Stop calling Antifa fascists...

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Yes they are of a similar authoritarian mindset, but how can it not be blindingly obvious to everyone they are textbook communists.

They call eachother comrade, they call themselves communists, they use cultural hot topics in order to affect political change, they actively try to destroy traditional values and have just kicked off your very own cultural revolution.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu

Maybe look up the definition of words before just applying your own?

2017 and people still believe Germany was full of Nazi's and nothing else. Are history teachers really that dumb in America?

a reply to: Perfectenemy

I know, you old farts tend to believe that nobody supported the Nazis and yet they somehow managed to take power. Idiots would love to believe that, right, which explains who keeps falling for their propaganda.

Heck, I'm Not Sure that the NSU murder series isn't connected to some old Nazi schemes as well but there you are, still telling people that Germany was never full of Nazis.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But are hoodies shirts?
Semantics, semantics

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Yes they are of a similar authoritarian mindset, but how can it not be blindingly obvious to everyone they are textbook communists.

They call eachother comrade, they call themselves communists, they use cultural hot topics in order to affect political change, they actively try to destroy traditional values and have just kicked off your very own cultural revolution.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu

You're right, we should call them "dipsh*ts", seems to be more "fitting"....

IMHO, it'd be better to understand these issues not by using terms meant to describe the whole government, but parts of it.

I used to go to a website named political compass. It organized a person's politics this way:
social freedom... Libertarian (more) < ----- > (less) Authoritarian
economic freedom... Left (less) < ----- > (more) Right

So it's possible for a person to desire strong social freedoms but weak market freedom. It seems contradictory, but people are full of contradictions, so...

Nazism is national socialism. Using the political compass, it's Left-Authoritarian, in that it controls the economy (via socialism) and controls the social freedoms of its people (nationalism; racial superiority; adherence to the Führer ). It creates a group--nationalism--to foster an identity for its people--it's predominantly racial. It uses this to spearhead unity and stronger government incursion into the lives of its people. In brief, the whole thing seems setup to increase the power of government, to put it on a fast track.

Antifa may be more Left-Center. SJW's do call for control on social freedoms, but it's not nearly as severe as the Nazi's. I've not yet read the Antifa want to exterminate millions of "deplorables" in rehabilitation concentration camps. Both urge controls on economic freedoms but differ on details.

I think at root of all government is:
1) How much freedom does hte individual have, by all definition?
2) Or vice versa, how much control does the government have?
3) How is class conflict or inequality (or other threats to the peace) addressed?

A kind of government--even just tribal leaders--is a requisite to survival. But how much? Fundamentally, government is just a way to pool the knowledge and aptitude of its people to perform better than if everybody was separated and acting on their own behalf. (Even here in the US, we only have the illusion of acting on our own behalf, as a portion of our paycheck is going to government. Additionally, there're media and educational influences.)

It may be the biggest difference between the United States and nearly all other countries, is the benefit it gives to the most able and ambitious. This is what has allowed the bitter class war to persist, and for the wealthy to increasingly own larger pieces of this world. Some say this creates enormous levels of inequality and poverty, but it might also be argued no other country on Earth has produced as much invention and productivity in as short a time. But the cost, being inequality or poverty, is worth it? And studies show anybody making over $70,000 isn't any happier, implying maybe we shouldn't be incentivizing the pursuit of extreme wealth at the expense of all else.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I think most, if not all, have seen the 2 axis political spectrum. Looking at it again after much time it seems like the 2nd axis is redundant. I think social freedom includes economic freedom.

American likes to think that right=freedom but that isn't true.

It doesn't really express what left/right really mean, supposedly, Progressivism/Conservatism.

It makes more sense that way.

Violent conservative protesters are right and authoritarian on the 2 axis spectrum. People who attack abortion clinics are right (conservative) and authoritarian. They want to use violence to enforce their conservative ideals.

Violent progressive protesters are left and authoritarian on the 2 axis spectrum. People rioting for [insert progressive agenda here] are left and authoritarian. They want to use violence to enforce their progressive ideals.

a reply to: daskakik

And where does "reacting to a violent protest/action/rally" fall?

Where does "protecting ones self and other citizens from violence" fall?

I think it's good to at least ask if any of these movements in the US are backed by China or Russian subterfuge? They look like they're just people with a cause sometimes doing violent things. But the real purpose of all this might have been determined 20, 30 or 40 years ago in another country. Why? Simply to cause mayhem. Weaken their opponents. Think on this a moment. The Soviet Union collapsed, probably some of that was due to US intel and influence of our own. Don't you tink Russia would want to retaliate?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
And where does "reacting to a violent protest/action/rally" fall?

Where does "protecting ones self and other citizens from violence" fall?

It doesn't fall anywhere.

There would be no political motive behind that.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: jonnywhite

I think most, if not all, have seen the 2 axis political spectrum. Looking at it again after much time it seems like the 2nd axis is redundant. I think social freedom includes economic freedom.

American likes to think that right=freedom but that isn't true.

*snip*

I agree the relationship is contradictory (or redundant).

This is an extract from their "Compass Counterpoint":
www.politicalcompass.org - Compass Counterpoint: The UK Election and The Political Compass...

The 2017 UK General Election perfectly demonstrates the point that The Political Compass has been making since we first went online sixteen years ago: that right and left relate only to economics, and that the addition of a social scale is necessary to provide a meaningful account of the political position of a person or party.

I'm still not absolutely clear on it yet, so I share your thoughts.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Well it is their compass and they can make the 2 axis whatever they want but my point is that "left and right relating only to economics" isn't what left and right were originally, During the French revolution those who stood with the king (conservatives) sat on the right side of parliament and those who sought change (progressives) sat on the left.

Also, it doesn't make for a measurement that correlates to actual/popular positions especially, when the headbutting is more social in nature and not economics.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: jonnywhite

Well it is their compass and they can make the 2 axis whatever they want but my point is that "left and right relating only to economics" isn't what left and right were originally, During the French revolution those who stood with the king (conservatives) sat on the right side of parliament and those who sought change (progressives) sat on the left.

Also, it doesn't make for a measurement that correlates to actual/popular positions especially, when the headbutting is more social in nature and not economics.

Maybe their problem is assuming a free market is representative of freedom. The left argues economic regulation and safety nets make us freer, free from oppression or discrimination. From the left's perspective, a free market is the opposite of freedom.

So an accurate chart would combine economy and social freedoms with the common denominator only being freedom of the individual versus freedom of collective to control its individuals.

So the more authoritarian you're, the less you support individual freedom. You'd support reducing economic regulation and increasing social regulation. Both achieve the same affect of reducing freedom for the individual.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Maybe their problem is assuming a free market is representative of freedom.

And again, there is the redundancy, up/down= freedom and left/right= freedom.

I mean more/less authoritarianism= more/less freedom.

So an accurate chart would combine economy and social freedoms with the common denominator only being freedom of the individual versus freedom of the elite to rule over the masses.

An accurate chart would make the left/right = progress/conservative and up/down how much force they are willing to use to see things change or stay the same.

ETA: Your edit is contradictory. American right stands for nationalism. That is collective but they swear they are on the right. Which is it?

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner



They are neo Bolsheviks. Do some research on the Russian Bolsheviks. They killed some 60 million Russians that didn't agree with them. The historical accounts are eerily similar to what we are seeing now.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Maybe their problem is assuming a free market is representative of freedom.

And again, there is the redundancy, up/down= freedom and left/right= freedom.

I mean more/less authoritarianism= more/less freedom.

So an accurate chart would combine economy and social freedoms with the common denominator only being freedom of the individual versus freedom of the elite to rule over the masses.

An accurate chart would make the left/right = progress/conservative and up/down how much force they are willing to use to see things change or stay the same.

ETA: Your edit is contradictory. American right stands for nationalism. That is collective but they swear they are on the right. Which is it?

Is this what it looks like. Trying to illustrate:
.............(less individual freedom)
......................Authoritarian
................................||
progressivism ---------------- conservatism
................................||
........................Libertarian
..........(more individual freedom)

Where would you place the American right on this chart? You already said they're != freedom. So you think they're more authoritarian and conservative? Can a conservative be a libertarian?

You said this:

American likes to think that right=freedom but that isn't true.

a reply to: jonnywhite

"American right" is too broad of a scope.

Libertarians would be on the right and below the x-axis.

The religious right would be on the right and above the x-axis.

Isis would be on the right and way up on the x-axis.

Have not really thought about how far up down it would be but that is the general idea.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: jonnywhite

"American right" is too broad of a scope.

Libertarians would be on the right and below the x-axis.

The religious right would be on the right and above the x-axis.

Isis would be on the right and way up on the x-axis.

Have not really thought about how far up down it would be but that is the general idea.

Well you may be on to something, if it can work somehow. For example, that same site has estimated scores for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. They're the same except Jill is much more left, meaning she supports stronger economic regulation. But one of the big reasons I voted for Gary instead of her, was because I don't like the progressive movement and the green party is steeped in it. The last two elections I voted green because I had conviction the other parties would do nothing about AGW, but the past several years the progressive movement has grown increasingly repugnant to me. I also am more skeptical about how some groups want to handle AGW. For example, I'm not a fan of green corporations piggy backing big government.

My point is hte political compass doesn't show the difference. It just shows the economic difference. It's missing a dimension.

Sanders almost has the same score as Jill Stein:
www.politicalcompass.org - The US Presidential Candidates 2016...

EDIT: It's irony. I just took the test again and my score is about the same as it was years ago. I was surprised:
www.politicalcompass.org - Your Political Compass...

I score closer to Jill Stein but I voted for Gary and he's on the other end.

Here was my old score from some years ago:
www.politicalcompass.org...

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

How about brown shirts? Compare the two.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Are saying I should call a spade a club?

When the shoe fits.....