G. Beck had an interesting point on his show.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Mar 3, 2010.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    He pointed out that the right calls left communist and left calls the right fascist whenever one side seeks to gain power over someone else but he pointed out that communism and fascism were nearly identical to each other on a philosophical level about the rights of individuals. He then pointed out that America doesn't have a communist or fascist problem but a progressive problem witch is neither liberal or conservative in any way. The philospophy that started in the beginning of the 20th century in American and has always infected both parties and definately was not friendly to the rights of individuals or freedom in any way.

    It kind of made me wonder if you stripped the progressive out of both parties would would liberals and conservative be any different from each other?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    When I was offline for a few weeks moving house and getting my ISP sorted out, I had to keep my right wingnut habit so I watched Fox News. I watched Beck. Shallow. Very shallow. That was the most disappointing aspect. Not loud and boofheaded like Hannity, just shallow.

    Beck's claim that fascism and communism are both the same relative to the issue of individualism is simply wrong. Fascism is, to fascists, a complete and final stage in social development. The state incorporates everything into itself, including corporations, the military and individuals. Communism is a complex political and social theory that argues that humans are constantly in transition and that transition is to a stateless society, that's the nirvana of communism, where the state no longer exists. So I think Beck is wrong. And shallow.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Remember Beck got his eddicatshun for free from the library.
     
  4. Mr. Peepers
    Offline

    Mr. Peepers Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,206
    Thanks Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +394
    The COMMIE public brary at that...

    I guess they didn't have any history books or dictionaries because he certainly doesn't have any sort of a grasp on communism OR fascism.

    Personally, I don't think he has frequented many libraries at all. There is no "ignorant buffoon" section to my knowledge...
     
  5. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    My library has a DVD video section?
     
  6. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    And what happens when someone wants to break away from this nirvana and be their own person who chooses to go in an opposite direction of the 'nirvanized society'? The thing that holds that nirvanized society together is the collective will which is almost like a psuedo-government of itself. This is why Marx believed their must be a religiosity about politics. He wanted to recreate that nirvanization within the state which is not much different from what fascist attempted to do the only difference is that they wanted to maintain the nation while communist did not. Its the reason why they called in National Socialism vs International Socialism.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2010
  7. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Theoretically - I have to take that position because I'm not sure if human nature at this time or in the near future will permit this - a society such as the type envisaged by Marx and Engels will have no artificial restrictions on it. I stress "artificial" in the sense of imposed restrictions rather than the natural restrictions being human infers. So going in an opposite direction is moot because there is no "direction" in the first place in a society without the state.

    Having said that I think it will still be possible for any individual to be capable of abnormality or deviancy. As has been argued we only know normal when we work out deviance and normal and deviance will arise in any human collective. I don't think the absence of normal and deviance was predicted by Marx and Engels, well I hope it wasn't because it's pretty dumb to do so.

    Marx and Engels argued that the structure of the state produces its politics. But again as has been pointed out, the reverse is possible, Stalin did it and in doing so poisoned the ideas of Marx and Engels by his perversion. Without the state structure there is no politics but the will of the polity, as you rightly point out, will still exist, just in a different form.
     
  8. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    clearly


    not

    :eusa_eh:

    The problem we have is corporatism
    :eusa_eh:


    civil rights
    OSHA
    women's suffrage...
    Conservatism's not an ideology, rendering your question stupid.
     
  9. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    So did I. Difference is that I get all of my books from the non-fiction section.
     
  10. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    They leave. They need not physically move, but they break the bond, neither contributing to nor benefiting from the social effort. This is contrary to the current system, where any such attempt results in the IRS and the FBI raiding your house.
    Not government. Ideology. A common ideology and a strong social bond are necessary. That's why most successful communes have been comprised of religious people.
    Marx was adamantly anti-theistic.

    Marx was involved with the International, actually. First for sure, and I think he was also involved with the second, before the major split. He had some issue going on with someone, but I forget what it was all about.
     

Share This Page