|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 15, 2019 21:37:25 GMT -5
As I said in the other thread, this post is off topic and needed to be re-posted in it's own thread.
Mcans: 13 hours ago mcans said: Do you include yourself in this analysis?
Bob: Do you mean this particular analysis?
I am not a Republican or a Democrat. So why should I include myself?
Mcans: Does that mean you believe that your rhetoric and your views of your political opposition are not 'extreme'?
Do you think that comparing political opponents to Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, the SS, the Khmer Rouge, or Nazi stormtroopers is reasonable and appropriate?
Would you call it 'extreme' to compare your political opponents to Nazi stormtroopers or the Khmer Rouge?
Bob: I would not call it "extreme" to compare VIOLENT groups to Nazi stormtroopers because that is how the Nazis actually started out. Didn't they?
Mcans: You have not compared the right-wing protesters at Charlotte - you know, actual unapologetic Neonazis - to Nazi stormtroopers, but you have used that comparison for people protesting against right-wing and Neonazi speeches.
Bob: There is no need to "compare" neo-Nazis to Nazis since it should be obvious that they are Nazis.
Mcans: So apparently, your definition of 'violent' includes shouting down a speaker, but excludes the literal murder of political opponents.
Bob: I have never compared people who simply disagree with me to Nazis. Simple disagreement is not violence.
Of course you didn't bother to use quotes of what I actually said. That's because there are none.
Mcans: You've called postmodernism "fascist" and compared Barrack Obama to Adolf Hitler.
Bob: Yes. And I was wrong. Obama was no Hitler.
And I never called Postmodernists "Fascists." What I actually said was that Postmodern Relativism opened the door to Fascism because according to postmodernist dogma, there is no way to tell if one society is better than another.
A postmodernist has no way of condemning Nazi or Communist genocide because - well, different societies just happen to have different rules.
That is why some European judges refused to prosecute Muslim men for beating and abusing their wives (remember the debate we had on that a few years ago?).
Mcans: And you have repeatedly described peaceful leftist protests at US colleges as violent attempts to suppress speech and compared them to Nazi stormtroopers and the Khmer Rouge.
Bob: Wrong. Those were NOT peaceful protests. In one, a faculty member was attacked and had to spend time in a hospital with a neck injury. And in Evergreen College, the head of Campus Security told a professor whom the activists were targeting that they could not guarantee his safety.
Those WERE violent protests and your mere description of them as "peaceful" carries no weight without supporting evidence (which I notice you did not provide).
McAns: But you are right, you don't call everyone who disagrees with you Nazis. Only leftists get that treatment.
Bob: Where did I call the leftists "Nazis?" I didn't. You are misquoting. I said they were using the same tactics that Nazis were using. In fact, they were.
McAns:No member of the Trump administration, the Republican party, or any of their supporters, even Alt Right fascists or KKK members, has ever been called a Nazi by you, or compared to genocidal dictators or their supporters.
Bob: The KKK is a dead organization. They were sued by a family of someone who was murdered after a KKK rally. The KKK lost and went bankrupt. There are only a few of them left. Take a look here:
3,000 members in a nation of over 300 million! That's one thousandth of a percent!
As for Trump's administration, it is on the run. Few last in his cabinet more than a few months. Trump, his administration, and his close associates have been under constant investigation. Millions of people go to demonstrations to oppose him and his policies. His policies won't last and neither will he.
BTW, in case you didn't notice, Trump lost the House in the last election.
This is still America, not Wiemar Germany.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 8:37:44 GMT -5
You haven't answered my questions:
Do you believe that your rhetoric and your views of your political opposition are not 'extreme'?
Do you think that comparing political opponents to Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, the SS, the Khmer Rouge, or Nazi stormtroopers is reasonable and appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 16, 2019 13:13:59 GMT -5
You haven't answered my questions: Do you believe that your rhetoric and your views of your political opposition are not 'extreme'? Do you think that comparing political opponents to Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, the SS, the Khmer Rouge, or Nazi stormtroopers is reasonable and appropriate? No. I don't believe that my rhetoric or my views of SOME other people is extreme at all. With one exception (which I have since disavowed several times) I have NEVER characterized ALL my "political opponents" as being like Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. The one exception was Obama shortly after his election, and, to repeat, I have disavowed that mistake on several occasions. I have only characterized VIOLENT people or those who would open the way for violence as being like Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. When Antifa riots in the streets (as they have done; there is video evidence that I have previously posted here) they are acting like the Nazi stormtroopers. Do you deny this? Or are you saying that somehow this is "good violence?" You're my "opponent" here. Have I ever likened you to that list of above list of dictators and tyrants? Never. Not even once. Why? Because you are not violent and you have never threatened me with physical force. That's the Bottom Line here. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 22:09:16 GMT -5
With one exception (which I have since disavowed several times) I have NEVER characterized ALL my "political opponents" as being like Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Of course not. For you, only leftists can ever be like Adolf Hitler. Probably because you already believe that Adolf Hitler was a leftist. You've also compared Elizabeth Warren to Mussolini, and argued that followers of Bernie Sanders are morally equivalent to the Neonazis who murdered an antifascist protester at Charlottesville. I am saying that there are degrees of violence, and comparing the guy who punched Mike Pence to Adolf Hitler is hyperbolic to such a ridiculous extreme that it ceases to make any sense.How is rioting in the street a defining characteristic of a Nazi stormtrooper? Followers of every political ideology popular enough to attract crowds have been rioting in streets. The reason why no Objectivist has ever rioted is because your belief has never managed to gather more than a few dozen followers in the same location. Since I joined the forums, you've indirectly likened me to a fascist at at least three distinct points (once when you likened 'postmodernists' to fascists, once when you compared environmentalists to Nazis, and once when we argued about the censorship of Nazis), and you have directly accused me of being an antisemite at least twice as far as I can remember. Of course, you will deny that you ever said any of these things in your usual fashion, and conveniently most of these happened in previous incarnations of the FACTS forum that I can no longer access, so now you can continue to accuse me of lying, another thing that you've done several times in the past, either directly or indirectly. So when I say I'm going to punch you in the face, then I'm just like Hitler? Is that the point you're trying to make? That morally, there is no difference between threatening to punch somebody, and murdering millions of people in the service of an insane ideology?No. I don't believe that my rhetoric or my views of SOME other people is extreme at all. Neither did Adolf Hitler, did he?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 17, 2019 0:18:47 GMT -5
With one exception (which I have since disavowed several times) I have NEVER characterized ALL my "political opponents" as being like Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Of course not. For you, only leftists can ever be like Adolf Hitler. Probably because you already believe that Adolf Hitler was a leftist. And your evidence for your claim here is...? Did you bother to read her plan to revitalize the economy? Are you aware that she made the same proposals that Mussolini made to revitalize the Italian economy? Now if someone makes the same proposals as a Fascist, is it too much of a stretch to say that they are a Fascist? When did I say that? Do you have a quote here? Fallacy of Outrage. The fact that you are upset is not evidence of anything other than you are outraged. Once political violence is permitted, it tends to grow. Did you see that survey I posted about how a large percentage of the two major political parties would like to see members of other parties dead? That sort of attitude doesn't stay dormant forever. Eventually it blows up and people die. LOL! Sure, there have been plenty of riots caused by Christian Democrats! And the rioting of Nazis and Communists is usually organized. Yes, and I'm sure that the cardinal Objectivist injunction to never initiate violence had nothing to do with it. Actually, there are plenty of Libertarians who follow the same injunction. There were over 4 million votes for the Libertarian candidate in the 2016 election. That's quite a bit more than your claim of "a few dozen followers." But then sticking to the facts was never a strength of postmodernists, was it? What I said about postmodernists is that their philosophy makes it impossible to condemn Fascists, Communists, and Nazis and say that they are morally wrong. Postmodernism clears the moral highway for Fascism, but it is not in itself "Fascist." I never compared all environmentalists to Nazis, only the few violent ones(and there have been some violent environmentalists). During our discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I may have pointed out that some of your views could possible be construed as supporting anti-semitism. But I never accused you of being an anti-semite. Let me make this clear right now! I do not consider you a Nazi, Fascist, or Anti-Semite and I never have! Furthermore, I Apologize for any of my comments that could be so construed!Nah. That's just bravado. I'm making the point that once political violence starts, it is usually difficult to stop. That is especially true when the two sides start to demonize each other, like they are doing now in the USA. Hitler demonized lots of innocent people who never did anyone any harm. I only condemn people who actually engage in violence. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2019 0:48:13 GMT -5
Of course not. For you, only leftists can ever be like Adolf Hitler. Probably because you already believe that Adolf Hitler was a leftist. And your evidence for your claim here is...? How about your claims that Nazis are socialists? So we are in agreement that you did indeed likened her to a fascist dictator. By the way, Hitler owned a German Shepherd, so everyone who owns a German Shepherd is "like Hitler". Whenever I mention the Neonazi who murdered an antifascist at Charlottesville, you usually bring up one leftist who allegedly shot at a right-wing politician. The last time you did, you claimed that he was a follower of Bernie Sanders, and that his socialist views made him attack that politician. I didn't claim that I was outraged, I claimed that your comparison is hyperbolic and that you refuse to recognize different degrees of violence. How about you adress that part of my argument instead of putting words in my mouth? If you liken somebody to Hitler, you liken them to a genocidal totalitarian dictator. Own up to that. Funny you would mention Christians. Just two days ago, Christians were rioting in Israel of all places. It didn't stop the founder of Objectivism from endorsing genocide, did it? And Libertarians like Mises and Friedman have historically supported right-wing dictatorships in their fight against socialism and democracy. It very much seems to me that when push comes to shove, the Objectivist lip service towards nonviolence is easily abandoned when an enemy is perceived a threat to Free Markets. You literally said that 'Postmodernists' are fascists in this thread: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/3787/why-postmodernists-sound-fascists
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 17, 2019 20:16:32 GMT -5
And your evidence for your claim here is...? How about your claims that Nazis are socialists? Yes, I did make that claim. And yes, Nazis are socialists. The Nazi government exercised total control over German businesses. They had control over the means of production. In effect, that is Socialism. Hello. She proposed the same economic policies Fascists had in Italy. What does that make her according to you? A Jehovah's Witness? So owning a German Shepard is the same as saying we should run our economy like the Fascists did. Yeah, sure. As you usually do, you claim I said something without giving the actual quote. Why is that? That Bernie Supporter did not "allegedly shoot at a right wing politician". He actually shot him and almost killed him. If one of the other Congressmen there hadn't been an Army Medic, the injured Congressman might have died. "Scalise was shot in the hip and was evacuated by a U.S. Park Police helicopter to MedStar Washington Hospital Center, where he underwent surgery. The hospital reported that after the bullet struck his hip, it traveled across his pelvis – fracturing bones, injuring internal organs, and causing severe bleeding.[31] His condition was initially listed as "critical". He received multiple blood transfusions and underwent several surgeries to repair internal damage and stop the bleeding.[32][1] His condition was improved to "serious" on June 17.[33] It further improved to "fair" on June 21,[34] though he was readmitted to intensive care on July 5 due to concerns of infection.[35] Matt Mika, a Tyson Foods lobbyist, was shot multiple times in the chest and arm, injuring his lungs, sternum and ribs.[36][37][38] He is a former baseball player and former legislative assistant for Congressmen Tim Walberg and Dave Camp, both Republicans from Michigan.[36] Mika was taken to the George Washington University Hospital where he underwent surgery for his injuries.[39] He was in critical condition immediately following surgery.[40] The day after the shooting, his condition was upgraded from critical to serious.[41] On June 23, he was released from the hospital.[42] David Bailey and Crystal Griner, two of the Capitol Police officers assigned to protect Scalise, were both injured.[43] Griner was shot in the ankle and was hospitalized in what was described as good condition.[44] Bailey was treated and released after sustaining a minor injury not caused by gunfire.[45][23] Zack Barth, a legislative aide to Representative Roger Williams of Texas, was shot in the calf.[46] He was treated at the hospital and released.[44] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting#InjuriesAnd this is what you call "allegedly?" Right. Excuse me. You didn't commit the Fallacy of Outrage. You committed the Fallacy of Unsupported Hyperbole. For some reason, you seem to think that the outrageous violence committed by the Nazis (and the Communists) just came out of nowhere. The Nazis started small, by beating up political rivals in the street. Their violence grew. Do you deny this?
Because what you seem to be saying here is that a little violence is a good thing.
Is that your claim?
Complex Question Fallacy. I do address your arguments and I don't put words in your mouth. Oh I own up to all right. And most of my comparisons are spot on. The Holocaust didn't spring up out of thin air. It started with small scale Nazi violence on the streets of German cities. Well Congratulations! You FINALLY gave an actual quote in support of one of your arguments! Actually, I did misspeak here. That quote is from Mussolini, and it does not show that Postmodernists are Fascists. But it does show that at least on Fascist (the Father of Italian Fascism no less) had postmodernist beliefs! Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2019 21:18:00 GMT -5
The Holocaust didn't spring up out of thin air. It started with small scale Nazi violence on the streets of German cities. And therefore,small scale street violence is just like the Holocaust? Is that your point?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 17, 2019 22:01:29 GMT -5
The Holocaust didn't spring up out of thin air. It started with small scale Nazi violence on the streets of German cities. And therefore,small scale street violence is just like the Holocaust? Is that your point?
Of course not. Small scale violence happens all the time and is easily handled by the police.
My point is that small scale violence inspired by a toxic ideology, such as Marxism of Nazism, can easily become a large scale Holocaust.
Indeed, that has happened many times in the last 100 years. Do I have to go over the list again?
1) The Russian Revolution which ended in Stalin's terror.
2) Mao's "Great Leap Forward."
3) Mao's "Cultural Revolution."
4) Castro's Cuba.
5) Pol Pot's Genocide of his own people.
And
6) Yes. Nazi Germany.
All of those regimes started with small scale violence.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 12:18:23 GMT -5
Two points:
1. How many of the people you have accused of being Khmer Rouge or Nazi stormtroopers factually adhere to Stalinism, Maoism, or Nazism?
How many of the people you compared to Adolf Hitler were actual genocidal dictators or evidently the process of becoming one?
2. Why single out only these political ideologies?
The British monarchy forced famines on its subject for ideological reasons that were at least as bad as the Holodomor (The Irish Famine, various famines in British-ruled India...). The USA have committed genocide and waged several unjust wars of aggression costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Wouldn't patriotism and laissez faire capitalism also be toxic ideologies in light of these facts?
What about Randianism, an ideology whose founder is on the record in her suppport of genocide, and whose organizations have never distanced themselves from those statements?
Why don't you consider those ideologies "toxic"?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 18, 2019 13:50:14 GMT -5
Two points: 1. How many of the people you have accused of being Khmer Rouge or Nazi stormtroopers factually adhere to Stalinism, Maoism, or Nazism? How many of the people you compared to Adolf Hitler were actual genocidal dictators or evidently the process of becoming one? Give me a list of the people I allegedly accused and I will tell you why I did that in each particular case. Please cut and paste the text of my alleged accusations. Please list the exact principles of Laissez Faire Capitalism that are toxic and that caused famines and genocide. If you can't do that, then please be open to the possibility that these crimes were committed in violation of these principles. Please list the exact principles of Objectivism that are consistent with Rand's justification of Native American genocide. Let me save you some time. There are none. A philosophy cannot be listed as "toxic" because its followers act in violation of its principles. By contrast, we can say that Nazi and Communist philosophies are toxic because the mass murders and genocide happened because their principles were being followed to the letter. Hitler said his followers had to get rid of the Jews (and gays, and Gypsies). Karl Marx said we had to get rid of Capitalists. That is exactly what happened. If you follow Nazi of Communist philosophy, you have to be prepared a murderer. Those philosophies require violence and killing. If you follow Objectivist Philosophy, you cannot initiate violence against anyone. A violent Objectivist is a hypocrite who is violating their own principles. A violent Nazi or Communist is simply acting in accord with their toxic philosophy. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 12:51:01 GMT -5
Two points: 1. How many of the people you have accused of being Khmer Rouge or Nazi stormtroopers factually adhere to Stalinism, Maoism, or Nazism? How many of the people you compared to Adolf Hitler were actual genocidal dictators or evidently the process of becoming one? Give me a list of the people I allegedly accused and I will tell you why I did that in each particular case. Please cut and paste the text of my alleged accusations. LOL. So you don't even know? The British government refused to send state sponsored relief to the Irish Famine because it would violate free market principles. The people in charge believed that the free market would take care of any resource shortages by itself. They took a similar approach in India, refusing to subsidize starving provinces and relying on private charity efforts that amounted to very little. Which "communist philosophy"? Leninism? Stalinism? Maoism? Anarcho-communism? The Frankfurt School? Class Theory? Critical Theory? System Theory? Cybernetics? For someone who keeps pressing me to support every single one of my statements with quotes, your own claims are awfully sparse with supporting evidence. Are you sure you can't come up with a single quote by Marx where he calls on followers to murder capitalists? If you can't do that, then please be open to the possibility that Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's crimes were committed in violation of Marxist principles. Rand's works are full of dehumanizing rhetoric against people who didn't believe in her revelations. And Objectivist beliefs are inconsistent enough that it simultaneously allows for Objectivists to seek government assistance while at the same times decrying taxes as theft - the same taxes that pay for their assistance. So I don't see it as significantly more inconsistent to declare genocide a form of "self defense" against "moochers", "savages" or "suicidal animals" much like the Nazis did against their Untermenschen. Those are sweeping overgeneralizing claims, without any sort of evidence to back them up.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 19, 2019 14:53:05 GMT -5
Give me a list of the people I allegedly accused and I will tell you why I did that in each particular case. Please cut and paste the text of my alleged accusations. LOL. So you don't even know? LOL! So you don't have the evidence? At the same time, the British government DID send relief to Scotland which also had a blight. The Scots, of course, were Protestant while the Irish were Catholic. This is evidence that the real reason for not sending aid to Ireland was religious bigotry, not economic principles. Why Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Naziism of course. These were all toxic philosophies that led directly to tyranny and mass murder. The other philosophies you mentioned never attained power. But their similarity to the ones that did is indication that they too would have created tyranny and mass murder if they seized control. I didn't think you would ask for evidence of something which is so well known. But the evidence is easily accessible. How about this? "In Marxist sociopolitical thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power.[1][2] According to this theory, it is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of transferring the ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership,[3] and the existence of any state implies the dictatorship of one social class over another. The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted in the 19th century by the central figures of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Both of them argued that the short-lived Paris Commune, which ran the French capital for over two months in 1871 before being suppressed, was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" is thus used as an antonym of "dictatorship of the proletariat".[4] It is termed "dictatorship" because it retains the state apparatus as such, with its implements of force and oppression, but differs from the popular notion of dictatorship which Marxists despise as the selfish, immoral, irresponsible and unconstitutional political rule of one man. The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat implies instead a stage where there is complete "socialization of the major means of production",[5] in other words planning of material production so as to serve social needs, provide for an effective right to work, education, health and housing for the masses and fuller development of science and technology so as to multiply material production to achieve greater social satisfaction. However, social division into classes still exists, but the proletariat become the dominant class and oppression is still used to suppress the bourgeois counter-revolution. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariatAnd this from the same article: " Force and violence played an important role in Friedrich Engels's vision of the revolution and rule of proletariat. In 1877, arguing with Eugen Dühring, Engels ridiculed his reservations against use of force: That force, however, plays yet another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms — Friedrich Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1877[19] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariatThere are more references in the notes. Supporting quotes please. Since you claim that her works are "full of dehumanizing rhetoric", you should have no trouble finding lots of examples. How is it inconsistent to say that if the government is stealing from you that you have the right to take some of it back? Yes, I'm sure you look at it that way. But in the absence of supporting quotes, you don't have a case that Rand looked at it that way. But I did back them up. Apparently you didn't read the rest of my post. It's part of Nazi philosophy to exterminate Jews and all other enemies of the Volk. It's part of Communist philosophy to eliminate the Capitalist Class. What happened in "Atlas Shrugged?" Society collapsed when the productive people simply stopped working. Tell me, what violence was initiated by the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 17:13:53 GMT -5
LOL. So you don't even know? LOL! So you don't have the evidence? This is about your comparing people to Hitler and the Khmer Rouge. Those were claims you made, not me.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 21, 2019 18:21:02 GMT -5
LOL! So you don't have the evidence? This is about your comparing people to Hitler and the Khmer Rouge. Those were claims you made, not me.
Again, you are not being specific. Which specific claims are you referring to? Please quote specific claims so that I can give you an answer.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 12:37:58 GMT -5
As soon as you provide evidence that Marx supported genocide.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 22, 2019 18:29:04 GMT -5
As soon as you provide evidence that Marx supported genocide.
Let's see.
First you ask a general question that I cannot answer without further information.
Then when I request that information, you say you won't provide it unless I provide information about a completely different topic: Kael Marx and genocide.
So in other words, you can't find any post where I made any such claim and you are trying to change the subject.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2019 10:05:40 GMT -5
You claim that Marxism is a toxic ideology that inevitably leads to genocide. You have yet to prove that Marx actually condoned interpretations of his work that would lead to genocide.
At the same time, you reject the idea that Randianism leads to genocide, despite Rand being on the record for condoning genocide.
I wonder if it's not your premises that lead you to these contradictory conclusions.
You claim to adhere to individualism, but you seem to be under the impression that ideologies, beliefs and religions exist separately from the individuals who believe them; I would argue that this is a faulty premise, and that it is this faulty premise that is at the core of the problems I have with your argument in general.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 23, 2019 23:38:36 GMT -5
You claim that Marxism is a toxic ideology that inevitably leads to genocide. You have yet to prove that Marx actually condoned interpretations of his work that would lead to genocide. Do you deny that one of the main tenets of Marxism it the theory of the "Class Struggle?" And what does this inevitably lead to? Why killing your opponents, of course. As for actual quotes, how about this one from Marx himself? "“There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 136, November 1848. And here's one from Engels: "“The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” (my emphasis) Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” first published in Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 194, January 13, 1849. Please note that these quotes are from the 1840's, from the beginning of Marxist philosophy. Marx and Engles are already talking about killing people. Exactly how many times do I have to repeat myself here? Rand's mistake here is totally inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy. With Marx and Engels however, the "Class Struggle" is one of their basic premises. That "Struggle" inevitably leads to killing all of your opponents. And sadly, this has led to millions of deaths. Complex Question Fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any of my conclusions are contradictory. You have merely claimed it and then treated your unsupported claim as a fact. Really? Of course you have the text of where I allegedly made those claims? I'm sure you simply forgot to post what I actually said. And once again, I'm sure you have the text of what I actually wrote to back up that claim. Where is the text? Could you please post it? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 20:25:42 GMT -5
You claim that Marxism is a toxic ideology that inevitably leads to genocide. You have yet to prove that Marx actually condoned interpretations of his work that would lead to genocide. Do you deny that one of the main tenets of Marxism it the theory of the "Class Struggle?" And what does this inevitably lead to? Why killing your opponents, of course. Going from "struggle" to "genocide" is a pretty big conceptual leap. The latter certainly does not follow from the former. By the way, the colonization of America led to millions of deaths, too. As did the age of Imperialism. Market Liberals, Radical democratic republicans, radical monarchists, anarchists, statists, nationalists, separatists, abolitionists and slavers, all of these believers were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Evidently, human atrocities on a massive scale are not limited to any particular political ideology. I see no mention of communists doing the actual killing. You keep asserting that, but the Ayn Rand Institute seems to believe the opposite. Why should I take your interpretation over theirs?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 25, 2019 22:22:59 GMT -5
Do you deny that one of the main tenets of Marxism it the theory of the "Class Struggle?" And what does this inevitably lead to? Why killing your opponents, of course. Going from "struggle" to "genocide" is a pretty big conceptual leap. The latter certainly does not follow from the former. Engles specifically refers to eliminating "entire reactionary peoples" and Marx refers o "revolutionary terror." See below. So you are not denying that Communist philosophy lead to millions of deaths.And your only argument is "others did it too?" Sounds like an Ad Hominem to me. Of course all of the examples you gave were from previous centuries. ALL of the Communist mass murders were done in the last 100 years. Many were done in the last few decades.
Starvation is going on in Socialist Venezuela right now. So are oppression and terror in Communist North Korea.
Engels says that extermination of entire peoples is "a step forward." Marx says that the way to the new society is through "revolutionary terror." Who exactly do you think Marx and Engels are referring to here? The Tooth Fairy? Do you actually expect a follower of Communist Philosophy to read this and ask "Gee, I wonder who they are referring to here?" Fine. Go and argue with them. I already told you that on this point I am in total disagreement with Rand and any of her "followers" who do not reject genocide. Anyone who says they are simultaneously for non-initiation of violence AND mass murder is either a hypocrite or an idiot. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 17:30:16 GMT -5
Going from "struggle" to "genocide" is a pretty big conceptual leap. The latter certainly does not follow from the former. Engles specifically refers to eliminating "entire reactionary peoples" and Marx refers to "revolutionary terror." You are inferring an imperative meaning, but those quotes could just as well be interpreted as descriptive. "The period of transition between two social orders can be shortened with revolutionary terror" can be read as a hypothetical supposition, a statement of historical fact, a prediction of the future, or an imperative of action, but you have presented no evidence to suggest that the last interpretation is the only correct one, and your argumentation appears to rest primarily on the strength of your personal conviction. Then maybe you should look up what an Ad Hominem is: My argument is that a multitude of political ideologies, many of them superficially worth pursueing, have historically led down the path of atrocity, and that communism is only one of great many. The idea, therefore, that Marxism is uniquely toxic is one that is hard to justify with the historical record alone. If it is indeed toxic ideology that leads to mass atrocities, then the list of ideologies that are toxic is far, far longer than your initial argument would suggest, and would include such superficially innocuous positions as abolitionism or laissez faire liberalism. Therefore...? Plenty of atrocities have happened since then, none committed by communists. Whereas the US is currently terrorizing the civilian population in Afghanistan and Yemen through arbitrary random murder. Evidently, oppression and terror can originate from nominally free and democratic regimes as well. I don't know who they are referring to. Do you have any evidence for your interpretation, other than your own fervent belief that it must be so? This argument is not about your personal beliefs, it is about Ayn Rand and her political philosophy. *shrugs* The Ayn Rand Institute may well be staffed exclusively with hypocrites and idiots. Their mental faculties, or alleged lack thereof, are irrelevant to my argument, however.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 26, 2019 21:55:26 GMT -5
Engles specifically refers to eliminating "entire reactionary peoples" and Marx refers to "revolutionary terror." You are inferring an imperative meaning, but those quotes could just as well be interpreted as descriptive. "The period of transition between two social orders can be shortened with revolutionary terror" can be read as a hypothetical supposition, a statement of historical fact, a prediction of the future, or an imperative of action, but you have presented no evidence to suggest that the last interpretation is the only correct one, and your argumentation appears to rest primarily on the strength of your personal conviction. Marx and Engels talk about "terror" and extermination of "reactionary peoples" and you think it's merely descriptive. Yeah, right. They were not describing and event. They were lusting for it. They even formed organizations to bring it about.
Hey, maybe you also think Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust? After all, he never signed any orders to kill the Jews. I'm sure Eichmann and the other members of the SS just misinterpreted what Hitler said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 23:48:36 GMT -5
You are inferring an imperative meaning, but those quotes could just as well be interpreted as descriptive. "The period of transition between two social orders can be shortened with revolutionary terror" can be read as a hypothetical supposition, a statement of historical fact, a prediction of the future, or an imperative of action, but you have presented no evidence to suggest that the last interpretation is the only correct one, and your argumentation appears to rest primarily on the strength of your personal conviction. Marx and Engels talk about "terror" and extermination of "reactionary peoples" and you think it's merely descriptive. Yeah, right. They were not describing an event. They were lusting for it. They even formed organizations to bring it about. Hey, maybe you also think Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust? After all, he never signed any orders to kill the Jews. I'm sure Eichmann and the other members of the SS just misinterpreted what Hitler said.
So now your argument is that Karl Marx was a totalitarian dictator like Hitler? Where is your evidence for that? The worst atrocity Marx has been known for was being a terrible boss in the brief period when he ran his own newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 28, 2019 0:18:38 GMT -5
Marx and Engels talk about "terror" and extermination of "reactionary peoples" and you think it's merely descriptive. Yeah, right. They were not describing an event. They were lusting for it. They even formed organizations to bring it about. Hey, maybe you also think Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust? After all, he never signed any orders to kill the Jews. I'm sure Eichmann and the other members of the SS just misinterpreted what Hitler said. So now your argument is that Karl Marx was a totalitarian dictator like Hitler? Where is your evidence for that? The worst atrocity Marx has been known for was being a terrible boss in the brief period when he ran his own newspaper. I never said Karl Marx was a "totalitarian dictator." You made that up. So why should I provide evidence for something I never said and that you made up? Marx's ideas were taken seriously by Lenin. He based his dictatorship on them and killed thousands of people. Then Stalin took those ideas and killed millions. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:20:01 GMT -5
So now your argument is that Karl Marx was a totalitarian dictator like Hitler? Where is your evidence for that? The worst atrocity Marx has been known for was being a terrible boss in the brief period when he ran his own newspaper. I never said Karl Marx was a "totalitarian dictator." You made that up. So why should I provide evidence for something I never said and that you made up? Marx's ideas were taken seriously by Lenin. He based his dictatorship on them and killed thousands of people. Then Stalin took those ideas and killed millions. Indeed, it was Lenin's implementation of Lenin's ideas that caused the deaths of thousands of people. It was Stalin's implementation of Stalin's ideas that killed millions. They were putting into practice their own ideas which were inspired by Marx's writings, in their own way. As free-willed human beings, it was them who are responsible for their actions, not a dead book author who had no involvement in their schemes.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 28, 2019 16:11:31 GMT -5
I never said Karl Marx was a "totalitarian dictator." You made that up. So why should I provide evidence for something I never said and that you made up? Marx's ideas were taken seriously by Lenin. He based his dictatorship on them and killed thousands of people. Then Stalin took those ideas and killed millions. Indeed, it was Lenin's implementation of Lenin's ideas that caused the deaths of thousands of people. It was Stalin's implementation of Stalin's ideas that killed millions. They were putting into practice their own ideas which were inspired by Marx's writings, in their own way. As free-willed human beings, it was them who are responsible for their actions, not a dead book author who had no involvement in their schemes.
So you are saying that Marx and Engles are blameless here?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 12:13:08 GMT -5
I contend that every individual is morally responsible for their own actions, and that this is true of all human beings, Marxists and other "suicidal animals" included.
Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 29, 2019 15:34:22 GMT -5
I contend that every individual is morally responsible for their own actions, and that this is true of all human beings, Marxists and other "suicidal animals" included.
Do you agree?
Questions:
What exactly do you mean by "morally responsible?"
If someone gives a public speech saying that white people should kill black people, and someone in the audience then goes out and kills a black person, does the speaker have any moral responsibility?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 1:52:19 GMT -5
Why is that relevant to our discussion? How does that analogy relate to the examples you've brought up?
|
|