Pacifism will never be outdated.

Especially in situations where violence is antithetical and unhelpful to your cause.

Condescension seeks to be the new age Marinus van der Lubbe.

As a quick example of what "constitutional rights" people have, the organizers have such great quotes like this:

about immigrants: " “We killed 6 million Jews the last time. Eleven million is nothing.”"
On the terrorism against U.S. citizens "When a couple of them die, it doesn’t bother us,” Barker said. “They’re always attacking and messing with our rallies.”

White supremacists are not interested in respecting anyone else's liberties or rights, and with that they've surrendered any right to claim the protections of liberty or speech rights.

The principles of tolerance and democracy must take accepting the principles of tolerance and democracy as a price of entry into that sphere of protection. If you're intent on destroying rights of others, you no longer have a claim to those rights.

As for violence, it's wrong. Denuciation isn't violence. Not even close. Neither is camping. Frankly, neither is breaking windows. Shooting people and running them over with a car? Yes. That is violence.

TrPrado are you meaning to say that Lubbe wasn't a hero?

@Ogion

as a lawyer, you know that's factually inaccurate. only in acts of violence or direct incitement of violence are they committing a crime in the united states

also as a lawyer, you should know that breaking windows is obviously not violence, but obviously vandalism, and still a crime

if you want to talk about what the law SHOULD be: address it that way. but that's not what the law IS

All of you guys saying violence is wrong probably say that the German resistance was good...

I feel like people need to qualify their statements more. Violence isn't wrong or right inherently, it depends on the context.

Something being a crime doesn't make it unethical, James... who gives a fuck about the law?

@Condescension

1. violent resistance during wartime occupation is different than some rally done in 2017 America. the Communists of the Weimar Republic were violent and censoring of the Nazi movement in Germany, but Hermann Goering, future aid to Hitler, ENCOURAGED the communists to come and fight. he was comparatively seen as a hero, and Josef Goebbels made entire Campaign videos around what was known as the "red menace"

you idiots, by acting violent, are doing exactly what Nazis WANT


2. Lubbe wasn't a hero, he openly confessed. if you TRULY believe that Nazis are the worst thing ever and must be stopped, you don't do anything to prevent you from bringing down Nazis. from what I've heard about the guy, he was always looking to be martyred, and had solely confessed to some other things before that he was innocent of. Plus you have his status as a communist and pro soviet, which are two more things that bring him down from a "hero" rating


3. "who gives a fuck about the law"? answer: people in a civilized society. if the Police had done their job properly at Charlottesville, nobody would have gotten killed. vigilantism only escalates public sphere violence, which is what breeds eras like that of the Weimar Republic.

If you REALLY believe all Nazis are completely evil and violence can be used against them, the logical end point of that is that you should kill Nazis. And apparently, non-violent reactions to non-violence (not talking about charlottesville particularly, that i condemn with the full force of the law. i'm talking about the general conversation) is now considered "Sympathizing" to you folks, so no i'm not comfortable with you lunatics being able to decide who gets the shit beat out of them and who doesn't. sorry to burst your bubble, but your perception of the universe is in the vast minority, and fairly intellectually pathetic

Lubbe inadvertently solidified Nazi rule so if you consider that heroic...

Unless of course you're reading from a history book from a universe where Lubbe's arson successfully stopped the Nazis from beginning their evil agenda, in which case can I live in whatever universe that's coming from? I want to live somewhere where it's a lot easier to defeat fascism than where we currently are.

Communist is definitely a +. Soviet kinda sucks but I'll take what I can get.

no communism is a morally shitty idea. it's predicated on the idea that you must share everything you own with all other members of society no matter what. the product of your labor is subject to all others in society, and you owe everyone else some kind of natural debt simply by your mere existence. the libertarian "i go my way, you go yours" is eventually disallowed, and when the mob rule sets in things get bloody.

it destroys jobs, kills economic potential, wipes out prosperity and whenever any form or implementation of it has ever been tested: it has failed.

No, YOU'RE a morally shitty idea.

I bet you haven't even read Capital.

I'm very familiar with Marx and agree with Yanik re: Communism. It served a purpose in the history of capitalism but that purpose is ended.

You're just not familiar with fully automated gay luxury space communism.

Says who?

If you were, you'd support it.

Automation has to reach that point first, then communism follows. Until then, property rights and free enterprise all the way, baby!

Automation rides on the coattails of capitalism, so hop on board!

If we continue to allow the exponentional accumulation of capital, how will we stage a revolution when we actually can achieve full automation, given that the capitalists will hold all the means for revolution?

Fuck accelerationism.

Automation has the potential for perfect equality but the downfall of international socialism has led to a complete perversion of that goal.

Full automation arrives because it's cheaper than labor. I thought you read Marx?

Yes, I understand that. Automation is occurring. The issue is that the automation is owned by the capitalists and doesn't produce wealth for the proles.

And when there's no one left working their factories, who buys their shit? Them? I think not.

Marx wasn't perfect, especially if you want to apply his critiques to a modern economy because the conditions are drastically different. In the buildup between now and that far off future, companies still have to market their products so that wealth can be accumulated at all. To assume that no means will be held by people for sake of the revolution you seek is absurd.

Actually, we've seen capitalist economies drive themselves into the ground because of monopolizatoin and concentration of market power. Who is supposed to buy your goods? Someone else's employees. Wages and incomes will always be driven down when the richest and most powerful have the power to drive them down until they're at zero. They don't get paid to hand out raises to employees who will just buy someone else's stuff. Why would they? Capitalists NEVER do anything for the common good. That's axiomatic.. Which is why capitalism inevitably fails if not countervailed by democracy.

Marx's analysis of the means of production and the confluence of economic and market power is still spot on, and the lessons have only imperfectly been learnt.

“communism is a morally shitty idea. it's predicated on the idea that you must share everything you own with all other members of society no matter what”

There are a vast number of variations on the classical Marxist communism and not all of them are predicated on this idea. Some of them are predicated on the idea that you work for the community and the community works for you, which in turn means that your increased productivity means increased productivity from your friends and neighbors, and thus you all receive better returns. Some are predicated on the idea that you are given a certain amount by the government irregardless of whether you work or not, and you are independently assigned a task or a job based on whatever skills you have. I’m sure there are plenty more throughout various indigenous communities that go back thousands upon thousands of years and many have been implemented rather successfully.

The misconceptions of communism in our sphere of the world based on the writings of Marx, whether you agree with him or not, are so pervasive that a majority of people forget that Marx is only one communist philosopher throughout history. He is simply the one who is paid the most attention to - specifically because people in Europe in the 1800s and 1900s chose to pay attention to him, not because he is necessarily the most valid communist philosopher to be found.

Do the world a favor in beating these rampant misconceptions and clarify what brand of communism you’re referring to when you discuss it with such specifics. I suppose it would be more than fair to ask others do so with other forms of economic and government structure.