Wednesday, 30 August 2017

Antifa: socialists or fascists?


Argument has continued over which side of the political fence lie the blackshirted thugs beating up passersby and opponents in Charlottesville and Berkeley.

“They’re socialists,” says one side, “because they’re waving red flags and quoting Karl Marx.”

“No!” says the other side, “they’re fascists, you see, because they’re thugs in black shirts.”

“No,” respond the other side, ”they’re anti-fascist – it’s right their in their name, Antifa – and only socialists can be antifascist.“

“You mean,” says the other side, “like the DPRK, i.e.,North Korea, must be democratic because it says so in their name?”

The funny thing is, both these sides are right in their analysis, just as both the sides in combat are wrongas George Reisman so sagely points out. The key here, he explains, is that:

Socialism comes in two leading variants: the German or Nazi variant and the Russian or Bolshevik variant.
    In the Nazi variant, the appearance of private ownership exists but all the actual powers of ownership are exercised by the government.
    In Charlottesville, both the protestors and the anti-protestors included numerous socialists, German or Russian style respectively.
    To that extent, the two sides were equivalent in their human-life-hating immorality.
    Among the protestors in Charlottesville, were many who sympathised with the Confederacy either in spite of or because of its slavery.
    But even sympathy for Confederate slavery pales in comparison with advocating slavery for today, for everyone, as does socialism.*

NOTE:

*  Reisman: “Socialism is an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production; … a system of slavery, established by armed robbery and maintained by totalitarian dictatorship and mass murder.
    Mass murders under socialism, including government caused famines (in millions): Mainland China: 76; Soviet Union: 62; Nazi Germany: 21 …. [Source: R. J. Rummel, Death By Government. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1994. For proof of the nature of socialism, see pp 282-94 of my book CAPITALISM, available on
Amazon.]

13 comments:

  1. I find it more and more useful to boil this down to identity versus individualism.

    Freedom advocates are individualists, and treat everyone on their merit as a unique individual (hence, per one of your earlier blogs, individualism makes racism, sexism, et all impossible).

    Both an antifa like a alt-right white supremacists are that most evil creature which views everything in terms of identity to the extinguishment of being able to treat people as individual human beings. People are either loved, or more usually, hated, merely on skin colour or gender. That's why identity has always, in its final iteration, able to commit genocide - the wiping out of individuals en masse based on something as superficial as a group they are identified with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the Drunken Watchman30 Aug 2017, 17:22:00

    "But even sympathy for Confederate slavery pales in comparison with advocating slavery for today, for everyone, as does socialism."

    so..... at some point all monuments to those who fought for socialism should be removed?

    How about, meat eating comes to be seen as evil.... all monuments to a war hero who had fought for their country's right to free trade, including its meat, should also be removed?

    ReplyDelete
  3. the Drunken Watchman30 Aug 2017, 20:26:00

    btw, current NZ monuments to war heroes - they pretty much all fought for a nationalist/ political system which included mainstay socialist elements.

    so bye bye all monuments, Victoria Crosses, museum portraits of Charles Upham :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally I'd be fine with removal of all public monuments. The idea of the government spending public treasure to honor individuals is definitely against the proper purpose of government! If private groups wish to erect statues, monuments, or whatever, that's perfectly fine; it reflects nothing but their views, and is their property.

    The only sticking point I can see is the military. Obviously as an organization it makes sense that they'd want to honor certain members. As public institution, however, it becomes tricky. I think that as long as those statues, memorials, or whatever remain on military property it would be no different from statues or memorials on anyone else's property.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the Drunken Watchman31 Aug 2017, 10:40:00

    Dinwar

    are you serious? You want to see all public monuments, worldwide, which were built by governments or rulers which don't fit your definition of acceptability, removed? (removed by another coercive government or ruler, no less :)

    That's bye bye pyramids,knock down cathedrals and castles ... and cleanse the museums too?

    PC's post on the removal of statues honouring anything built in celebration of warriors who included in their code something PC now considers "evil" is ridiculously tendentious.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Nazis were not socialist; you can't just arbitrarily decide that they were to suit your political beliefs.

    If I'm wrong then name a reputable, objective historian who thinks they were. And no, Reisman is not an historian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen in previous discussions your sense of reality is determined by what you can quickly google, and the basis on which you make our assertions. If you'd gone a bit further though, you'd have realised that Nazi was the German abbreviation for National Socialist. That by itself doesn't prove anything (as the DPRK examples shows), but if you read what the Nazi's actually wrote, you'll find much of it indistinguishable from what modern socialists advocate today. It was socialism with a nationalist/racist/militarist rather than the internationalist/pacifist flavour, but socialism nonetheless.

      When the intellectual mainstream of our era is predominantly socialist, they will of course want to distance themselves from the Nazis, so I wouldn't be surprised if your search engine shows few "reputable" historians pointing out the parallels (or even acknowledging tht Nazi was short for National Socialism) - but if truth is really your goal, you should read what the Nazis advocated on the domestic front and decide for yourself.

      Delete
  7. Hi Ben, here you go:
    https://books.google.ca/books?id=1oXbDyeLYXoC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Feldman,+Gerald.+The+Economic+Origins+of+European+Fascism&source=bl&ots=EQvpyEizl7&sig=-Y7OUYWOAg5NMYi2LYLLP8bUO6U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi399mk2IPPAhVW5mMKHdKKA_cQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=anti-capitalist%20enough&f=false

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being "anti-capitalist" to an extent does not automatically make a regime socialist. If it did, then every country on the planet today would have a socialist regime by definition.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-communism

      Delete
    2. Ben, They called themselves socialist, spoke out forcefully against capitalism, and acted to enforce centralized control over the economy.

      Admittedly, in of of themselves any one of the above isn't definitive, but taken as a whole it's pretty clear cut.

      At what point do you call it socialism? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and publicly declares itself to be not just a duck, but the most pure blooded duck in the world, perhaps we should just take it on it's word?

      Also, communism is a form of socialism, but not the only version. I can be socialist and be anti communist, the same way I can be Christian and anti Catholic.

      Lastly: Many, if not most countries today does have a socialist regime by definition, and would proudly proclaim it. Most of Europe are proudly socialist, even John Key declared that Kiwi's have a "Socialist Streak". Only the Yanks and the Aussies won't cop to it.

      Delete
    3. Roedolf - You have the internet, you went to school, and yet you're arguing as if you'd never heard of fascism except on this blog. There's a difference between fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes (and it's not that fascism is a form of socialism). It isn't complicated.

      And no, most countries today are not socialist whether they proclaim it or not. Libertarians themselves argue this, for example, when the success of Scandinavian countries is brought up.

      Mark - Roedolf's argument is odd but yours is missing a chromosome. You think there's a conspiracy by Google & the "intellectual mainstream" to hide/deny Nazi leftist socialism? Jesus wept.

      "If you read what the Nazis actually wrote"

      Which you yourself clearly haven't done. You'd benefit greatly from some Google education of your own. I'd suggest starting with "Fascism" & "Nazism".

      Delete
  8. Time is almost at a close Cresswell

    Your game is DONE

    Infiltrators like YOU always end up where they deserve , Rat

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.