Topic: On the importance for nazis, commies and all extremists to stop fighting - page 2. (Read 503 times)

Contrary to what you say I read your sources.

So you still maintain that it is the same thing to seize the inheritance (here this farm) and to tax this inheritance for 20% of its value?

And I'm the one lacking logic?

I'm not talking semantics here, I'm talking numbers. There is a situation in which the family has nothing (abolition of inheritance right) and a situation where the family has 80% of the value of the farm or keep the farm and pay a debt of 20% of the farm value.

You're claiming those two situations are the same. You are wrong. Can't say much more.

So what part of what I explained is not making it impossible for this theoretical family to keep their inheritance of their farm? Oh right they are literally forced to sell it to pay the taxes. This is literal removal of inheritance rights. I don't give a shit if your opinion is it should be defined as 100% tax to meet your metric. This is the same game you always play, and exactly why I have no respect for you. You don't argue logic you argue semantics. You don't refute any of the points, you just call them wrong and crazy. You don't read any sources I present you just dismiss them and declare yourself correct. You are the ideological equivalent of a person with syphilis spreading it all around without a care in the world for anyone it effects, you just want some fuk. You don't give a damn if anything you say makes logical sense, just gimme muh Communism.

You're definitively crazy.

Your example is a good one but it is NOT the same thing as "abolishing inheritance right".

For god's sake taking 20% from something is NOT the same thing as taking 100% of something. How can't you see that??

You call me lazy but there is no lazyness in considering that what this site states is wrong. They litterally say "abolition of inheritance right is enforced" while giving as proof "inheritance taxes". Those two things are not equivalent, and by a very large gap!!! They are not equivalent by about 80%!!!

If communist abolition of inheritance right was enforced, your family example would be left with nothing. In  reality they would be left either with the farm and a 20% debt, or with 80% of the farm value.

Edit: as long as you continue with the afirmation that taking 20% from something is the same as taking 100% of something there is no logic, no truth and no point in your debate, your arguments or your ideas. Sorry man. Admit you're wrong and that this communist policy is not enforced by a very large gap. It doesn't mean that inheritance taxe is right. Just that it is not enforced.

Yeah I really doubt you have read that paper, because if you did you would see it contained government documents, records, and publicly verifiable events to back up these claims. Of course it is way easier to just keep believing what you believe rather than to do the work to learn something new when you might not agree with the implications of it. That seems to be your favorite way to handle these subjects fat man.

No, 1 + 1 = 2. Inheritance has been systematically stripping the backbone of this nation, and I will tell you how. One very straight forward simple example is a family farm. It may have been in the family for generations, and when it is left to the next generation, suddenly they owe taxes on what the family already owns and have already been taxed for over and over again. Usually coming up with such a large lump sum of money is not possible, and suddenly that farm which has been in the family for generations is forced to be sold because they cant pay the inheritance tax. Then companies like Monsanto swoop in and buy this prime land for pennies on the dollar. This is one primary way the industry of this nation has been systematically dismantled. Furthermore it removes incentive for people to work as hard to leave something for the next generation, because they know the government is just going to take it from their children anyway.

Again this is just ONE point of the entire ten planks which you didn't bother addressing. As usual you take the lazy way out, call it crazy, declare yourself correct and move on as if you just had a debate.



The problem with Anarchy is it only really tends to work in small homogeneous groups much like Socialism or Communism. Furthermore, Anarchy is also a useful delivery mechanism for Communism. The core tenet of Communism has always been to destroy the existing institutions in order to displace them with Communist versions of them. Anarchy again provides for this power vacuum and allows it to grow. Also frankly most people I have come into contact with that consider themselves "Anarchist" are really just confused and or disingenuous Socialists/Communists. Socialists and Communists rarely try to gain power openly, it is always a game of subversion, displacement, and redirection of resources toward Communist goals covertly.

Sure, with that kind of attitude.

I'm not fighting on the streets, and I'm on the other side of the world, so probably my thoughts here don't mean much, but if I were you I'd make it my #1 priority to get an ambitious but solid plan together amongst all yellow-vest stakeholders for what you want to accomplish and how to do it. Quite possibly, a left-right coalition is possible without compromising anyone's principles as long as you're willing to define exactly where your common ground is and where exactly you want to work together. From what I've heard, there is consensus on having more referenda, which is a start, but honestly this isn't very ambitious, and I doubt that it'd change much. Having an end goal of a multi-state federation might be one way to get huge changes via a left-right coalition, though I'm sure there are many other ideas.

If you have a dozen groups just thrashing against a vaguely-defined status quo for vaguely-defined goals, you're not going to get anywhere, and in fact you just give more credibility to the status quo.


Interesting idea, though IMO that'd end up being an Orwellian groupthink state where every imaginable minority is eventually persecuted.

Direct democracy is problematic in many ways, but most obviously because you can't actually vote on every little thing, even with technology. It isn't practical to vote on every proposed line in a trade agreement which most people won't even understand, for example. So you end up delegating, especially on the decision of which things warrant a vote, and this creates a bureaucratic class which really controls everything. This is basically how General Secretary Stalin came to be a dictator.

But there are some revolutions that lead to dictatorship slowly. Like the USA revolution back in 1776.

OMFG

That is some hard uthopian/dysthopian shit you have here.

I'll have to read your anarchist guide but it seems to me that anarchism is fundamentally in a non stable state.


Still the idea of my country divided in Nazi France and Communist France is pretty fun xD
Would love to see that from a theoretical point of view. 0 Chance of it happening of course.


Both far right and far left are oppression systems but I think you can remodel both of them to have something not really oppressive. Far left by installing direct democracy and free weapons (so big government but also powerful people). For far right I have no idea though.

"Nazis and commies" are typically extremely authoritarian, so if either of them actually gained power, the result would be severe oppression and the elimination of all political rivals. The status quo is pretty bad, and part of me hopes that the yellow vests manage to tear it all down (somehow), but replacing the status quo with an even more authoritarian regime wouldn't be an improvement.

Maybe the two sides could get together and agree to some sort of actual anarchism (not the weird doublethink kind that some communists ascribe to), like the system described in The Machinery of Freedom. Or you could split the country into far-left and far-right states, but allow for free movement between them so people can go to the side that they prefer and/or the side that works better.

Problem is that I've read some of the sources you've given like this one:
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

Where there conclusion has absolutely 0 evidence. They conclude that wall street supports Bolchevick Revolution in the hope to spread communism every where. Yeah ok but there are no proof of that...

or this one:
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

Which as I stated in another thread is completely crazy. They litterally write that inheritance taxation is the same as abollition of inheritance rights. What can you say when someone tells you that 2 = 1?

Communism is totally compatible with globalism. Furthermore global policy has been pushing further and further into Communist policies. If you want to understand actually go read some of the source material I presented you and think about it instead of just demanding I spoon feed you then spitting it out when you don't like the taste.

I'm sorry I try but I don't understand. I honestly try. I'll go simple question by simple question.

Are you saying that communism = globalism?

If I swing a hammer and a sickle at you to try to force you through a door, do they become any less of a hammer or a sickle?

Ok. So?
If globalism is the synthesis of right vs left it means it is not the left no?

Please stop using lazy quotes... I don't want to have to constantly fix your mess to reply.

Globalism is the synthesis of the right vs the left. You pick whatever words you want to call it (since you are doing that anyway changing my words). It is two opposing sides using a false pretext to achieve the synthesis of globalism.

Regarding the website you are clearly only seeing what you want to see, and this is where you become the fat man at a football match criticizing the professional athletes. You want to claim you are right but you are too lazy to even take the time to read a single page, instead opting for just rebuking me in a refractory manner with no substantiation of your own.

China is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY Communist, economically and otherwise. The fact that you think it is not frankly is a shameful public display of your willful ignorance.

No, you just pointing the finger back at Capitalism is not the same. I have sources, facts, and history this is what you have...



If this is going to be your usual lazy standard then you can just expect more of the usual from me. Take some time to go over what I told you critically instead of just knee jerk reacting. I have dedicated large amounts of time towards learning the ideologies you espouse, you might want to actually learn about what you claim to support yourself. Now it is your turn to make the effort. Or just continue to be the fat man at the football match, it is up to you.

Yeah well it's not like we don't have examples of crazy right wing revolutions.

1/ In France the French Revolution of 1789 led to motherfucking Napoleon and the biggest war until WW1

2/ The 1871 French failed revolution led to a right wing total control where right wings gave up their own country to the German and actively helped the ennemy country to destroy their own army. This was so surprising that the Keiser didn't understand what he could do. The same thing happened after Hitler invasion.

Every revolution tends to lead to dictatorship and political opponent massacre.

Wahou wahou wahou. Ok this is heavy. I'll try to go bit by bit.
No I agree with that. It just that I call both of them globalists because that they are left wing corrupted bitches or right wing corrupted bitches don't really matter. But they're not capitalists or communists. They're just assholes who obey banks and big corporations.
Wtf?
I don't get your point. You're trying to say that globalism is the evolution of capitalism and nazism?
Well no, not at all. And you site shows well how it hasn't. Maybe we need another thread to discuss it though as it's not really on topic.
This is highly debatable. Especially when you consider that China hasn't really a communist economy.


You seem to say that globalism = communism 2.0. Ok but I can in the same way say that globalism = capitalism 2.0. Globalism is an evolution where poors and small companies are taxed to be sure that rich people and big corporations don't take any risk. That's neither capitalism or globalism. That's the worst of both world.


Here is what communism is:
A system where everything can be owned or controlled by the people.
Now please show me a country where it is the case.

Here what capitalism is:
A system in which freedom of market is as absolute as possible.
Again there is nowhere where it is done.

None of those ideas have been put in practice ever. Saying that globalism is communism is as false as saying that globalism is capitalism.

Well, literally every revolution ends up the same way but leftist revolution are the craziest ones. I just want to att a couple examples:
1. In Russia communist got their power after the revolution. Then during the civil war they killed everyone who supported any other ideology (even the ones that are very close to communism) despite the fact that those people fought along them during the revolution.
2. Revolution in Cambodia gave power to one of the most insane retards that humanity has ever seen. The point is that Cambodgian commies were building a community that was very close to the one represented in Marx's books. No one could build a more exceptional communism. This ended up with a genocide of their own people (up to one third of the population) and fast degradation of society.