Socialists (including communists) and anarchists splited from their union it the first International, because they disagreed on how to proceed after the revolution (with or without a State). But they were in the first International for the same aim.
(And soc-dem too, separation between them and communists is what splits the second International. soc-dem leaders are often disguised liberals, but soc-dem workers are often genuine socialists).
I was claiming liberals and fascists use different ways. You denied it and claim they are toe same and use the same way.
So I toou a typically liberal leader (Blair) and a typical fascist leader (Mussolini) so you can show me how they have handled their country the same.
If you find differences, it may help you at fighting them both. If you want to make me believe they are the same, you will need to erase my history knowledges first. Or may you can point at historical things that support your views?
I read you, but you seem very confused to me. Also, you may try to believe that Tony Blair is just a copy of Mussolini, I see clear differences in how they managed their respective country.
Also, as my aim is to resist both, I prefer try to identify each well. May it helps you more to mix them?
Librealism uses finance while fascism uses police and army ; of course most real regimes tend to use both at different level…
Also, liberalism value free market, while fascism don’t. Liberalism let other ideas exist (and corrupt them) while fascism doesn’t let them exist. One buy and abuse, the other one destroy ; it is not the same means (just the same aim reached).
And as long as the violence is only issued by ICE against the population, it won’t stop. I may reduce a bit in targets, or expend, according to the ruler, but only to match the ruler’s interests.
Of course police remain violent here too, with the wonderful umbrella of “so much less than in the US”. Here if the police kills a minor, their is a trial… that always gives police’s violence as legit and the death as an accident. At most the policeman killer could get a warning from the hierarchy.
The few remaining of free news and public opinion do all the pressure they can ; a video was released in the press, video made by the police, were officers instruct to shoot aiming the head of pacifist manifestants, and policemen joke trying their best to “kill one”. Over an hundred manifestants got serious injuries. Based on laws, that officer and the policemen should be fired, but there has been no output (not even a trial, not even a “sorry”).
I would prefer that politics push for justice, for social dialog, for (really) democratic processes of managing problems. And I am really sad to see that none of this works this days.
When the police (or public force) fear for their life, they come to a point they agree to avoid violences. If they renounce to free brutality, the gouvernment is often forced to discuss and to let the people have some power.
Recently, in France, high school studient have revolted. The gouv sent them riot police, and stun grenades have made some of this kids loose an eye or a hand. In the next days, a riot policeman got caught too far from his line by some studients, who used ultra violence on him, kicking his face many times. That is how the gouv decided to remove the dangerous stun grenades.
As long as violence is the only way that works, violence is the way to use (unfortunately).
If oppression could stop when we say please, their would not be social violences.
I guess what they mean is that liberals and fascist share a same imperialist ideal, even if they disagree on how to reach it. A bit as anarchism and communism share the same aim but with different means.
If you are favorable to the aim, the means may also matter to you. But if you are strongly opposed to the aim itself, you could get irritated if you were asked to choose the lesser evil way to reach it.
You can only fight capitalism using violence. This cause non-violent acts are turned into merchandises. The profits made on red t-shirt with Che Guevara’s picture are profits. Votes, demonstrations, strikes only have value if they come with a demonstration of capacity of violence.
Which right was given by the imperialists without a fight or their fear of a fight?
Even social democrates use this. They make the richests affraid of a communist revolution to make them accept to give back a little bit of that they have stolen to workers. But they don’t do that to reduce violence, they try to balance the threats to make their living out of them.
Violence to force imperialists to renounce to their priviledges is unavoidable. The level of violence it will needs only depends on them. And they can’t coexist with a non-violent society, since their way of living is to exploit others (which is a constant violence).
not even, only if you are spending billion of them… (if you don’t use them you have no capitalist impact)
The message of the content is great and right! It is fun no one commented it yet. Or may be ignoring the message was part of their answer.
One who refuse any type of AI use could make a version, even by hand as some claims, or in 10 minutes… But they of course disagree with an important part of the message.
For them, the rich editor who owns the intellectual rights on works is someone to protect. They identify to the worker who has his only cookie (the remaining part of his intellectual rights the rich has let him). And they are scared by collectivism.
So great job, you forced them to see otherwise for a second! I hope some of them may take a time to think farther than their cookie.
It is far more simple. I do not take orders and you know how you think. If I did not get your point, explain me that I missed. If I understood you but I disagree, demonstrate your point or give me examples, so that you may convince me.
I have read that you have claims, I haven’t seen you pointing nor at ideologies, nor at historical facts, nor at some academic paper, nor at some book, nor article, nor even at a video. If nothing supports your claim, it makes them far from obvious in my mind.