaking some very specific laws in very rare cases.
Things can both be immoral and moral at the same time for complex considerations which is why there isn't a clear answer to many moral questions (depending on your moral framework).
For example some people consider killing other human beings always immoral full stop, others accept exceptions exist, and among them not everyone agrees on which exceptions.
On a much more banal level, many people consider the extent of some taxes to be actually immoral. Does that justify tax evasion morally for you?
So the idea should still be that the rule of law is an inherent moral good (and a very big one), and like all inherent important moral goods you treat it very carefully, breaking it only in rare circumstances, never being happy to do so (if you live in a democracy under a constitution that protects your rights and so on)
This is were you simply fail to try to even read what i write.
Yes i do claim that neo-fascist organizations engaging in political terror are acting as marxists, because being a marxist doesn't require you to share ALL marxists values, just at least one of the core ones.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to call a fascist anyone who didn't share ALL elements of mussolini fascism , do you see why? and instead you and most others use fascism t
You're saying that Marxists are the only sole one group who advocate political violence, ergo all political violence is Marxist...and sorry but that's a loada me bollix. Wrong on so many levels as well as dishonest as you can't seriously be unaware of right wing terrorism. To then label right wing terrorism as Marxist due to it being violent is at best circular reasoning and absolutely bat$hit nuts.
Opportunistic looters, people who join for "fun" or thrill and so on, aren't necessarily marxists.
But it's quite weird to read a violent riot caused by hatred ofimmigrants has nothing to do with class struggle, as the citizens vs immigrant class struggle is one of the most salient one in many western societies right now.
Many political parties use the citizens vs immigrant class division to claim a lot of things , treating both as monoliths
At its core it's due to tribalism, not class struggle.
You're saying that Marxists are the only sole one group who advocate political violence, ergo all political violence is Marxist...and sorry but that's a loada me bollix. Wrong on so many levels as well as dishonest as you can't seriously be unaware of right wing terrorism. To then label right wing terrorism as Marxist due to it being violent is at best circular reasoning and absolutely bat$hit nuts.
You are using the term group here, not me.
I am saying that if you advocate for political violence *in a democracy with a constitution that protects rights* that's a marxist thing.
I am not saying a group called "marxists" exists as an identifiable entity.
I am aware of rightwing terrorism, i am saying rightwing terrorists are rightwing marxists.
Labelling political violence as marxists isn't circular, it's a useful definition that, for example, would let you understand why leftwing political terrorism and right wing political terrorism happen for basically the same reasons, the people doing those acts are extremely similar, the solution is identical against both, and the purported social injustice they want to "fix" is the least relevant element of their behaviour!
Modern propaganda wasn't invented by fascists though, unlike the tenets of marxism. But if a government does a lot of what was in goebbels list , then i think you can start considering that government nazi-like yes.
Which btw is what Eco did when he wrote about the concept of ur-fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
Let's say that what i am attempting to do is to talk about ur-marxism
Political violence wasn't invented by Marxists either.
Luciom seems to be arguing that political violence is a sufficient but not necessary condition to define something as Marxism, which is of course rather convenient for him as it allows him to define pineapple on pizza as "Marxist" if it's not to his taste.
It is of course, as anyone who is not an ideologial zealot understands, neither necessary nor sufficient.
You are using the term group here, not me.
I am saying that if you advocate for political violence *in a democracy with a constitution that protects rights* that's a marxist thing.
I am not saying a group called "marxists" exists as an identifiable entity.
I am aware of rightwing terrorism, i am saying rightwing terrorists are rightwing marxists.
Labelling political violence as marxists isn't circular, it's a useful definition that, for examp
You went from violent riots to then political violence to then picking one tenet from a manifesto as if it were the only one so what difference does it make if I use the term "group"?
It's also a neo nazi thing or an eco terrorism thing or any other number of things. You're saying Marxism is the be all & end all of violent protest or political violence or terrorism as you seem to think only Marxists advocate violence. This convo is really bizarre I gotta say, and going nowhere.
The whole "first they came for the socialists..." bit? Did they not teach you that in school?
tribalism is the most basic of the class struggles. Class struggle means that , the idea people can neatly be divided in groups in monolithical opposition one to the other, and the following (for marxist) idea that you can only solve the struggle by abolishing all groups except one.
class struggle
noun
variants or class war or class warfare
: opposition of and contention between social or economic classes
especially : such a struggle between or felt to exist between the proletariat and the capitalist classes
The fact that class struggle is typically (especially) used to define a specific struggle as described by original marxists, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to citizens vs immigrants as well.
Citizen and immigrant are very much social classes.
You went from violent riots to then political violence to then picking one tenet from a manifesto as if it were the only one. It's also a neo nazi thing or an eco terrorism thing or any number of things. You're saying Marxism is the be all & end all of violent protest or political violence or terrorism as you seem to think only Marxists advocate violence. This convo is really bizarre I gotta say.
yes nazists were very marxist in their framework, i literally linked you goebbels saying very marxists things.
Eco terrorism is pure marxism as well , exactly.
I think you are getting the idea now.
If i ever wrote "violent riot" without citing the political aspect which i did most of the times it's just for brevity i guess, i clearly don't consider marxist a football riot. The motivation must be political.
It's not that i think "only marxists" advocate violence, i am saying advocating for POLITICAL violence (in a democracy etc) MAKES YOU A MARXIST.
Again, think eugenetics: advocating for violent eugenetics MAKES YOU A NAZI
corpus, example of why it's useful to label right-wing terrorism as Marxist:
every time in society a group acts with political violence and people don't condamn that as a heinous act , with the strongest terms possible, and don't ask for brutal, draconian repression of those acts, they help the "other side" do political violence as well.
not treating BLM violent riots as marxism (or with extreme strength and so on) allows the Jan 6 riots, and not treating the Jan 6 riots as marxism allows Marxism to flourish in the republican party, as it is, and allows future BLM or climatic or whatever riots.
it's a circle of political violence which feeds on itself even if the content is apparently opposite. because people miss the core approach is identical (Marxism), the idea you are morally justified to act with political violence when the government does something you disagree a lot with.
if all instances of political violence were treated equally, as cancer that can't exist in civil society, we are still at a stage where we can fix it.
and then we have to fix the part where those concepts are pushed as moral positives by people who agree with the intent.
And it starts in universities, where anyone that justifies political violence in the USA for any goal (=Marxist) should be kicked away.
Luciom has admitted that he is using a definition of Marxist that no one else uses, which makes a discussion of whether a particular thing is Marxist a complete waste of time.
Luciom might as well be arguing that, even though he ate a steak yesterday, he follows a 100% plant-based diet because he defines all living things as plants.
if law enforcement did it's job there would be less need of vigilantes, at least for violent riots.
they were literally shooting rubber bullets, does that seem reasonable to you?
NO and Yes.
We can't ever let randoms with guns take "justice" into their own hands. It hasn't worked in the past and won't ever work.
If you are talking about the police, yes, shooting rubber bullets seems perfectly reasonable.
Luciom has admitted that he is using a definition of Marxist that no one else uses, which makes a discussion of whether a particular thing is Marxist a complete waste of time.
Luciom might as well be arguing that, even though he ate a steak yesterday, he follows a 100% plant-based diet because he defines all living things as plants.
not exactly, I linked to people who use something much close to my definition than to yours.
and no my definition isn't meaningless as the plant example would imply
You don't sound any different from the rioters, Luciom. If you don't like something going on, then take matters into your own hands. The more violent the better.
You don't sound any different from the rioters, Luciom. If you don't like something going on, then take matters into your own hands. The more violent the better.
I never understand if you guys are trolling or not at this point, if asking for law enforcement to stop rioters is the same as being a rioter, language has no meaning anymore
btw rococo this long discussion about Marxism started because I used the cultural Marxists label that a lot of the right uses to describe trans activism, and now you say my definition is unique and not shared any anyone.
