• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ICE fascist scumbags at it again.

We
Lovebug said:
I am all for folks from other countries to comment on our business.
When you call for mayhem here while you sit back in your recliner and just observe, I say stop.
All this can be solved, peacefully.
So again, no.
Bite me.
Click to expand...
We’ll see.

History is replete with fascism developing.

And it looks like someone did their homework on how they did it.

End stage capitalism will require authoritarianism.

And the game of capitalism is the greatest the world has ever seen. And as the billionaire class is addicted to the feeling of “winning”, they certainly won’t put their feet down.

So call me cynical that a peaceful solution will save us from the trump. There is nothing he won’t do if he thinks it’ll make the real successful billionaires finally let him in the club.

Nothing.
 
OlNate said:
Sorry, I disagree.

Non-violent revolutions have succeeded to some extent or another numerous times within the last century:

  • The Indian Independence Movement
  • The American Civil Rights Movement
  • The Velvet Revolution
  • The Singing Revolution
  • The People Power Revolution
  • The Orange Revolution
  • The Rose Revolution
  • The early part of the Tunisian Revolution
  • The Berlin Wall Fall
  • The Sudanese Revolution
  • The early part of the Anti-Apartheid Movement

Where there's a will, there's a way. You are not powerless. You just need to find the will.

Of course, if you are really "powerless", why are you here? Why bother talking about this at all? Is it actually just a giant bitch fest, an opportunity to harvest dopamine by being ugly to each other? I really need to know.
Click to expand...
I think that this is the move to authoritarianism that end stage capitalism will require.

That game drives the whole world. Our billionaires won’t let themselves fall behind because of pesky democracy.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Bullshit.

Imagine if even 10% of these "stories" had a shred of fact to them..
Click to expand...
I don't think so and sure as hell don't believe your bullshit. Must be nice to be able to ignore fascist assholes.
 
Trump is known for his cruelty and this stuff confirms all claims.
 
bythoughts said:
Vilifying the ICE was the kind of tactic that gave Trump the election in the first place. If Biden had simply been willing to enforce the law more or less as written and respect the people who have to enforce it, then we would never have been in the position of having no vaccine and no researchers and no public health people and being about to see half the country die of avian flu while the Chinese and the Europeans gladly deploy their public health resources to save themselves. Was it worth it, to vilify a group of people we never talked to and never listened to?
Click to expand...
ICE gets vilified because they are villains. Im sure if you talk to evil they try to seem sympathetic but their actions are all that i need to know. If you do evil all the time when the opportunity gives you the chance. That is your character.

Biden enforced the law but immigration outpaced enforcement and democrats gave republicans what they needed to close down the border via executive fiat. Liz Chaney was confused why magats refused the bill and lied about it.
 
bythoughts said:
Vilifying the ICE was the kind of tactic that gave Trump the election in the first place. If Biden had simply been willing to enforce the law more or less as written and respect the people who have to enforce it, then we would never have been in the position of having no vaccine and no researchers and no public health people and being about to see half the country die of avian flu while the Chinese and the Europeans gladly deploy their public health resources to save themselves. Was it worth it, to vilify a group of people we never talked to and never listened to?
Click to expand...
MAGA is responsible for who they voted for.
 
OlNate said:
Sorry, I disagree.

Non-violent revolutions have succeeded to some extent or another numerous times within the last century:

  • The Indian Independence Movement
  • The American Civil Rights Movement
  • The Velvet Revolution
  • The Singing Revolution
  • The People Power Revolution
  • The Orange Revolution
  • The Rose Revolution
  • The early part of the Tunisian Revolution
  • The Berlin Wall Fall
  • The Sudanese Revolution
  • The early part of the Anti-Apartheid Movement

Where there's a will, there's a way. You are not powerless. You just need to find the will.

Of course, if you are really "powerless", why are you here? Why bother talking about this at all? Is it actually just a giant bitch fest, an opportunity to harvest dopamine by being ugly to each other? I really need to know.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's time for a nonviolent movement across this country.
 
What if...? said:
End stage capitalism will require authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
I think that the stages described by Lenin need to be taken with some skepticism. Yes, capitalism devolves that way, and has devolved that way here. We are in the stage of "moribund capitalism" with large single owners dominating the market and fighting each other for control. And Lenin did show that a dictatorship can take over from them.

However, the dictatorship isn't really "of the proletariat", but of the dictator. The difference between a fascist takeover of the economy and a communist takeover of the economy seems a lot less than you'd expect. Sure, the communists have some rhetoric about equality, but they don't always live up to it. Now, to be sure, there are some instances, as with China in recent decades, where they really do increase the standard of living of the common people. But there is also an alternative.

When we look at the 1890s "Gilded Age", the U.S. was also in moribund capitalism. The Trusts were in control. Yet instead of devolving to fascism or communism, at some point our society regressed, went back to an earlier stage of capitalism, with the help of anti-trust laws and heavy, heavy taxes on the wealthy.

A big part of this may have to do with what the capitalists themselves can be tricked into. The oligarchs of Russia are the ones who forced the country to end up under Putin. Only to find out that they no longer had any real power, that any money they retain is only through sufferance of their overlord. It wasn't exactly the smartest way to ensure a happy retirement... By comparison, in the U.S. you had various oligarchs who supported democratic reforms.
 
Phys251 said:
I agree, it's time for a nonviolent movement across this country.
Click to expand...
What is nonviolence really getting us? We’re getting more genocide, more deaths, and a ruling class that wants to kill us all.
 
bythoughts said:
I think that the stages described by Lenin need to be taken with some skepticism. Yes, capitalism devolves that way, and has devolved that way here. We are in the stage of "moribund capitalism" with large single owners dominating the market and fighting each other for control. And Lenin did show that a dictatorship can take over from them.

However, the dictatorship isn't really "of the proletariat", but of the dictator. The difference between a fascist takeover of the economy and a communist takeover of the economy seems a lot less than you'd expect. Sure, the communists have some rhetoric about equality, but they don't always live up to it. Now, to be sure, there are some instances, as with China in recent decades, where they really do increase the standard of living of the common people. But there is also an alternative.

When we look at the 1890s "Gilded Age", the U.S. was also in moribund capitalism. The Trusts were in control. Yet instead of devolving to fascism or communism, at some point our society regressed, went back to an earlier stage of capitalism, with the help of anti-trust laws and heavy, heavy taxes on the wealthy.

A big part of this may have to do with what the capitalists themselves can be tricked into. The oligarchs of Russia are the ones who forced the country to end up under Putin. Only to find out that they no longer had any real power, that any money they retain is only through sufferance of their overlord. It wasn't exactly the smartest way to ensure a happy retirement... By comparison, in the U.S. you had various oligarchs who supported democratic reforms.
Click to expand...
But even when the profits of those capitalists are threatened, they will turn. There is no reform option, we’ve had decades upon decades to reform this system and the fact that capitalists react this violently to tepid reforms show that they must be ousted from power by the working class.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
What is nonviolence really getting us? We’re getting more genocide, more deaths, and a ruling class that wants to kill us all.
Click to expand...

We haven't done much. Shutting down whole businesses or economies? Now that's a nonviolent protest.
 
bomberfox said:
Aside from advocating violence being against the TOS, there have been successful revolutions in which fighting occurred, the American revolution accomplished its goals. The Vietnamese revolution eventually accomplished its goals, the bolshevik, and the slave revolts all pushed past a tipping point so i do not discount all violence as being unsuccessful. I do not frown upon those who violently resist brutal oppression in general.
Click to expand...

The American Revolution was a separatist movement (like the former Soviet & Yugoslav republics). The Vietnamese revolution was really a civil war in which hegemonic powers took sides, using the civil war combatants as proxies.

Acts of violence in a context such as this one can result in full-on civil war. The 1850s had a lot of examples of violence that pushed two sides closer to all-out civil war, as did the late Roman republic.
 
multivita-man said:
The American Revolution was a separatist movement (like the former Soviet & Yugoslav republics). The Vietnamese revolution was really a civil war in which hegemonic powers took sides, using the civil war combatants as proxies.

Acts of violence in a context such as this one can result in full-on civil war. The 1850s had a lot of examples of violence that pushed two sides closer to all-out civil war, as did the late Roman republic.
Click to expand...

I aint sayin its always the solution, im sayin its a tool that cant be rejected when state violence is the norm. If you have something that actually builds lasting change without violence im all for it.

Im just less and less seeing nonviolence as the solution because it has become impossible to hold our heads of state criminally liable for their actions.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
We haven't done much. Shutting down whole businesses or economies? Now that's a nonviolent protest.
Click to expand...
That said businesses wont just use Trump to undo.
 
bomberfox said:
The vietnamese were fighting against imperialist powers and the puppet government which was attempting violent cultural erasure. If they did not fight more buddhist monks would be self immolating.
They were also the ones who stopped Pol Pot while kissinger was thinking about allying with him.
Now they are a relatively successful country.

I aint sayin its always the solution, im sayin its a tool that cant be rejected when state violence is the norm. If you have something that actually builds lasting change without violence im all for it.
Click to expand...

My point is, whether violence can achieve a political goal depends on the context.

Julius Caesar was murdered on the floor of the Roman senate. That led to civil war, which ultimately resulted in the end of the Roman republic, though the republic was already plagued by centuries of rampant corruption that likely would have smothered democracy eventually anyway.
 
multivita-man said:
My point is, whether violence can achieve a political goal depends on the context.

Julius Caesar was murdered on the floor of the Roman senate. That led to civil war, which ultimately resulted in the end of the Roman republic, though the republic was already plagued by centuries of rampant corruption that likely would have smothered democracy eventually anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah i think i eventually got what you were saying and agree.
 
OlNate said:
I'm still trying to figure out how to do that without pissing you off
Click to expand...
Don't accuse me of being dishonest or disingenuous. Engage with me without name-calling or suggesting nefarious motives (racism, etc...). That's about it. You do a good job of it, from what I recall.

OlNate said:
Do you think it's possible that your assumptions are at all driven by your partisanship
Click to expand...
I think on many things that's a possibility. We all have our biases and sacred cows. But I'd say my thoughts above were less "assumptions" than "plausible alternatives to the way things are being portrayed."

OlNate said:
Is that an interesting enough tangent for you to participate in exploring? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts - especially if you keep writing like the above.
Click to expand...
Fire away, bud!
 
bythoughts said:
I think that the stages described by Lenin need to be taken with some skepticism. Yes, capitalism devolves that way, and has devolved that way here. We are in the stage of "moribund capitalism" with large single owners dominating the market and fighting each other for control. And Lenin did show that a dictatorship can take over from them.

However, the dictatorship isn't really "of the proletariat", but of the dictator. The difference between a fascist takeover of the economy and a communist takeover of the economy seems a lot less than you'd expect. Sure, the communists have some rhetoric about equality, but they don't always live up to it. Now, to be sure, there are some instances, as with China in recent decades, where they really do increase the standard of living of the common people. But there is also an alternative.

When we look at the 1890s "Gilded Age", the U.S. was also in moribund capitalism. The Trusts were in control. Yet instead of devolving to fascism or communism, at some point our society regressed, went back to an earlier stage of capitalism, with the help of anti-trust laws and heavy, heavy taxes on the wealthy.

A big part of this may have to do with what the capitalists themselves can be tricked into. The oligarchs of Russia are the ones who forced the country to end up under Putin. Only to find out that they no longer had any real power, that any money they retain is only through sufferance of their overlord. It wasn't exactly the smartest way to ensure a happy retirement... By comparison, in the U.S. you had various oligarchs who supported democratic reforms.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t speaking from a communist perspective.

This is simple observation and math.

The right NEED to be the richest. The powerful NEED to be the most powerful.

At a basic level it’s an addictive behavior. Like sex addiction or gambling addiction. Addicted to one’s own neurochemicals. The pleasurable rewards Evolution installed that helped us reach the top of the heap. We did not evolve this way. The species is a quarter of a million years old. With something like 40k years as exactly the same animal.

That changes with the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle. Agriculture, pastoralism. Both eventually led to locking up and doling out the food. And when those locks went on the food hut the world we live in now was born. 8-12k years ago.

History demonstrates that folks who get off on wealth and power NEVER STOP trying to get more of what feeds their jones. Until they are forced to. They never get enough.

That’s what I mean by late stage capitalism.

If the world was a game of Monopoly this would be the point in the game where there are a couple of players one of which will surely win. Where everybody else loses interest.

Only this is real life and they got us by the balls. So we don’t get to go grab a beer and see what’s on tv. We get to give up more of the unreplaceable hours of our lives to feed the game. For less and less.

We can’t afford bread we can eat cake, right?

That’s where we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom