Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind

 godardc wrote:
Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind

You're burying the lead. That is a private and not state sponsored network. I can point to US journalists or hosts being fired over views, so either we both have thought police or neither do.

whembly wrote:
Steve... I'm arguing that the only way communism can be implement is through violent means.

As I said above, egalitarian and communist societies have existed through history and continue to exist today without any violent means exploited either to establish or maintain them. They exist both as modern communes and in non-urbanised communities.

Anything else is academic.... all you have to do is look at history and understand human nature

Human nature as some kind of remotely homogenised or generalisable concept does not exist.

Thus why some of us treat folks preaching the communism choir the same way we'd treat the fascist choir.

Because of a lack of familiarity with any of the evidence beyond totalitarian, nominally-communist states like the USSR, China, and Cambodia?

 godardc wrote:
Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind

Any news media has an editorial position, whether than be supporting the left, the right or trying to remain unbiased. Any journalist who goes against that editorial position risks loosing their job. That's hardly the same as claiming that the average person could loose their job for saying they like Trump.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind

Any news media has an editorial position, whether than be supporting the left, the right or trying to remain unbiased. Any journalist who goes against that editorial position risks loosing their job. That's hardly the same as claiming that the average person could loose their job for saying they like Trump.

Yes the example I think of now (because it was so recent) for the US is of Tomi Lahren being fired from The Blaze, both being very much on the right side of the aisle, over abortion. So saying only the left engages in this is a bit much. You just see it less in Europe from the right, because lets be honest, the right just has a much smaller base here to be fired from as opposed to left leaning organizations.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind

Any news media has an editorial position, whether than be supporting the left, the right or trying to remain unbiased. Any journalist who goes against that editorial position risks loosing their job. That's hardly the same as claiming that the average person could loose their job for saying they like Trump.

Yes the example I think of now (because it was so recent) for the US is of Tomi Lahren being fired from The Blaze, both being very much on the right side of the aisle, over abortion. So saying only the left engages in this is a bit much. You just see it less in Europe from the right, because lets be honest, the right just has a much smaller base here to be fired from as opposed to left leaning organizations.

Even Ayn Rand, who many on the right put on a pedestal of intellectual purity with almost fetishistic fervour, belittled and kicked people out of her intellectual club for espousing ideas contrary to her own or even just not wanting to sleep with her anymore.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

... the frag has this got to do with anything?

Yes, there is more than one horrible political orientation. Do you really think you've proven any point in getting me to admit this?

 Blood Hawk wrote:

And to the people who honestly think that communism isn't as bad because it isn't outright murderous in its language are being very naive. Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas. Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together. We have a mountain of corpses to prove that.

Demonstrably not the case. These baseless charges could really be undone with the smallest hint of investigation beyond Evil Reds For Dummies books.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

You said it is absurd to equate the violence between the two sides. There are actual self declared communists part of the "anti-facist' side that have actively committed violence. You then say that fascists are more dangerous because they have an ideology that is a threat to civilized society. Communists also have an ideology that is also a threat to civilized society. So yea you can equate the violence on both sides. So I was pointing out you where wrong there.

And to the people who honestly think that communism isn't as bad because it isn't outright murderous in its language are being very naive. Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas. They may not always come out and say it the two go together. We have a mountain of corpses to prove that.

There is a century of the capitalist ruling class doing everything it can to kill communists and to prevent sovereign countries from electing socialist governemnts. Capitalists have been oppressing workers ever since there first was capitalists and workers. The stuff about how communists are absolutely worse than nazis is full on capitalist propaganda.

Yes, anti-fascists have committed acts of violence. Against fascists, because of the violence that the fascists want to commit against racial and sexual minorities. It is the height of liberalism to view only the atomised act of fighting without any concern for motivation or political context and conclude that both those who wish to exterminate what they view as degenerates and those who want to prevent the extermination of racial and sexual minorities are the exact same.

nfe wrote:
Demonstrably not the case. These baseless charges could really be undone with the smallest hint of investigation beyond Evil Reds For Dummies books.

You for real? Baseless? You honestly denying that tens of millions died?

Rosebuddy wrote:
There is a century of the capitalist ruling class doing everything it can to kill communists and to prevent sovereign countries from electing socialist governemnts. Capitalists have been oppressing workers ever since there first was capitalists and workers. The stuff about how communists are absolutely worse than nazis is full on capitalist propaganda.

Yes, anti-fascists have committed acts of violence. Against fascists, because of the violence that the fascists want to commit against racial and sexual minorities. It is the height of liberalism to view only the atomised act of fighting without any concern for motivation or political context and conclude that both those who wish to exterminate what they view as degenerates and those who want to prevent the extermination of racial and sexual minorities are the exact same.

Ah yes those evil capitalists with their free markets and lack of work camps and millions of people executed. Also the anti-fascists have declared pretty much anyone that is against them or hell even present a fascist. And then they attack those people. It seems less like people protecting anyone and more like they are just violent authoritarians.

Also I don't trust either of these group's word. I have had too many people lie to me in my life to be that foolish. Their actions speak loader then there words ever could.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

nfe wrote:
Demonstrably not the case. These baseless charges could really be undone with the smallest hint of investigation beyond Evil Reds For Dummies books.

You for real? Baseless? You honestly denying that tens of millions died?

No I'm not, because that's not the charge you made.

These are:

Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas

Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together.

And are baseless.

The argument about the violence inherent in the system of communism is a bit theoretical.

At this Charlottesville "Unite The Right" rally, the right-wing consisted of extremists like the KK and neo-nazis. This does not mean that the protestors were hard-left comintern provocateurs. They were a loose grouping of people who don't like the KK and neo-nazis and had the idea of going to do something about it.

 Steve steveson wrote:
No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.

Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.

Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.

Communism is a coercive ideology.
Care to explain to me how you enact a coercive ideology without violence?

This is not even going into the fact of Marx's insistence on the use of violence as essential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The argument about the violence inherent in the system of communism is a bit theoretical.

Yes the textbook apologetic, is that communism has never been implemented.
However, the facts about the victims of communism tell us about harsh realities.


Let me scratch my head and think,
Which ideology hath more stink.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.

Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.

Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.

Communism is a coercive ideology.

At the risk of eternal repetition, no, this is another 'characteristic' of communism that is demonstrably false as any investigation of communist and egalitarian communities that stretches beyond the horror stories of South America, China, USSR etc makes abundantly clear.

nfe wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.

Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.

Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.

Communism is a coercive ideology.

At the risk of eternal repetition, no, this is another 'characteristic' of communism that is demonstrably false as any investigation of communist and egalitarian communities that stretches beyond the horror stories of South America, China, USSR etc makes abundantly clear.

No it is not.
It is written in the damn communist manifesto. If you'd bother to read it.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.

Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.

Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.

Communism is a coercive ideology.
Care to explain to me how you enact a coercive ideology without violence?

In which case all ideologies that aren't strictly pacifist and non-violent are coercive. You get thrown in jail for breaking the law, after all.

 44Ronin wrote:
Communism is a coercive ideology.

By that standard any government is a "coercive ideology". You pay taxes, and the government uses force to make you comply if you disagree. You obey the speed limit, or the police arrest you and you don't get to drive anymore. Etc. So can we stop with this ridiculous idea that "capital should be collectively owned" and "we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of the superior white race" are morally equivalent beliefs?

nfe wrote:

No I'm not, because that's not the charge you made.

These are:

Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas

Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together.

And are baseless.

First communism and violence going together is easy. You just said you don't deny that ten of millions died due to communism. There is a direct connection between living in a communist country in the 20th century and being killed. So the two go together.

Second communists think that capitalism is evil and believe that the working class either should rebel or will. So lets say you have a communist revolution in the United States. You are going to overthrow the system with a revolution, and take peoples private property, their businesses, etc. It is unlikely that opponents of that revolution will just give in. Violence would be inevitable. How communist policies become murderous is well documented in books like the Gulag Archipelago, and from the first hand accounts. Millions dying in work camps, etc.

Not to mention all the mass killings. link Do honestly believe all of that isn't rooted in the ideology itself? Marx himself said that people would need to be "swept out of the way".

Regardless of this circular debate about communism, most people are against fascism and most antifascist protesters are not communists. Most of them are perfectly nice, moderate people who just want a better world and are prepared to make their voices heard.

I'd love for somebody to try to claim that most white supremacists are perfectly nice people

 Peregrine wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Communism is a coercive ideology.

By that standard any government is a "coercive ideology". You pay taxes, and the government uses force to make you comply if you disagree. You obey the speed limit, or the police arrest you and you don't get to drive anymore. Etc. So can we stop with this ridiculous idea that "capital should be collectively owned" and "we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of the superior white race" are morally equivalent beliefs?

You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Regardless of this circular debate about communism, most people are against fascism and most antifascist protesters are not communists. Most of them are perfectly nice, moderate people who just want a better world and are prepared to make their voices heard.

I'd love for somebody to try to claim that most white supremacists are perfectly nice people

and plenty are violent left wing agitators, what is your point?

You are conflating white nationalists and those who want to defend their history, but can't handle when the reverse occurs.....can you?

Did the guy seize the means of production when using his car as a weapon, or is there another way that the tenets of communism are relevant to any of this?

You know what my point is. It was an antifascist counter demonstration, not a left wing rally and certainly not a communist revolution. By equating being against fascism with being communism you're doing a fine job of taking attention away from the actions of the white supremacists and basically blaming the victims of the actual murder and attempted murders.

 44Ronin wrote:
You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs

Given the fact that the extreme majority of the world has at least some form of state, I think we can pretty conclusively say that merely labeling something "coercive" is not a very relevant thing to say here. Communism is coercive in the same way that any other system of government is coercive, it is a set of laws that everyone must follow regardless of whether or not they personally agree with everything. And communism is not inherently more coercive than other systems of government. For example, a capitalist democracy (such as the US in very recent history) might ban gay marriage for moral reasons, while a communist government might not (after all, who you marry has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and capital), making the communist government freer in that sense.

And, again, I think we can all see a difference between "I think we should have a government with policies that you disagree with" and "I think we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of white civilization". Please stop with the ridiculous "both sides are bad" argument.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Communism is a coercive ideology.

By that standard any government is a "coercive ideology". You pay taxes, and the government uses force to make you comply if you disagree. You obey the speed limit, or the police arrest you and you don't get to drive anymore. Etc. So can we stop with this ridiculous idea that "capital should be collectively owned" and "we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of the superior white race" are morally equivalent beliefs?

You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Regardless of this circular debate about communism, most people are against fascism and most antifascist protesters are not communists. Most of them are perfectly nice, moderate people who just want a better world and are prepared to make their voices heard.

I'd love for somebody to try to claim that most white supremacists are perfectly nice people

and plenty are violent left wing agitators, what is your point?

You are conflating white nationalists and those who want to defend their history, but can't handle when the reverse occurs.....can you?

Guy, I don't know who you're talking about "defending their history" about.

What you need to understand regarding American Nazis and their beliefs is they love to talk about it as "defending their history" when it comes to these Confederate monuments, yet they have not one damn problem with destroying Native American monuments or holy sites, not one damn problem removing or disturbing the burial grounds of enslaved African Americans on the grounds of plantations or Southern estates, and not one damn problem when it comes to revisionist history surrounding the treatment of slaves here in the US(a great example of which is when people say things like "Slaves weren't paid, but they were given clothes, food, etc...as though that somehow mitigates the fact that they're flipping slaves).

These aren't militant historians. They don't give one rat's dropping about history except when it suits their narrative.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

nfe wrote:

No I'm not, because that's not the charge you made.

These are:

Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas

Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together.

And are baseless.

First communism and violence going together is easy. You just said you don't deny that ten of millions died due to communism. There is a direct connection between living in a communist country in the 20th century and being killed. So the two go together.

I could have been clearer about the issue in your second statement. Fair enough. The two can be associated based on a variety of examples. This does not mean they are inherently paired as you imply, however, as various other examples attest, both historically and currently.

Second communists think that capitalism is evil and believe that the working class either should rebel or will.

Not strictly true, the idea as presented originally by Marx stated that it would be inevitable, not that it was desireable, and the philosophy has been nuanced widely since, often in quite contraditory ways, like any political philosophy of any significant vintage.

Anyway, as people have said in the last few posts, this is rather off-topic given the conversation is really predicated on the notion that the counter demonstration is primarily composed of communists and therefore no better than those engaged in the initial demonstration, which is nonsense, so I'll back out of the debate on the ethical acceptability of communism now. Apologies for my part in the derail!

This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).

Yes, this thread has gone so far off topic, I'm beginning to suspect it's deliberate.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).

And in this thread about a terror attack carried out by a nazi against socialists, who were counter-protesting the nazis on account of their ideology of genocide, people keep saying that socialists are just as bad and possibly even worse than nazis. They're repeating actual original Third Reich propaganda.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).

And in this thread about a terror attack carried out by a nazi against socialists, who were counter-protesting the nazis on account of their ideology of genocide, people keep saying that socialists are just as bad and possibly even worse than nazis. They're repeating actual original Third Reich propaganda.

Well said, but this is what the right always does. If it can't deny that it committed the crime, it tries to blame the victim.

I think that this will be the Final Warning here - no joke.

Keep this thread on topic, and polite.