G. Beck had an interesting point on his show.

[ihopehefails]

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?

 

[Diuretic]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

Remember Beck got his eddicatshun for free from the library.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Remember Beck got his eddicatshun for free from the library.

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...

 

[uscitizen]

Remember Beck got his eddicatshun for free from the library.

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...

My library has a DVD video section?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

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.

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

clearly


not

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 problem we have is corporatism

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.

civil rights
OSHA
women's suffrage...

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?

Conservatism's not an ideology, rendering your question stupid.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Remember Beck got his eddicatshun for free from the library.

So did I. Difference is that I get all of my books from the non-fiction section.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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'?

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.

The thing that holds that nirvanized society together is the collective will which is almost like a psuedo-government of itself.

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.

This is why Marx believed their must be a religiosity about politics.

Marx was adamantly anti-theistic.

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.

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

George Odger, (Secretary of the General Trades Council) read a speech calling for international co-operation, to which Tolain responded. The meeting unanimously decided to found an international organisation of workers. The centre was to be in London, with a committee of 21 elected members. It was instructed to draft rules and constitution. Most of the British members of the committee were drawn from the Universal League for the Material Elevation of the Industrious Classes[4] and were noted trade-union leaders like Odger, George Howell (the secretary of the London Trades Council (LTC) which itself declined affiliation to the IWA (although remaining close to it)), Osborne, and Lucraft and included Owenites and Chartists. The French members were Denoual, Victor Le Lubez, and Bosquet. Italy was represented by Fontana. Other members were: Louis Wolff, Johann Eccarius, and at the foot of the list, Karl Marx. Marx participated in his individual capacity, and didn't speak during the meeting.[5]

International Workingmen's Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Murf76]

In practice, all collectivist ideology comes out the same... with the manipulative few who have managed to climb up over the backs of their brethren tyrannizing the many. The rest is semantics.

The Borg must have a Queen, right? Otherwise, they don't move in the same direction.

 

[uscitizen]

The Borg have Fox.

Resistance is futile.
You will be assimilated.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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?

Here is the show you speak of.
This is th schism in America , where the distrust comes from .
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/107635-americas-hidden-history.html

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

That's not what Beck said.

His point is, and you just mentioned it, that both racing to the same goal, total government control under social justice umbrella. Only question is who's selling it better and who's going to get there first.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

That's not what Beck said.

His point is, and you just mentioned it, that both racing to the same goal, total government control under social justice umbrella. Only question is who's selling it better and who's going to get there first.

Okay, theoretical differences aside. Total government control is totalitarian. I would hope that any of us, regardless of political persuasion, would be implacably opposed to that concept. Now, did Beck say how it could be opposed?

 

[California Girl]

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.

That's not what Beck said.

His point is, and you just mentioned it, that both racing to the same goal, total government control under social justice umbrella. Only question is who's selling it better and who's going to get there first.

Okay, theoretical differences aside. Total government control is totalitarian. I would hope that any of us, regardless of political persuasion, would be implacably opposed to that concept. Now, did Beck say how it could be opposed?

By returning to the founding principles. It ain't rocket science. The founders deliberately wrote the Constitution, etc. to put the country as close to 'anarchy' as possible without actually descending into total anarchy.

It did take them two attempts. The first was before Washington was POTUS, and it didn't work. The states fought each other, there was no trust and it failed. So they fixed it. If we ran the country the way it is designed to be run we would be what we are supposed to be. A beacon of light and hope for the world to emulate.

 

[editec]

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?

sigh!

Here we go again.

The opposite of Fascist isn't Democrat

The opposite of Republican isn't Communist.

The scale of oppressive government ranges for zero (anachy) to 100%absolute totalitarianism.(slavery)

Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, have nothing to do with it.

Despite the very different economic systems Fascist Germany and Satalinist USSR had, they were both very far up the TOTALITARIAN scale.

Hitler used a command capitalist economy. He wasn't a conservative

Stalin used a command socialist economy. He wasn't a liberal.

 

[California Girl]

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?

sigh!

Here we go again.

The opposite of Fascist isn't Democrat

The opposite of Republican isn't Communist.

The scale of oppressive government ranges for zero (anachy) to 100%absolute totalitarianism.(slavery)

Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, have nothing to do with it.

Despite the very different economic systems Fascist Germany and Satalinist USSR had, they were both very far up the TOTALITARIAN scale.

Hitler used a command capitalist economy. He wasn't a conservative

Stalin used a command socialist economy. He wasn't a liberal.

Indeed!!!!

If we could get past the ridiculous bitching about the liberal and conservative shit and recognize that:

There is TOTALITARIANISM (whether it be socialist, marxist, communist or whatever) - Both of these are closer to our current Democrats AND Republicans that we should be.

The opposite is ANARCHY - a totally lawless society. No one wants that.

The Founders wrote the Constitution et al to put us as close to Anarchy as possible WITHOUT descending into chaos. That, my friends, is FREEDOM. And that is where we are supposed to be.

Totalitarianism is state control. Taken to it's limits, you get Soviet Russia, China, Venuzuela, etc. We are not those countries.

It is not a good thing to live in a lawless place - as we all recognize.

So what is so bad with living to the Constitution?

 

[Vanquish]

Easier said than done, but it should be the agreed upon goal.