Stallman is the Michael Savage of software. He seems reasonable until you hear him speak or read his writings.
Stallman is utterly unreasonable. He's also correct pretty much every time he predicts something. I wish the world had a few more unreasonable visionaries who were unwilling to compromise on their goals to make this a better place.
I just wish the ones we have would learn effective communication skills.
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations.
No it doesn't. It requires a true premise about the stated beliefs of these organizations.
Of which you are apparently ignorant.
Ok. So the most respected history of the fascist movement lied to me then.
Fascist parties which identify as "national socialist" explicitly state their opposition to Communism,
And to federalism, local democratic institutions, and numerous other things you don't identify.
Because they're not relevent to your claim that fascism is socialism. If you had said fascism were a form of federalism, I would have omitted fascist opposition to socialism and brought up fascist opposition to federalism. Likewise, if you told me fascism was a form of conservatism, I would bring up evidence that fascism is anti-conservative.
to trade unions,
Hahahaha. Go read more about the origins of fascism. It arose from the labor movement everywhere it's been tried.
Yeah, like in Germany where the middle class organized the Nazi party to oppose the working class, including going around infiltrating unions, disrupting their meetings, and beating their members. After the labor movement was completely smashed, they started appealing to workers for support. I've read my fascist history, but I'm also capable of understanding that taking over an organization and originating from that organization are not the same thing.
As for directing the argument, your thesis from before I even joined the debate was "Fascism is indeed a form of socialism..."
Yes, and then you diverted from whether or not fascism is socialist to whether or not they were antisocialist.
Well, in my universe, opposing something is incompatible with being that thing. Next are you going to try to tell me the anti-federalists wre federalists?
I didn't direct the argument here, you did.
No, you brought it full circle. Congratulations.
You're right. You started out claiming that fascism is a form of socialism with nothing to back it up, and I brought it full circle by arguing that fascism is not a form of socialism, and pointing out that your claims, which you now claim not to have made, were illogical.
May you continue to think the entire world revolves around your prejudices and that political philosophies cannot be subjected to rational taxonomy.
I've never in my life thought political philosophies were not subject to taxonomy, but when you offer a taxonomy based on simple and direct lies, I reject it.
You realize that those two statements do not create any distinction between your versions of Marxist socialism and democratic socialism? Workers controlling the means of production is private control.
Ok genius, in our system of private control, how many factory workers do you know who own factories?
Your distinction is also bullshit by completely missing what Marxist socialism is.
Once again, no it's not.
Marxist socialism is a phase Marx theorized
economies would eventually go through, during which things would be produced for the maximum use-value, instead of the maximum trade-value. Drawing a politico-philosophical distinction between it and philosophical schools of economic political thought is like saying we can't be in the Anthropocene because it's Tuesday.
Good to see you've read some books and can use big words. Wake me up when you come up with an actual argument.
State control of the means of production is thousands of years old and has nothing to do w
I didn't use it to prove their ideology. I mentioned the name of the NSDAP twice; the first time to identify it uniquely...
As I quote you, from the first point you brought their name up: "Yes, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist." This is argument of the form "A's name contains X, therefore A is a type of X." This is exactly what you're now saying you didn't do.
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations.
No it doesn't. It requires a true premise about the stated beliefs of these organizations. Fascist parties which identify as "national socialist" explicitly state their opposition to Communism, to trade unions, and to any other socialist groups that operate in their respective countries. Fascist parties which do not so identify explicitly state that they are against socialism generally. Both types are anti-socialist, but the ones with "socialist" in their name can't admit it because it would make them look stupid, so they work around that by specifically criticizing every form of actual socialism.
You then directed the argument to whether or not fascism is a form of socialism and I did not say they were socialists because they called themselves socialists.
Christ, do I have to quote you back to yourself again? "They have not all been. The National Social German Workers' Party, being the most obvious example, many fascists explicitly call themselves socialists." This was your entire post, so you appear to find what they called themselves persuasive. As for directing the argument, your thesis from before I even joined the debate was "Fascism is indeed a form of socialism..."
I didn't direct the argument here, you did.
I said they were socialists because they advocated for state control of the means of production.
Which is the definition of socialist only in a right-wing fantasyland. Marxist socialism advocates for worker control of the means of production. Democratic socialism advocates for private control of the means of production accompanied by a strong welfare state and strong regulation. State control of the means of production is thousands of years old and has nothing to do with socialism, which is a nineteenth-century-to-present social and intellectual movement. The kings of Sparta were not socialists.
Except that both national socialism and fascism are merely mutated branches of "normal" socialism. In both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the economy was pretty much completely directed by the government.
Government control of economy != socialism, except in Republican-land. Sharing resources with all members of society is socialism. Socialism is a set of ideologies and systems developed in the late 18th and early-to-mid 19th centuries which are all oriented towards spreading the wealth of society and gains of industrialization in order to take care of all people. Government control of the economy is thousands of years old. Government control of the economy with the purpose of benefiting certain entrenched groups is a hallmark of both modern fascism and medieval feudalism.
The only difference between the Soviet Union and the Axis powers was that the Axis allowed citizens to still own property as long as they were loyal to the state. Ultimately, all industry still had to be at the service of the state if you wanted to keep your company. Virtually all German industrialists were members of the Nazi party, because if they weren't, they didn't stay in business. Same thing with Italy.
You mean like how in previous centuries all businessman had to be loyal to the king? I guess every monarch in history was really a Communist, then.
And Mussolini's evolution from mainline socialism was even more apparent. He began as a member of the socialist party. He simply figured he could do all-powerful government even better if he tweaked the model some.
Right, because people's ideologies never change. Nobody in history ever has a change of heart. If you're a member of one political party, you can never, ever come to believe the opposite of that party line. Young Republicans never, ever become old Democrats and young Democrats never, ever become old Republicans. Also, nobody ever changes what religion they believe in.
No major political party since then has called itself fascist either.
Who said anything about since then? There were dozens of self-proclaimed fascist parties prior to WWII, and they all followed pretty much the same political line as modern fascists parties that don't use the name "fascist". None of whom call themselves socialist, contrary to your previous claim, except as part of the phrase "National Socialist".
What a party names itself, however, is not a good indicator of the party's ideology.
Searching "Beverly Stayart" was my main starting point every time I want to wank off. Now the porn is all replaced with articles about her stupid case. Time to find a new search. Maybe "Christine O'Donnell?"
What, after the last six times this was pointed out in response to an article like this, you think repeating it will make the Slashdot editors finally get it?
Yeah, they called themselves that, but they went after every other type of socialist around. It was pretty clear they were socialists in name only. It's unclear who the "many" you're referring to are, as the only ones I was able to find were Nazi-affiliated parties calling themselves "national socialist" and a single Bolivian fascist party calling itself the Bolivian Socialist Falange. Fascist parties are much more likely to call themselves Nationalist, Patriotic, or even outright Fascist than Socialist.
>>>Under President Bush, assassinations by Hellfire missile in crowded city streets was standard practice.
How on earth is this modded +1 insightful? I don't recall Bush sending any Hellfires down the streets of Baltimore or Richmond..... or ordering the assassination of US citizens abroad. I'm aware of ONE case where he held a US citizen without trial at Gitmo, but the american was let go. He was not assassinated.
So as long as they're foreign citizens, the president can target them at will and it's just fine? Because Americans are just better than the rest of the world, right?
Perhaps the worst part, though, is that you voted for Obama knowing he was left-of-center and pro-government, as if governments and corporations are different in their damage.
Well, we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and then there are corporations run by the rich people, for the rich people. I'd say that makes the damage corporations are capable of much worse. Government is at least democratically accountable (most of the time) to the general population.
And since when is it bad for the people in government to be pro-government? That's like saying every CEO should always be anti-corporation, or the coach of the Packers should always be pro-Bears. News flash: If you say government is the problem, and you're in the government, then you're the problem!
Do you even know what socialism is? Because it isn't this.
Socialism - Anything political that is disliked by a conservative.
Fascism - Anything political that is disliked by a liberal.
Actually, these days, anything political that is disliked by a conservative is both fascist and socialist. By way of citation, I refer you to The Glenn Beck Show.
Yes education is your friend: NAZI in English becomes NSDAP in Germany...
Actually, Nazi in English translates to Nazi in German. They were formally called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, which, like you say, translates to National Socialist German Workers' Party, but Nazi is the short form for this in both languages. They were called Nazis for short in German long before the English language had a word for them.
The fact that they called themselves socialist doesn't mean they were, they were fascists
Exactly! Most people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists should be informed that the coalition of Marxists, Anarchists, Syndicalists, and Liberals who fought together in the Spanish Civil War called themselves...Republicans!
Herein lies the danger of substituting Google for an education in history: Jefferson completely repudiated that line of reasoning once he became president.
Instead of looking for the next JFK next time, try for someone more straightforward and ethical. I don't care if he's from the left or right of the political spectrum, just elect someone who is smart and has a track record for fairness and following through on his/her campaign promises.
Good luck, when none were on the ballot. For either party.
Even though you say that such a thing can be accomplished without guns, anything someone wishes to do against the wishes of another (send a communication without someone reading it), will eventually trace back to a threat of violence.
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the application of violence.
You say that as though every action traces back to government.
Republican politicians advocate smaller government...except when it comes to invading your personal life.
Actually, conservatives, not necessarily "Republicans" simply want the federal government to follow the Constitution...
That's the biggest lie I've heard in months. If conservatives actually acted on that instead of just saying it, they would oppose leaders like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan when such leaders vastly expand federal power. Instead Ronald Reagan, the biggest wasteful government expander of the twentieth century who used our tax dollars to fund terrorists all over the world, is every tea party conservative's wet dream. In reality, conservatives base their entire political ideology off a desire to return to the "good old days" and oppose social progress, but because opposing progress sounds stupid they talk about "small government" and "the Constitution" instead.
Plus, I don't think the Republicans are actually against anyone eating anything. Heck, half of registered Republicans will basically eat anything as long as you either deep-fry or put barbecue sauce on it.
The Republicans are certainly against people eating certain things: hallucinogenic mushrooms, peyote, etc.
I think I have the solution to the drug war: Deep-fried psilocybin and barbecue peyote!
people will use foreign currency for a while (Canadian near Canada, Mexican near Mexico) until the US government makes new currency that is tied to either the gold/silver standard and the cycle will repeat.
What makes you think those currencies will have any value? They're not tied to specie standards either, and they have just as much inflation on average.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman is the Michael Savage of software. He seems reasonable until you hear him speak or read his writings.
Stallman is utterly unreasonable. He's also correct pretty much every time he predicts something. I wish the world had a few more unreasonable visionaries who were unwilling to compromise on their goals to make this a better place.
I just wish the ones we have would learn effective communication skills.
I once asked Richard Stallman how to convince my school to go with FOSS instead of Windows, since most of our CS lab was on Windows.
His reply: "Defenestration! Throw Windows out of the computer, or throw the computer out the window!"
Thus demonstrating why Stallman fails to convince anyone of anything, ever.
...but because it's not Microsoft they just can't consider it "reliable".
I'm guessing just from this data that "they" all hold MBAs. Am I right?
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations.
No it doesn't. It requires a true premise about the stated beliefs of these organizations.
Of which you are apparently ignorant.
Ok. So the most respected history of the fascist movement lied to me then.
Fascist parties which identify as "national socialist" explicitly state their opposition to Communism,
And to federalism, local democratic institutions, and numerous other things you don't identify.
Because they're not relevent to your claim that fascism is socialism. If you had said fascism were a form of federalism, I would have omitted fascist opposition to socialism and brought up fascist opposition to federalism. Likewise, if you told me fascism was a form of conservatism, I would bring up evidence that fascism is anti-conservative.
to trade unions,
Hahahaha. Go read more about the origins of fascism. It arose from the labor movement everywhere it's been tried.
Yeah, like in Germany where the middle class organized the Nazi party to oppose the working class, including going around infiltrating unions, disrupting their meetings, and beating their members. After the labor movement was completely smashed, they started appealing to workers for support. I've read my fascist history, but I'm also capable of understanding that taking over an organization and originating from that organization are not the same thing.
As for directing the argument, your thesis from before I even joined the debate was "Fascism is indeed a form of socialism..."
Yes, and then you diverted from whether or not fascism is socialist to whether or not they were antisocialist.
Well, in my universe, opposing something is incompatible with being that thing. Next are you going to try to tell me the anti-federalists wre federalists?
I didn't direct the argument here, you did.
No, you brought it full circle. Congratulations.
You're right. You started out claiming that fascism is a form of socialism with nothing to back it up, and I brought it full circle by arguing that fascism is not a form of socialism, and pointing out that your claims, which you now claim not to have made, were illogical.
May you continue to think the entire world revolves around your prejudices and that political philosophies cannot be subjected to rational taxonomy.
I've never in my life thought political philosophies were not subject to taxonomy, but when you offer a taxonomy based on simple and direct lies, I reject it.
You realize that those two statements do not create any distinction between your versions of Marxist socialism and democratic socialism? Workers controlling the means of production is private control.
Ok genius, in our system of private control, how many factory workers do you know who own factories?
Your distinction is also bullshit by completely missing what Marxist socialism is.
Once again, no it's not.
Marxist socialism is a phase Marx theorized economies would eventually go through, during which things would be produced for the maximum use-value, instead of the maximum trade-value. Drawing a politico-philosophical distinction between it and philosophical schools of economic political thought is like saying we can't be in the Anthropocene because it's Tuesday.
Good to see you've read some books and can use big words. Wake me up when you come up with an actual argument.
State control of the means of production is thousands of years old and has nothing to do w
I didn't use it to prove their ideology. I mentioned the name of the NSDAP twice; the first time to identify it uniquely...
As I quote you, from the first point you brought their name up: "Yes, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party was socialist." This is argument of the form "A's name contains X, therefore A is a type of X." This is exactly what you're now saying you didn't do.
which requires a false premise about the self-identification of fascist organizations.
No it doesn't. It requires a true premise about the stated beliefs of these organizations. Fascist parties which identify as "national socialist" explicitly state their opposition to Communism, to trade unions, and to any other socialist groups that operate in their respective countries. Fascist parties which do not so identify explicitly state that they are against socialism generally. Both types are anti-socialist, but the ones with "socialist" in their name can't admit it because it would make them look stupid, so they work around that by specifically criticizing every form of actual socialism.
You then directed the argument to whether or not fascism is a form of socialism and I did not say they were socialists because they called themselves socialists.
Christ, do I have to quote you back to yourself again? "They have not all been. The National Social German Workers' Party, being the most obvious example, many fascists explicitly call themselves socialists." This was your entire post, so you appear to find what they called themselves persuasive. As for directing the argument, your thesis from before I even joined the debate was "Fascism is indeed a form of socialism..."
I didn't direct the argument here, you did.
I said they were socialists because they advocated for state control of the means of production.
Which is the definition of socialist only in a right-wing fantasyland. Marxist socialism advocates for worker control of the means of production. Democratic socialism advocates for private control of the means of production accompanied by a strong welfare state and strong regulation. State control of the means of production is thousands of years old and has nothing to do with socialism, which is a nineteenth-century-to-present social and intellectual movement. The kings of Sparta were not socialists.
Except that both national socialism and fascism are merely mutated branches of "normal" socialism. In both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the economy was pretty much completely directed by the government.
Government control of economy != socialism, except in Republican-land. Sharing resources with all members of society is socialism. Socialism is a set of ideologies and systems developed in the late 18th and early-to-mid 19th centuries which are all oriented towards spreading the wealth of society and gains of industrialization in order to take care of all people. Government control of the economy is thousands of years old. Government control of the economy with the purpose of benefiting certain entrenched groups is a hallmark of both modern fascism and medieval feudalism.
The only difference between the Soviet Union and the Axis powers was that the Axis allowed citizens to still own property as long as they were loyal to the state. Ultimately, all industry still had to be at the service of the state if you wanted to keep your company. Virtually all German industrialists were members of the Nazi party, because if they weren't, they didn't stay in business. Same thing with Italy.
You mean like how in previous centuries all businessman had to be loyal to the king? I guess every monarch in history was really a Communist, then.
And Mussolini's evolution from mainline socialism was even more apparent. He began as a member of the socialist party. He simply figured he could do all-powerful government even better if he tweaked the model some.
Right, because people's ideologies never change. Nobody in history ever has a change of heart. If you're a member of one political party, you can never, ever come to believe the opposite of that party line. Young Republicans never, ever become old Democrats and young Democrats never, ever become old Republicans. Also, nobody ever changes what religion they believe in.
No major political party since then has called itself fascist either.
Who said anything about since then? There were dozens of self-proclaimed fascist parties prior to WWII, and they all followed pretty much the same political line as modern fascists parties that don't use the name "fascist". None of whom call themselves socialist, contrary to your previous claim, except as part of the phrase "National Socialist".
What a party names itself, however, is not a good indicator of the party's ideology.
Then why the hell were you using it as an indicator to try to prove things about parties' ideologies?
Searching "Beverly Stayart" was my main starting point every time I want to wank off. Now the porn is all replaced with articles about her stupid case. Time to find a new search. Maybe "Christine O'Donnell?"
19 miles is still in the stratosphere.
What, after the last six times this was pointed out in response to an article like this, you think repeating it will make the Slashdot editors finally get it?
Yeah, they called themselves that, but they went after every other type of socialist around. It was pretty clear they were socialists in name only. It's unclear who the "many" you're referring to are, as the only ones I was able to find were Nazi-affiliated parties calling themselves "national socialist" and a single Bolivian fascist party calling itself the Bolivian Socialist Falange. Fascist parties are much more likely to call themselves Nationalist, Patriotic, or even outright Fascist than Socialist.
>>>Under President Bush, assassinations by Hellfire missile in crowded city streets was standard practice.
How on earth is this modded +1 insightful? I don't recall Bush sending any Hellfires down the streets of Baltimore or Richmond..... or ordering the assassination of US citizens abroad. I'm aware of ONE case where he held a US citizen without trial at Gitmo, but the american was let go. He was not assassinated.
So as long as they're foreign citizens, the president can target them at will and it's just fine? Because Americans are just better than the rest of the world, right?
Perhaps the worst part, though, is that you voted for Obama knowing he was left-of-center and pro-government, as if governments and corporations are different in their damage.
Well, we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and then there are corporations run by the rich people, for the rich people. I'd say that makes the damage corporations are capable of much worse. Government is at least democratically accountable (most of the time) to the general population.
And since when is it bad for the people in government to be pro-government? That's like saying every CEO should always be anti-corporation, or the coach of the Packers should always be pro-Bears. News flash: If you say government is the problem, and you're in the government, then you're the problem!
Do you even know what socialism is? Because it isn't this.
Socialism - Anything political that is disliked by a conservative.
Fascism - Anything political that is disliked by a liberal.
Actually, these days, anything political that is disliked by a conservative is both fascist and socialist. By way of citation, I refer you to The Glenn Beck Show.
Fascism is indeed a form of socialism that preserves nominal private ownership of industry while placing it under public control.
If fascism is a form of socialism, how come every single fascist party everywhere has been explicitly anti-socialist?
Yes education is your friend: NAZI in English becomes NSDAP in Germany...
Actually, Nazi in English translates to Nazi in German. They were formally called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, which, like you say, translates to National Socialist German Workers' Party, but Nazi is the short form for this in both languages. They were called Nazis for short in German long before the English language had a word for them.
The fact that they called themselves socialist doesn't mean they were, they were fascists
Exactly! Most people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists should be informed that the coalition of Marxists, Anarchists, Syndicalists, and Liberals who fought together in the Spanish Civil War called themselves...Republicans!
Ya know: It only take a minute to google:
...[Thomas Jefferson quote from 1791]
Herein lies the danger of substituting Google for an education in history: Jefferson completely repudiated that line of reasoning once he became president.
You say that as though every action traces back to government.
You say that as if you didn't miss the point.
You say that as though my missing the point somehow makes your wrong statement correct.
Instead of looking for the next JFK next time, try for someone more straightforward and ethical. I don't care if he's from the left or right of the political spectrum, just elect someone who is smart and has a track record for fairness and following through on his/her campaign promises.
Good luck, when none were on the ballot. For either party.
Remember "checks and balances from school? Guns are one of those necessary checks upon unrestrained power.
Remember punctuation marks from school?
Even though you say that such a thing can be accomplished without guns, anything someone wishes to do against the wishes of another (send a communication without someone reading it), will eventually trace back to a threat of violence.
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the application of violence.
You say that as though every action traces back to government.
Republican politicians advocate smaller government...except when it comes to invading your personal life.
Actually, conservatives, not necessarily "Republicans" simply want the federal government to follow the Constitution...
That's the biggest lie I've heard in months. If conservatives actually acted on that instead of just saying it, they would oppose leaders like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan when such leaders vastly expand federal power. Instead Ronald Reagan, the biggest wasteful government expander of the twentieth century who used our tax dollars to fund terrorists all over the world, is every tea party conservative's wet dream. In reality, conservatives base their entire political ideology off a desire to return to the "good old days" and oppose social progress, but because opposing progress sounds stupid they talk about "small government" and "the Constitution" instead.
Plus, I don't think the Republicans are actually against anyone eating anything. Heck, half of registered Republicans will basically eat anything as long as you either deep-fry or put barbecue sauce on it.
The Republicans are certainly against people eating certain things: hallucinogenic mushrooms, peyote, etc.
I think I have the solution to the drug war: Deep-fried psilocybin and barbecue peyote!
Democrats want to censure you from saying "hurtful" words, but want flag burning (flip for Repubs)
Which party wants you to utterly fail while trying to use the word "censor"?
people will use foreign currency for a while (Canadian near Canada, Mexican near Mexico) until the US government makes new currency that is tied to either the gold/silver standard and the cycle will repeat.
What makes you think those currencies will have any value? They're not tied to specie standards either, and they have just as much inflation on average.